His lawyer was representing him, so it's what Jones wanted. His wife was citing his speech on InfoWars as evidence of him being mentally unstable and abusive and Jones obviously was disowning that speech as simply "acting".
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Permanently Bans 'Infowars' App From the App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
His lawyer was representing him, so it's what Jones wanted. His wife was citing his speech on InfoWars as evidence of him being mentally unstable and abusive and Jones obviously was disowning that speech as simply "acting".
I don’t have a problem with apple banning people who aren’t following service policies. My problem is their policies are ambiguous.
I completely get it. There's literally nothing about this that I don't fully understand.
Feel free to complain about Twitter banning certain people and not others. It's a perfectly valid complaint (although this idea that every single platform and every single company must show perfect symmetry is a bit rich to me). Trump should be banned, IMO, when looking at their TOS. There are plenty of people that could be banned. Yet Twitter, Facebook, Apple, etc. are well within their rights to choose who to ban based on severity of the issue, the prolific nature of certain content, etc.
The idea that they are just banning "all the conservatives they want" is pretty comical, though. Typical right wing outrage machine. I thought you guys were supposed to be a fan of a small government?
Lots of people agree with me. My comment is in the top rated.
I can’t help it if you lot are avoiding the questions I am posing.
Twitter banned Alex Jones because of targeted harassment, not hate speech. I think Twitter is doing a fine job and only have a problem with Apple, who also banned a Civil War game for tastefully and accurately portraying the Confederate flag back when people were all fired up about it.
If he's an actor, then let him say so. He's using the Hannity defense; news when he wants it to be, entertainment when he has no other recourse besides admitting he's wrong.
Some people think Infowars should be allowed on these platforms. I never said it shouldn't; rather, I don't care, nor do I agree that banning crap like that is tantamount to a slippery-slope or first amendment infringement. That's how I feel about it. I listen to a lot of varying podcasts. If one of them were banned, I may question it, whine about it, etc., but I wouldn't feel it was a first amendment issue, nor the platform's right to ban the podcast.
Some people think Infowars should be allowed on these platforms. I never said it shouldn't; rather, I don't care, nor do I agree that banning crap like that is tantamount to a slippery-slope or first amendment infringement. That's how I feel about it. I listen to a lot of varying podcasts. If one of them were banned, I may question it, whine about it, etc., but I wouldn't feel it was a first amendment issue, nor the platform's right to ban the podcast.
That's their choice. The policies for basically every single company on the planet are going to be ambiguous as to give them room to work within. My current company has very ambiguous policies as well.
I will look for those who say this "is a violation of the First Amendment." I have not seen that.
I have seen people making arguments I interpret to be "Apple's behavior is inconsistent with the First Amendment," which is absolutely true.
But I am sure you will take the time to pick through and find me all the comments you're talking about.
Targeted harassment, physical threats, etc. He got a huge rope and finally hung himself.
Wrong.
He has the right to say what he likes. Just not on someone else platform so stop thinking that free speech means the right for others to put up with your bull.
And Dana Loesch gets targeted harassment too. They remain on the platform. Why? Does her politics make it “deserved”?
Except it's not.
Unless you're willfully trying to misunderstand the First Amendment and how/whom the various amendments are applied. Any mention of "free speech" or the First Amendment is a complete misunderstanding of it. It's not at all relevant to the current discussion.
[doublepost=1536428958][/doublepost]
Feel free to report the users. Twitter bans countless people. Are you unable to report them or something?
Why is this “hate speech” allowed?
When did Apple buy a newspaper?
Right. As said earlier, if the right wingers complaining about this weren't so lazy, they could build a proper platform for Alex and his ilk.
Instead, they'd rather piggyback on the success of others to monetize themselves and those they agree with. It's pure laziness.
The NFLPA contract contains all the rules the players are supposed to follow. And if you've paid any attention to the news prior to the start of this season, the NFL and NFLPA were negotiating a specific rule to be put in place regarding the anthem...meaning that there wasn't actually a rule for it in the current NFLPA contract.
I said there is no first amendment issue with NFL players. The poster, if I interpret correctly, tried to tell me there was a hole in my argument. That is incorrect.
There is no first amendment issue re: NFL kneelers. none. There is also no First Amendment issue here with Apple and Alex Jones. None.
It’s pure censorship of “wrong think”, that’s what it is.
You should be opposing this but seems you only have the ability to think in the short term.
On September 11, 2001, news outlets and individuals reported that terrorists flew an airplane into the World Trade Center in NYC, destroying it and killing many civilians. But if you ask certain people, the US government actually blew up the tower as a "false flag" to justify war or something else. One reason they claim is that the airplane couldn't have destroyed that tower. Not sure if "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is an accurate quote, but it's the meme people use to make fun of conspiracy theorists: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/jet-fuel-cant-melt-steel-beams
There's an interesting (and not entirely wrong) argument that Trump continuously commenting on it and pressuring owners amounts to a First Amendment argument. We haven't really seen a president so stupid as to weigh in on something like this, though, for any real test cases to have been decided.