Apple Confirms Infowars App Won't Be Removed From App Store

[mrsir2009]

It does seem suspicious that multiple companies all came to the conclusion on the same day that Alex Jones is violating their terms of service, despite the fact that Jones has been consistently publishing content on all these platforms for years. What's changed now? Lots of people are citing his Sandy Hook conspiracy as a reason why he should be banned, however Sandy Hook happened 5 years ago. If that was the reason, why didn't social media platforms ban him years ago?

 

[fairuz]

It does seem suspicious that multiple companies all came to the conclusion on the same day that Alex Jones is violating their terms of service, despite the fact that Jones has been consistently publishing content on all these platforms for years. What's changed now? Lots of people are citing his Sandy Hook conspiracy as a reason why he should be banned, however Sandy Hook happened 5 years ago. If that was the reason, why didn't social media platforms ban him years ago?

I think it started with this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/youtub...rs-videos-suspends-live-streaming-capability/
YouTube banned four recent videos for supposedly problematic content, including violence against children, then other sites did the same. This guy was always on the edge of being banned, and I'm guessing this gave them a reason to do it.

Wikipedia's article on Alex Jones has the summary (with links) that I'd otherwise have trouble finding on the news sources. I didn't look very hard, so maybe someone else has a better idea of what happened.

 

[MrX8503]

While Alex Jones has his freedom of speech under the First Amendment, so do the social networks showing his content to millions of people for him.

The 1st amendment doesn't grant you immunity and allow you to say anything you want. When will people understand this?

 

[You are the One]

Very refreshing, a year or two back there would have been nothing but "liberal" thought police here.

Yes, they troll the s**t out of the place but now an increasing number of people express their doubt in elite's designed version of cultural marxism, served at gun point by brainless self worshipers. There seems to be a crack in the matrix here. Cue, repair team.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Good. I don't listen To Alex Jones, frankly I think he's pretty crazy, but my goodness did they all mess up erasing him from the face of the internet like that within the space of 12 hours.

The very fact he was banned from Facebook, Apple Podcasts, YouTube and Spotify within 12 hours of each other (and the Disqus commenting system a day after) appears to be skating very close to a potential RICO case. I'm sure Jones' lawyers are considering filing a RICO case against Facebook, Apple, Google, Spotify and Disqus--and possibly against against the agent provocateur at CNN that pushed for this.

 

[widgeteer]

The very fact he was banned from Facebook, Apple Podcasts, YouTube and Spotify within 12 hours of each other (and the Disqus commenting system a day after) appears to be skating very close to a potential RICO case. I'm sure Jones' lawyers are considering filing a RICO case against Facebook, Apple, Google, Spotify and Disqus--and possibly against against the agent provocateur at CNN that pushed for this.

Can private individuals file racketeering cases against private businesses?

 

[nylon]

Can private individuals file racketeering cases against private businesses?

What law was broken? Conspiracy to enforce terms of service.

 

[mudslag]

Can private individuals file racketeering cases against private businesses?

LOL no, some people like to pull **** out of their backside.

 

[Perene]

The Real Reason Apple, Facebook, Spotify & YouTube Banned Infowars

This is what election meddling looks like

Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
August 6, 2018

Apple, Spotify, Facebook and YouTube all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other, illustrating how last night’s purge was a coordinated effort and has nothing to do with these platforms enforcing “hate speech” rules.

Here are the real reasons Infowars is being purged by Big Tech;

– Infowars is widely credited with having played a key role in electing Donald Trump. By banning Infowars, big tech is engaging in election meddling just three months before crucial mid-terms.

– With the Infowars ban, Apple, Facebook , Spotify & YouTube (Google) have all now ascribed themselves the power to remove people & outlets from their platforms based on their political opinions. This power will be abused time and time again to meddle in elections.

– The ban also sets the precedent that the mere charge alone of having committed “hate speech,” with no specific examples even provided, is enough to memory hole an individual or group’s digital presence.

– The ban is just part of a wider censorship purge that also use stealth censorship, shadow banning and algorithmic manipulation to hide and bury conservative content.

– Apple also chose to shut down Infowars after we repeatedly criticized them for working with and selling data to the Communist Chinese government. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

For conservative media outlets who don’t speak out because they don’t like Infowars, we have a message for you – you’re next.

Facebook banned Infowars after lobbying by both CNN and Democratic Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL). This isn’t “just a private company,” this is brazen political censorship.

This is the outcome of the left refusing to debate their ideas and simply no platforming their adversaries instead.

This is the modern day electronic equivalent of book burning.

This is throwing dissidents in the Big Tech gulag because their voices were becoming too loud and having too much influence.

This is the purge.

It will only intensify unless lawmakers act now to introduce a Digital Bill of Rights and treat social media giants as telecommunications companies who are forbidden by law from discriminating against people and media outlets based on their political opinions.

 

[nylon]

Let me get this straight. You are quoting this Paul Joseph Watson who, upon basic research, is the editor at large of infowars.com. As if he's a valid arbiter. No agenda there. Hilarious!

 

[mudslag]

Let me get this straight. You are quoting this Paul Joseph Watson who, upon basic research, is the editor at large of infowars.com. As if he's a valid arbiter. No agenda there. Hilarious!

That's why he wrote it from PrisonPlanet, an attempt to show a disconnect from infowars

 

[SactoGuy18]

I have a better reason why to worry.

This is a famous photograph taken during a private dinner held by President Obama (along with his most trusted adviser, Valerie Jarrett) in San Francisco on February 17, 2011:

We know that the then-CEO's of Apple, Cisco Systems, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Oracle Systems, Twitter and Yahoo! were at that dinner. Note that the late Steve Jobs (Apple) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) sat next to the President in that photo.

While some information about that dinner has come out, one really now wonder did the CEO's of these companies make a "gentlemen's agreement" (with either President Obama or Valerie Jarrett's personal approval) to essentially censor the political right over the Internet? If that is found to be true, then all eight companies could be liable in a First Amendment case, since they made the agreement with direct approval of a US government official. In short, that dinner could end up (in my opinion!) as infamous as the Wannsee Conference in 1942.

 

[widgeteer]

I have a better reason why to worry.

This is a famous photograph taken during a private dinner held by President Obama (along with his most trusted adviser, Valerie Jarrett) in San Francisco on February 17, 2011:

We know that the then-CEO's of Apple, Cisco Systems, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Oracle Systems, Twitter and Yahoo! were at that dinner. Note that the late Steve Jobs (Apple) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) sat next to the President in that photo.

While some information about that dinner has come out, one really now wonder did the CEO's of these companies make a "gentlemen's agreement" (with either President Obama or Valerie Jarrett's personal approval) to essentially censor the political right over the Internet? If that is found to be true, then all eight companies could be liable in a First Amendment case, since they made the agreement with direct approval of a US government official. In short, that dinner could end up (in my opinion!) as infamous as the Wannsee Conference in 1942.

But probably not.

 

[GuruZac]

False. And real news outlets have the journalistic integrity to admit errors and publish corrections. Ever see that from Jones or Hannity? Course not.

Ever seen that from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or any other MSM outlet. Course not.
[doublepost=1534170832][/doublepost]

That implies that CNN lies, which I haven’t seen any evidence of. They may be bad at reporting, but they don’t lie and they are better than Fox.

Please enlighten us to the lies Fox tells? Seems many accuse Fox of being the only biased media outlet here and blaming Fox for outright making up news. I want specific examples.

 

[Kabeyun]

Ever seen that from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or any other MSM outlet. Course not.

That’s called “whataboutism,” a technique, typically used by children, to make one’s wrongness seem right by pointing out someone else’s wrongness (as in, “Joey, you shouldn’t hit Stevie!” “Well, Stevie hit me first!”). Successful whataboutism can establish a “false equivalency.”

And yes, I have seen such corrections from major news outlets like those.

Course I have (see, I can do that clever echo thing too).

Please enlighten us to the lies Fox tells? Seems many accuse Fox of being the only biased media outlet here and blaming Fox for outright making up news. I want specific examples.

For starters, Google “Sean Hannity lies list” (which auto-populates) and set aside some time if you want to read through them all.

 

[RichardMZhlubb]

I have a better reason why to worry.

This is a famous photograph taken during a private dinner held by President Obama (along with his most trusted adviser, Valerie Jarrett) in San Francisco on February 17, 2011:


We know that the then-CEO's of Apple, Cisco Systems, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Oracle Systems, Twitter and Yahoo! were at that dinner. Note that the late Steve Jobs (Apple) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) sat next to the President in that photo.

While some information about that dinner has come out, one really now wonder did the CEO's of these companies make a "gentlemen's agreement" (with either President Obama or Valerie Jarrett's personal approval) to essentially censor the political right over the Internet? If that is found to be true, then all eight companies could be liable in a First Amendment case, since they made the agreement with direct approval of a US government official. In short, that dinner could end up (in my opinion!) as infamous as the Wannsee Conference in 1942.

The mere fact that they didn't remove someone like Alex Jones from their services for another 7 years pretty much disproves this crazy conspiracy theory (that and the total lack of evidence to support the claim).

 

[GuruZac]

That’s called “whataboutism,” a technique, typically used by children, to make one’s wrongness seem right by pointing out someone else’s wrongness (as in, “Joey, you shouldn’t hit Stevie!” “Well, Stevie hit me first!”). Successful whataboutism can establish a “false equivalency.”

And yes, I have seen such corrections from major news outlets like those.

Course I have (see, I can do that clever echo thing too).

For starters, Google “Sean Hannity lies list” (which auto-populates) and set aside some time if you want to read through them all.

There is no intent on acting pedantic. I just as quickly googled (er rather duckduckgo) several websites posting verified lies told by media personalities at CNN and MSNBC. That proves what I am stating. I'm merely pointing out that those on this forum who are anti-Trump or liberal will never admit the shortcomings or the misinformation that their party or preferred news network espouses. What is pedantic is the false belief that one political party is to blame for the state the US is in. It is absolute intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.

 

[Treq]

Ever seen that from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or any other MSM outlet. Course not.
[doublepost=1534170832][/doublepost]
Please enlighten us to the lies Fox tells? Seems many accuse Fox of being the only biased media outlet here and blaming Fox for outright making up news. I want specific examples.

Here, I googled this for you.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

 

[Irishman]

I have a better reason why to worry.

This is a famous photograph taken during a private dinner held by President Obama (along with his most trusted adviser, Valerie Jarrett) in San Francisco on February 17, 2011:

We know that the then-CEO's of Apple, Cisco Systems, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Oracle Systems, Twitter and Yahoo! were at that dinner. Note that the late Steve Jobs (Apple) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) sat next to the President in that photo.

While some information about that dinner has come out, one really now wonder did the CEO's of these companies make a "gentlemen's agreement" (with either President Obama or Valerie Jarrett's personal approval) to essentially censor the political right over the Internet? If that is found to be true, then all eight companies could be liable in a First Amendment case, since they made the agreement with direct approval of a US government official. In short, that dinner could end up (in my opinion!) as infamous as the Wannsee Conference in 1942.

Evidence for your claim?

 

[mudslag]

Evidence for your claim?

Sitting down together is all it takes for some to dream up these wild ideas.

 

[nylon]

There is no intent on acting pedantic. I just as quickly googled (er rather duckduckgo) several websites posting verified lies told by media personalities at CNN and MSNBC. That proves what I am stating. I'm merely pointing out that those on this forum who are anti-Trump or liberal will never admit the shortcomings or the misinformation that their party or preferred news network espouses. What is pedantic is the false belief that one political party is to blame for the state the US is in. It is absolute intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.

I would posit that the majority of people are prone to become siloed into a particular media framework. Those who are unwilling or simply too lazy to do and diversify their own research beyond just the headlines are far more susceptible.

However, just because there are instances on both sides of the political media spectrum that one can point to as inaccurate reporting, that does not make them equivalent. Hence, your statement that there are websites that call out CNN and MSNBC's inaccuracies, and therefore that proves 'what you are stating', is grossly flawed. You have just engaged in exactly what @Kabeyun called you out for i.e. whataboutism and moreover moral equivalency. There is no journalistic or moral equivalency between a Fox News and a CNN or MSNBC.

I don't think you understand the meaning of pedantic. You state, "What is pedantic is the false belief that one political party is to blame for the state the US is in. It is absolute intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy". However, no one is arguing this issue except for you. People have been pretty good about staying on topic and keeping the discussion about Alex Jones.

If you want to know a little bit about the origins of CNN & Fox and their development I would point you to the following Quora post.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Fox-News-more-accurate-than-CNN

 

[GuruZac]

I would posit that the majority of people are prone to become siloed into a particular media framework. Those who are unwilling or simply too lazy to do and diversify their own research beyond just the headlines are far more susceptible.

However, just because there are instances on both sides of the political media spectrum that one can point to as inaccurate reporting, that does not make them equivalent. Hence, your statement that there are websites that call out CNN and MSNBC's inaccuracies, and therefore that proves 'what you are stating', is grossly flawed. You have just engaged in exactly what @Kabeyun called you out for i.e. whataboutism and moreover moral equivalency. There is no journalistic or moral equivalency between a Fox News and a CNN or MSNBC.

I don't think you understand the meaning of pedantic. You state, "What is pedantic is the false belief that one political party is to blame for the state the US is in. It is absolute intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy". However, no one is arguing this issue except for you. People have been pretty good about staying on topic and keeping the discussion about Alex Jones.

If you want to know a little bit about the origins of CNN & Fox and their development I would point you to the following Quora post.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Fox-News-more-accurate-than-CNN

Thank you for the link and yes I am aware of what pedantic means. I see the issue of excusing liberal media outlets like MSNBC and shoddy reporting by CNN while bashing Fox as both childish and intellectually dishonest. One can only defend CNN and MSNBC of their obvious subversion of facts while at the same time accusing Fox of making up news if they are either acting childishly by simply stirring the pot for the sake of it or are being intellectually dishonest to both themselves and the rest of the users here. Interestingly I haven’t seen anyone outright defend Fox, but simply call to attention the blatant hypocrisy of only focusing on Fox’s shortcomings vs the rest of the MSM, which, if we’re honest we can admit the MSM has no credibility for a reason.

My apologies for straying off topic.

 

[Irishman]

Thank you for the link and yes I am aware of what pedantic means. I see the issue of excusing liberal media outlets like MSNBC and shoddy reporting by CNN while bashing Fox as both childish and intellectually dishonest. One can only defend CNN and MSNBC of their obvious subversion of facts while at the same time accusing Fox of making up news if they are either acting childishly by simply stirring the pot for the sake of it or are being intellectually dishonest to both themselves and the rest of the users here. Interestingly I haven’t seen anyone outright defend Fox, but simply call to attention the blatant hypocrisy of only focusing on Fox’s shortcomings vs the rest of the MSM, which, if we’re honest we can admit the MSM has no credibility for a reason.

My apologies for straying off topic.

The thread is about Alex Jones, not the relative credibility of media outlets.

Would you like to discuss that?

 

[Treq]

Thank you for the link and yes I am aware of what pedantic means. I see the issue of excusing liberal media outlets like MSNBC and shoddy reporting by CNN while bashing Fox as both childish and intellectually dishonest. One can only defend CNN and MSNBC of their obvious subversion of facts while at the same time accusing Fox of making up news if they are either acting childishly by simply stirring the pot for the sake of it or are being intellectually dishonest to both themselves and the rest of the users here. Interestingly I haven’t seen anyone outright defend Fox, but simply call to attention the blatant hypocrisy of only focusing on Fox’s shortcomings vs the rest of the MSM, which, if we’re honest we can admit the MSM has no credibility for a reason.

My apologies for straying off topic.

Well, most of the mainstream media is fine, their only real problem is the 24hr news cycle and having to fill time. Combine that with fighting for advertising dollars (which old school tv news didn't really have to do) and obsession with being first over being right, creates a bit of a mess that doesn't get cleaned up all that quickly. Fox on the other hand is a blatant propaganda network in the style of the old soviet state news org. Seriously, they have an obvious agenda and they aren't shy about pushing it. MSNBC is a bit of a reaction to fox's right wing push, but really isn't anywhere as bad as fox in that regard. They still have some journalistic integrity. CNN is just trying to trying to fill the airwaves and pay bills. If you want decent news, AP or NPR is the most accurate.

 

[nylon]

Thank you for the link and yes I am aware of what pedantic means. I see the issue of excusing liberal media outlets like MSNBC and shoddy reporting by CNN while bashing Fox as both childish and intellectually dishonest. One can only defend CNN and MSNBC of their obvious subversion of facts while at the same time accusing Fox of making up news if they are either acting childishly by simply stirring the pot for the sake of it or are being intellectually dishonest to both themselves and the rest of the users here. Interestingly I haven’t seen anyone outright defend Fox, but simply call to attention the blatant hypocrisy of only focusing on Fox’s shortcomings vs the rest of the MSM, which, if we’re honest we can admit the MSM has no credibility for a reason.

My apologies for straying off topic.

But no one here is excusing CNN or MSNBC while bashing FOX. You've made the assertion. What is being said is that it is a false equivalency. There is a clear hierarchy of professional behaviour and ethical conduct between these "news" outlets and Fox falls at the bottom of that. That does not mean that CNN and MSNBC are being excused. Fox was fundamentally founded by Murdoch and Ailes as a propaganda wing of the Republican Party. If you don't believe that just read the biography of Roger Ailes where he explicitly lays out his vision. While CNN has a left of center slant, it still generally engages in fact based reporting. MSNBC is far more progressive. They simply refuse to pretend to be center like CNN does. However, even they engage in fact based reporting. What is unfortunate is that the decline in the TV News industry can be attributed to racing Fox to the bottom.