patrick.net

Aphroman says

So what are those valuable, important truths that Alex Jones is reporting on as news, that led to him being “censored”?

How many times did CNN have Stormy's Lawyer on a few months back? More times than there were days in the month.

And of course, this Hoax:

This is the "Streisand effect" in fool bloom. Thank's Barbara!

ThreeBays says

2 Billion people subscribed to MY newsletter withing 48 hours, because I rock yo!

Uh, Youtube itself had the 2.5M subscribers listed right next to the main infowars channel.

Here's a random shot from the 2016 Campaign, 2.2M subscribers back then:

ThreeBays says

How does that prove their newsletter got 5.6 Million new subscribers in 48 hours?

Doesn't - but it does prove they were a top tier Media Channel. And were terminated for vague reasons after brigading by Social Justice NGOs.

Definitely time For an internet "Bill of Rights" that mandates transparency for terminating users.

After all, liberals were all for regulating when ISPs were the target. Why not Social Media Giants who control 80-90% of (non-porn) web traffic?

Websites, but not Channels.

Breitbart only has 73,000 subscribers on Youtube, a tiny fraction of a fraction of infowars.

MSNBC has less than half - about 1.1M

Aphroman says

According to a report in the Austin American-Statesman, a lawyer representing InfoWars host Alex Jones in a child-custody case alleged in a pretrial hearing that his behavior on the show should not be used to judge his qualifications as a father. “He’s playing a character,” attorney Randall Wilhite allegedly said regarding his client. “He is a performance artist.” However, in a separate testimony, according to the report, Jones’s ex-wife Kelly—seeking to gain custody of her three children with Alex Jones—characterized his public persona as being similar to his private one.

TL;DR: Alex Jones is having an acrimonious divorce, so ban him.

BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST!!!

Patrick says

The Narrative is a religion, and thus impervious to truth.

Jonathan Haidt points this out. He discusses how religious style righteousness is so ingrained in our psyches that when religion is removed, groups will often treat their existing ideology as a religion. He compared todays left to fundamentalists, who by definition virtue signal via their righteous unwillingness to compromise their ideology. Hence today's fundamentalist and godless left.

Prof Haidt started his academic career as a straight leftist liberal. After years of attained wisdom is now a libertarian. Ofc some on the left, specifically in academia or college students, call him a nazi for pointing out their flaws... and proving Haidts point.

ThreeBays says

Similar Websites by Audience Overlap
1. breitbart.com
2. thegatewaypundit.com
3. dailycaller.com
4. wnd.com
5. drudgereport.com

That's hilarious. The Trump storm troopers love them some fake news.

Ha, I can beat that list with the ones suffering with TDS:


Note, these are International "news" (I use that term very loosely) sources, NOT fringe web sites.

CHECKMATE!

ThreeBays says

The Trump storm troopers love them some fake news.

Not as much as the Liberal media TDS crew does... Not even close....

Why does everyone continue to refer to this as 'censorship'? Alex Jones is not being censored, as far as I can tell. No government institutions coming for his microphone... He's still free to say whatever he wants in his own sandbox. Facebook, YouTube, etc. can ban whoever the hell they want, it's their company and perfectly within their right.

It's not censorship.

Evan F. says

Facebook, YouTube, etc. can ban whoever the hell they want,

Even if they are a publicly traded company?

ThreeBays says

Calling most of the world as having TDS instead of having an actual point is ridiculous. Step out of your bubble.

See that's where you're confused... The Liberals are the ones living in a bubble, they just can't see out of it.

It would be nice if all those networks actually had a point, instead of ranting all day long on FAKE Trump "news" stories. I pop into CNN at multiple times a day. EVERYTIME, it's some sort of TDS story they're ranting on. Never any other country or world news. Just Trump, Trump, Trump, or Russia, Russia, Russia... 24/7...

Why is that?

ThreeBays says

Calling most of the world as having TDS instead of having an actual point is ridiculous. Step out of your bubble.

I love how Progressives went from "Big Media = Corporate Propaganda" to the "Big Media = Free Press Defendin' the Truth" in such a short timeframe.

MrMagic says

Evan F. says

Facebook, YouTube, etc. can ban whoever the hell they want,

Even if they are a publicly traded company?

Unsure if you understand what a publicly traded company means. A 'publicly traded company' mostly means that profits, losses and all other financial information just be disclosed to their investors, publicly. It doesn't mandate them to allow anyone and everyone to do business with them, and if someone violates their community standards, it's perfectly within their right to ban them.

I'll repeat: Jones is free to soapbox on in his own time, at his own website. Facebook or YouTube doesn't have some sort of obligation to abide him. No one at the government is forcing him to shut up.

It's not censorship.

Evan F. says

Why does everyone continue to refer to this as 'censorship'? Alex Jones is not being censored, as far as I can tell. No government institutions coming for his microphone... He's still free to say whatever he wants in his own sandbox. Facebook, YouTube, etc. can ban whoever the hell they want, it's their company and perfectly within their right.

Do you think Comcast should be able to charge extra for websites for access, or to slow them down unless they are paid more?

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Do you think Comcast should be able to charge extra for websites for access, or to slow them down unless they are paid more?

What does net neutrality have to do with Alex Jones?

Evan F. says

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Do you think Comcast should be able to charge extra for websites for access, or to slow them down unless they are paid more?

What does net neutrality have to do with Alex Jones?

Pretty much everything. ISPs have been itching to charge traffic cloggers such as netflix much more than the common man but they can't because net neutrality. If you advocate for censorship you have to be against net neutrality as well to avoid getting caught in a web of hypocrisy and contradictions. In fact if they wouldn't succumb to political pressure and SJW angst they would likely keep Jones but make Netflix et al pay more - this would be the best for their bottom line and shareholders. Netflix whole empire is built on passing 80% of the costs onto the ISP while pocketing 100% of the revenue.

mell says

If you advocate for censorship you have to be against net neutrality

Who's being censored?

Evan F. says

Who's being censored?

Evan, are you for or against net neutrality?

If you have no problem with YouTube and Facebook banning Alex Jones, you should have no problem with Comcast banning HuffPo or Daily Kos, at least unless you pay for the extra $10/month "Liberal Website" package

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Evan, are you for or against net neutrality?

Honestly I haven't made my mind up about net neutrality. Regardless, you're making a false equivalency. Net Neutrality, as far as I understand it, is regulation for the pipes, the ISPs, etc.- not the content creators, which is where you'd include sites like YouTube and Facebook. So again, I'm not exactly sure what net neutrality has to do with Facebook and YouTube banning Alex Jones.

Evan F. says

Honestly I haven't made my mind up about net neutrality. Regardless, you're making a false equivalency. Net Neutrality, as far as I understand it, is regulation for the pipes, the ISPs, etc.- not the content creators, which is where you'd include sites like YouTube and Facebook. So again, I'm not exactly sure what net neutrality has to do with Facebook and YouTube banning Alex Jones.

Everything. If you're going to regulate a few Giant ISPs from bias against certain sites, why can't you regulate content publishers from certain creators?

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

If you're going to regulate a few Giant ISPs from bias against certain sites, why can't you regulate content publishers from certain creators?

I think because they're considered completely different entities. ISPs are essentially considered utilities, like gas, electric, water, etc... Facebook and YouTube are not.

mell says

If you advocate for censorship you have to be against net neutrality as well to avoid getting caught in a web of hypocrisy and contradictions.

Spoken with all the authority and gravitas of the megalomaniacs depicted in Super Friends and Scooby Doo. I'm imagining some black-clad dude with a bad accent demanding, "You vill theenk thees vay!"

On a serious note, debate and argumentation skills are conspicuously absent here.

Automan Empire says

mell says

If you advocate for censorship you have to be against net neutrality as well to avoid getting caught in a web of hypocrisy and contradictions.

Spoken with all the authority and gravitas of the megalomaniacs depicted in Super Friends and Scooby Doo. I'm imagining some black-clad dude with a bad accent demanding, "You vill theenk thees vay!"

On a serious note, debate and argumentation skills are conspicuously absent here.

What's your point? I can live with either as long as it's consistent, i.e. full flexibility or full neutrality. Everything else is just partisan hackery and crony capitalism. But as a shareholder of these platforms I would be seriously concerned about violating their fiduciary duty towards the shareholder. Twitter would lose massive revenue and user base without Trump for example.

Automan Empire says

On a serious note, debate and argumentation skills are conspicuously absent here.

I don't think anyone expects this forum to be populated with nothing but polished experts fresh from the debate team...

Evan F. says

mell says

If you advocate for censorship you have to be against net neutrality

Who's being censored?

Comcast is a private corporation, so it should be able to block access to anything you personally say online, right?

Of course that would mean than Evan F. no longer has access to a large segment of the public, who are definitely not going to switch ISPs.

So what we'd have is partial de facto censorship of Evan F then, just on the basis of your own views. That OK with you?

As they used to say, freedom of the press belongs to those who can afford to buy one.

mell says

Twitter would lose massive revenue and user base without Trump for example.

That's an extremely debatable claim. Daily active users based in the US hasn't really grown in the past few years. Twitter only recently posted a profit for the first time, long after Trump became one of it's most famous users. Honestly, Trump's contribution to Twitter's overall value is likely small.

Patrick says

Comcast is a private corporation, so it should be able to block access to anything you personally say online, right?

Of course that would mean than Evan F. no longer has access to a large segment of the public, who are definitely not going to switch ISPs.

So what we'd have is partial de facto censorship of Evan F then, just on the basis of your own views. That OK with you?

Has Alex Jones been banned from, or booted off, a particular ISP? I honestly want to know... I just googled it quickly but nothing came up. If he indeed is being kicked off of ISPs I would definitely take issue with that. But if he isn't, then I'm still not sure what the issue is.

Evan F. says

I think because they're considered completely different entities. ISPs are essentially considered utilities, like gas, electric, water, etc... Facebook and YouTube are not.

Given that, along with facebook and twitter, is the vast majority of (non-porn) internet traffic, they have tremendous power over content creators.

It's not like there are 20 Facebooks or 7 YouTubes anywhere near each other in size and scope.

As Mell noted, the fact that Youtube banned a content creator with 2.5M subscribers means something besides profit motive is at play.

Nor is it the first time - look at PewDiePie, 1+M subscribers and he was banned over a joke.

Evan F. says

Has Alex Jones been banned from, or booted off, a particular ISP? I honestly want to know... I just googled it quickly but nothing came up. If he indeed is being kicked off of ISPs I would definitely take issue with that. But if he isn't, then I'm still not sure what the issue is.

I still don't know why you think ISP banning is bad, but Social Media banning is okay, when it's the same 3-4 platforms controlling the vast majority of internet traffic.

It's like saying the 3-4 Radio Conglomerates can ban an entire genre of music, but it's not chilling to Free Speech because a few 10W Pirate Radio stations will broadcast it.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

the fact that Youtube banned a content creator with 2.5M subscribers means something besides profit motive is at play.

Nor is it the first time - look at PewDiePie, 1+M subscribers and he was banned over a joke

PewDiePie has 65 million subscribers. And he wasn't banned, he's still there. His YouTube Red show was cancelled/pulled. It likely cost him a lot of money. You know what happened after that? He changed, fell into line, such that he was no longer violating YouTube's community standards. And now he's still there.

Jones refused to change after multiple warnings and probationary period, regarding violating community standards. So he got the boot.
TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Given that, along with facebook and twitter, is the vast majority of (non-porn) internet traffic, they have tremendous power over content creators.

I think the whole purpose of Net Neutrality is to block ISPs from having power over content creators, right? Again, I'm undecided on it, but that aspect of Net Neutrality's intent seems to be fair minded at it's core.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

still don't know why you think ISP banning is bad, but Social Media banning is okay, when it's the same 3-4 platforms controlling the vast majority of internet traffic.

It's like saying the 3-4 Radio Conglomerates can ban an entire genre of music, but it's not chilling to Free Speech because a few 10W Pirate Radio stations will broadcast it.

But sites like YouTube and Facebook don't control internet traffic. ISPs do. They're completely different companies. Imagine if it were a railroad owned by a shipping company, carrying stacks of magazines. Those magazine publishers can print whatever they want, or don't want. They can hire or fire their writers as they see fit. But the railroad shouldn't have any say in how those magazines reach their destination.

Should liberals be allowed to yell insults at president? Time to ban MSM

Let’s be honest, they aren’t free media. It’s all owned by 2 corporations. Only free media was Infowars and Patrick.net

Aphroman says

Should people be allowed to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater?

Should The Government force private companies to give Alex Jones free air space to harass the parents of the dead children from Sandy Hook? Even if it hurts their bottom line?

ThreeBays says

That rubbish aside, when it comes to policies the right wing media is 10x more corrupt than the left.

Accountability Journalism is Fake News.

It basically says News Media has no responsibility to attempt to be fair, but call it like they see it. Push "The Truth"

Problem with that is, their truth can and is often wrong. Remember we were definitely pushing North Korea too hard? That was the Pundit/Media Consensus View. Over 3% GDP Growth impossible? Markets going to crash if Trump Elected? Can't simply bomb ISIS into Oblivion?

So then people only get wrong conclusions based on incorrect information, or the wrong conclusions based on the bias of the Journalists, who are overwhelmingly Coastal Leftists born into the Professional Class (almost no Journalists are born into the working class anymore, as it used to be).

A wonderful way bias works is that we see article after article, based on nothing really but rumor. Anonymous, "Highly Placed" Source says X. No confirmation from anybody else, no supporting documents, nothing. If it ties into the Media's bias, it plays. Then, self-referencing takes place - "this must be true because it was reported widely, even though all reports trace back to ONE anonymous source from ONE outlet."

I'm so old, I remember just a couple of years ago when the Left was Shrieking for a return to the "Equal Time" Laws.

I remember when the Left wanted Tariffs and Eco/Labor laws applied to imports to level the playing field. Now they're for one-sided free trade no matter what. Oh, and their Accountability Journalism, where the pushed the "FACT!" that retaliating over trade abuse would result in a crash, don't forget that.

I just read a piece not too long ago where Journalists were "Thanking God" that the "Equal Time" Laws were no longer in effect.

Finally, the timing is suspicious, as the age of "Accountability Journalism" was heralded just after Trump won the Election that all the truthful, smart people said there was no way he could win.

Oh, and that it was impossible to rig a national election, just like Obama said.

Then of course, we get into Fact Checking.

A while back I'm sure I made a post about how Politfact treated more-or-less the same claims about Black Unemployment (or Crime?) raised by both Bernie and Trump. Both men extrapolated the numbers, and the final numbers of either were pretty close to each other. Politfact ranked Sanders as "Mostly True" but Trump's as "Mostly False", as the statements were made several weeks apart. The further ironic thing is that the author/reviewer I think was "Caitlin" Somebody, so it was the same fact checker.

MrMagic says

I know simple words like "explode" confuse you, so maybe a simple graphic can help, kinda like your daily Sesame Street lesson:




Should I go get Big Bird to help explain what that RED arrow is pointing to?

Sesame street says if there are dozens of sites millions of infowars fanatics are going to for infowars then there is only 1 then the one will get all the traffic from millions of people. duh. If you take a million divided by 10 it's 100,000. Divide it by 1 and it's a million. That's exploding. Math explained, although everyone else got it already.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

A while back I'm sure I made a post about how Politfact treated more-or-less the same claims about Black Unemployment (or Crime?) raised by both Bernie and Trump. Both men extrapolated the numbers, and the final numbers of either were pretty close to each other. Politfact ranked Sanders as "Mostly True" but Trump's as "Mostly False", as the statements were made several weeks apart. The further ironic thing is that the author/reviewer I think was "Caitlin" Somebody, so it was the same fact checker

Why don't you post both links instead of I said so. That way people can see what was actually written instead of what you believe was written.