The censorship of Alex Jones is not an infringement on free speech

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

48 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

Those are just a couple of screenshots from a discussion on "It's Going Down" on Antifa's page.  If it's been removed but not banned then that again proves my point.  

And just so we're clear where you stand?  

Because someone failed to derail or stop a train, or because the other side was at a violent rally, or someone posts about killing, harming or doing away with white people and cops...makes it Ok in your eyes for them to discuss/plan/brag about it on Facebook?  

Thats what you stand for?

 

Rick

1) It's Going Down removed the content. Facebook was not the one to remove it. So no, it does not prove your point. Someone posted something anonymously (similar concept to our Zerohedge link that you posted). Once It's Going Down saw it was baseless and was fact-free, THEY removed it. Completely opposite of how Alex Jones's situation evolved. 

2) There was no evidence of any actually trying to derail a train.There was an anonymous claim that they DID it.. but NTSB found no evidence of it. So, yes, I trust NTSB over some anonymous post that was removed because it didn't even get the facts straight..  As to the white people and cops NYT, I already said she should have stuff removed. She is a troll - looking for attention. 

That's what I stand for.

Not fake news.

Facts.

No stupid fake memes (cuz Comedy! LOL)

 

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

I think what Rick is missing is the ability to judge intent and instead has jumped into the blame game and wanting everyone to go down.

Is NYT a racist media company hell bent on profiting from conspiracies? I think we can all agree they aren't. You may think they lean one way or the other, but they have editorial standards and opinion standards. Can those standards be let down? Of course. Humans have lapses in judgement. They make wrong hires. It is a part of it. 

Does InfoWars try to profit on conspiracies and fake news? Absolutely.

Jones himself even testified in court (losing custody of his kids) that he is an entertainer and should the ability to make up real sounding facts because he is an entertainer like Jon Stewart. 

"In closing arguments, Alex Jones’ attorney told the jury that the children were thriving under his client's care and that he should remain the sole caregiver. His attorney referred to Jones as a "performance artist," whose explosive outbursts on air were part of an act. "

His intent is different. He intent is not facts - it is deception that appears real and gets people trapped in his web on lies, without them knowing. Soon enough you have enough people calling Parkland students crisis actors and saying Sandy Hook never happened. 

 

 

[FirefightnRick]

36 minutes ago, malonish said:

Fourthly, the social media companies are still private businesses. They can do what they want and use their policies for their justification when they want. If they ignore their buddy's transgression then they can.

Which is a double standard.  So at least we are back on topic...and we know where you stand.

 

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

43 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I think what Rick is missing is the ability to judge intent and instead has jumped into the blame game and wanting everyone to go down.

Nope, just pointing out how the hypocritical left thinks and you have helped me immensely.

 

Rick

Edited August 13, 2018 by FirefightnRick

[malonish]

26 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

Which is a double standard.  So at least we are back on topic...and we know where you stand.

 

Rick

I have that strangely unique trait of objective judgement in spite of my own opinion. Weird how it seems like you lack that feature.

 

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

20 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

Nope, just pointing out how the hypocritical left thinks you have helped me immensely.

I have not said Alex Jones is 'the right'. 

You are pretty quick to call those that don't like the rise of conspiracy theories and fake news -- 'the left'.  Then with a quick waving of hands lump them in with anarchists (which by definition can't belong to a political party.. yes?). 

It is interesting. For sure. I am glad you picked up on that hypocrisy too. You are always so ready to admit you learned something or view something from another angle. 

[FirefightnRick]

32 minutes ago, malonish said:

I have that strangely unique trait of objective judgement in spite of my own opinion. Weird how it seems like you lack that feature.

 

I've never said they did not have the right to ban someone who is not following the rules. I think I've been quite objective.  You just don't like me pointing out the hypocritical part of their decision.  

 

 

Rick

Edited August 13, 2018 by FirefightnRick

[FirefightnRick]

3 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I have not said Alex Jones is 'the right'. 

You are pretty quick to call those that don't like the rise of conspiracy theories and fake news -- 'the left'.  Then with a quick waving of hands lump them in with anarchists (which by definition can't belong to a political party.. yes?). 

It is interesting. For sure. I am glad you picked up on that hypocrisy too. You are always so ready to admit you learned something or view something from another angle. 

I've simply been pointing out the double standard...such as the issue with Candace Owens, which was a very interesting experiment.

Ill tell you this, why not save all the typing and come have a beer with me in a couple of weeks and we can continue if you want?  I'm easy to find and the first beer is on me.

 

Rick

[malonish]

32 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

Objective

Yes, objectivity. Making the argument that Breitbart is somehow on the same level as NYT in terms of credibility. Yes very objective. I trust your objectivity after making that assertion. Very credible.

[FirefightnRick]

48 minutes ago, malonish said:

Making the argument that Breitbart is somehow on the same level as NYT in terms of credibility.

I've never said they were, yet they sure outshined the Times on this subject.

 

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

Twitter CEO admits ‘left-leaning’ bias but says it doesn’t influence company policy

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/twitter-ceo-admits-left-leaning-bias-but-says-it-doesnt-influence-company-policy/

Quote

We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is more left-leaning,” he added. “And I think it’s important to articulate our own bias and to share it with people so that people understand us. But we need to remove our bias from how we act and our policies and our enforcement.”....

Dorsey described shadow banning as not amplifying certain messages, or hiding a tweet from users....

 

At least he's honest about their "Double Standard"

 

Rick

Edited August 20, 2018 by FirefightnRick

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Huh? 

It is convenient of you to cut off the first line of this quote: "“We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is more left-leaning,”

He is clearly saying there is NOT a bias or double standard. That they need to more actively show how their left leaning employee tendencies are not being added to their business practice.  

Is that really hard to understand? 

[FirefightnRick]

4 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Huh? 

It is convenient of you to cut off the first line of this quote: "“We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is more left-leaning,”

He is clearly saying there is NOT a bias or double standard. That they need to more actively show how their left leaning employee tendencies are not being added to their business practice.  

Is that really hard to understand? 

It's not up to me to read the whole  thing back to you like your a child.  

And despite his intentions in how he wants the company to operate he clearly admits there is bias. 

 

RicK

Edited August 20, 2018 by FirefightnRick

[MGNation92]

While I don't agree with Alex Jones on most everything(gay frogs and interdimensional child molesters come to mind), I do think this sets a dangerous precedent for dictating speech and what's allowed.

While taking down someone like Jones seems to have the right intentions, it could become much worse in the near future. Giant tech companies deciding what we can and can't read/see/watch? Censorship is censorship, and eventually it's going to come back around and bite you in the ass. Slippery slope indeed.