Apple Permanently Bans 'Infowars' App From the App Store

[Jsameds]

Be sure to report them to Apple so they can remove them then.


That's probably because mainly right wing nut crackers spew hate speech. Quite simple actually. But could you give us some examples of what exactly is being banned?

They will never remove Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or Twitch.

 

[IG88]

Twitter banned Alex Jones because of targeted harassment, not hate speech

Yeah. That's where I was saying where it's reasonable to draw a line. Calling on your listeners to harass private citizens is no longer exercising free speech.

Of course hasn't Howard Stern done similar but less vulgar things by calling on his audience to troll people at times?

 

[Jsameds]

You may want to think twice about this one since the very same meme could be applied to the Right, no?

No. The problem isn’t the banning of Jones, it’s the uneven application of the rule enforcement.

 

[JayMysterio]

Twitter, Youtube, Apple, Facebook and Twitch.

Aren't those private companies?

Doesn't the right favor private companies doing as they wish? Especially if it's to maintain their profits?

 

[Jsameds]

Aren't those private companies?

Doesn't the right favor private companies doing as they wish? Especially if it's to maintain their profits?

They are private companies, private companies that happen to host and control the thoughts of the public. They are unevenly applying their rule enforcement based on political swing.

Do you not have a problem with that?

 

[thadoggfather]

By removing Infowars, is Apple saying they dont endorse this guy?

So EVERY APP on the App Store, that has remained there, is an implicit endorsement?

SMH

This whole debacle and trampling of 1st amendment (yes they are private companies but its an oligarchy of a few tech leaders controlling the narrative, and setting the same policy at the same exact time — nothing Jones did talking to Darcy and periscoping was any more or less over the top than anything else he’s done for years— including the way more confrontational stream with the young Turks cenk and all the cursing) Makes me a lot less inclined to want to upgrade, and to just hold onto my perfectly working gear I got.

 

[boswald]

You can yell on the corner as well, instead of posting on the forums that you don’t like the guy.
The door swings both ways.
[doublepost=1536417478][/doublepost]

So should half the current and past politicians. But that’s not going to happen.

Can't argue with that.

 

[fairuz]

Who determines what is hate speech? SJWs seem to label a lot of things by that phrase when they simply don't like the message.

I think you can draw a line between a person saying "I don't like pine trees" vs "hey listeners you should go cut down pine trees because I don't like them."

I've also seen "to misgender someone is an act of violence," not from some random person but from a student at a top-tier university. lol

 

[GermanSuplex]

I think most people realize this, but for whatever reason, the left just doesn't want to admit they are comfortable with and encourage the silencing of those they disagree with. It's Maoist and sad. I do kind of expect this from the Euros, because Europe (especially Western Europe) is a cesspool and has long had the thought police telling them what to do, but Americans really ought to know better.

So what is the difference between this and the right wanting all sorts of crap done to the NFL and its players because they dare take a knee during a song? People didn't just simply disagree with the kneeling, they wanted to boycott the NFL, they wanted them to ban the kneeling, fire the players, etc.

Please, what is the difference?

 

[fairuz]

That's probably because mainly right wing nut crackers spew hate speech. Quite simple actually. But could you give us some examples of what exactly is being banned?

Eh, I think there is some unfairness. I've seen lots of SJW hate speech on Facebook not getting taken down, even a few that I reported where they responded and said it's not in violation of the rules. That stuff was blatantly racist (against white people), and one (http://www.dailycal.org/2016/06/30/361455/) was a first-person account that included some sexual harassment on the writer's part.

Btw I stopped using FB years ago but previously viewed my fair share of arguments and comment wars.

 

[Jsameds]

So what is the difference between this and the right wanting all sorts of crap done to the NFL and its players because they dare take a knee during a song? People didn't just simply disagree with the kneeling, they wanted to boycott the NFL, they wanted them to ban the kneeling, fire the players, etc.

Please, what is the difference?

One is an emotional disagreement, the other is a political censorship issue that could change the future of the country.

 

[supercoolmanchu]

Great new. This guy is about as bad as it gets. A civilised society has no place for hate speech.

I’m not sure the 21st century is compatible with people who believe in magic words, and that certain vocabulary has special powers.

The issue seems to be nothing more than a defect between the end user’s cognition and reaction biology.

 

[GermanSuplex]

One is an emotional disagreement, the other is a political censorship issue that could change the future of the country.

Simply not true, wanting an NFL player fired for a rule that didn't exist is no different than wanting Jones banned from social media, the difference being Jones actually broke rules.

 

[Jsameds]

 

[JayMysterio]

They are private companies, private companies that happen to host and control the thoughts of the public. They are unevenly applying their rule enforcement based on political swing.

Do you not have a problem with that?

So... in other words should a company become so successful that they earn the level of ability to shape views, you want them moderated? What would be the incentive of any company becoming so successful that you'd want to take them over and turn them into public utility because they did what they set out to do? Doesn't seem like the business friendly pro business right to me. Seems like something else...

I believe back when there was another silly conversation about diversity in literature & movies, the claim by those on the right is that PoC should make their own successful characters. Publishers & studios should not change older established characters that the right loved, that was going to far. Why isn't that same philosophy applied when it comes to those on the right who don't feel they are getting their way? As others have suggested, just leave those liberal overrun platforms and establish your own.

I.E. start your own private company where you decide what is acceptable on your platform.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Jones is free to continue threatening people and spewing bile all he wants.

 

[Jsameds]

Simply not true, wanting an NFL player fired for a rule that didn't exist is no different than wanting Jones banned from social media, the difference being Jones actually broke rules.

Football is a sport. This is politics and censorship.

Try not to confuse the two.
[doublepost=1536433758][/doublepost]

Jones is free to continue threatening people and spewing bile all he wants.

Not on the major social media outlets, which is where it counts.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Conflating the notions of disagreement and falsehood is the vital point. Take climate change: there are people out there who, when non-expert climate change deniers spew out there unfounded claims, say "great that everyone can say what they think". The fact that their claims have no basis on facts doesn't matter to those people anymore; they reply with "I'm not convinced", although there's nothing to be convinced about -- that's what facts are for.
Now take A. Jones and you see the analogy. Most of what he says are falsehoods.

The IPCC's spaghetti graph would like a word with you.

Science should not be orthodoxy. We should continue to question and validate and learn from new data as they are obtained. We've had a pause or plateau in warning, we had adjustments to predicted warming, these are all good things and part of the process of understanding the world and how it works. Simple saying, "Mann had a graph with a steep curve at the end in 1998, end of discussion," wouldn't be healthy for anyone. Further, despite evidence to varying degrees of warming that then doesn't lead one to the sole conclusion that it was man made. There are many potential contributors and many forms of natural variance that we don't yet fully understand. Stop labeling people as "denier" (or "alarmist") and realize that science is driven by questions and never fully settled.

 

[Jsameds]

So... in other words should a company become so successful that they earn the level of ability to shape views, you want them moderated? What would be the incentive of any company becoming so successful that you'd want to take them over and turn them into public utility because they did what they set out to do? Doesn't seem like the business friendly pro business right to me. Seems like something else...

I believe back when there was another silly conversation about diversity in literature & movies, the claim by those on the right is that PoC should make their own successful characters. Publishers & studios should not change older established characters that the right loved, that was going to far. Why isn't that same philosophy applied when it comes to those on the right who don't feel they are getting their way? As others have suggested, just leave those liberal overrun platforms and establish your own.

I.E. start your own private company where you decide what is acceptable on your platform.

First games and now movies lol

This is political censorship, not the light entertainment industry.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Football is a sport. This is politics and censorship.

Try not to confuse the two.

I thought Jones wasn't political, that he was just an entertainer? Of course, we know that's not true. The medium has nothing to do with it anyways, so 😕

Not on the major social media outlets, which is where it counts.

Your inspirational pic doesn't apply to Apple or Twitter.

 

[Jsameds]

I thought Jones wasn't political, that he was just an entertainer? Of course, we know that's not true. The medium has nothing to do with it anyways, so 😕



Your inspirational pic doesn't apply to Apple or Twitter.

It does. People are advocating censorship, I am advocating freedom of speech on mainstream social media, or even application of the rules independent of political swing.

 

[JayMysterio]

First games and now movies lol

This is political censorship, not the light entertainment industry.

No. You are saying what is or isn't when it doesn't suit your argument.

I got you to admit that it was private companies who made the decision based on their own business needs. It's the right of those companies to make such decisions, or so the right so often tells me. Now that that decision can directly affect you, it's the wrong decision, and you want to dictate to a company, ...for political reasons.

You can't have it both ways.

Either you are for the right of a private business or you believe your ability for political discourse using their business trumps them. The two are NOT the same.

 

[Jsameds]

No. You are saying what is or isn't when it doesn't suit your argument.

I got you to admit that it was private companies who made the decision based on their own business needs. It's the right of those companies to make such decisions, or so the right so often tells me. Now that that decision can directly affect you, it's the wrong decision, and you want to dictate to a company, ...for political reasons.

You can't have it both ways.

Either you are for the right of a private business or you believe your ability for political discourse using their business trumps them. The two are NOT the same.

I have no problem with them banning him. However I do have a problem if they are not applying the rules evenly, which they are not.

Are you ok with the uneven application of the rules? Actually in fact a lot of the places he was banned he didn’t even break any rules.

It’s sheer censorship of political opinion no matter how you look at it. And just before the midterms. Hmm.

 

[JayMysterio]

I have no problem with them banning him. However I do have a problem if they are not applying the rules evenly, which they are not.

Are you ok with the uneven application of the rules?

You are saying they are applying it unevenly. I am supposed to take it you are more objective than they?

As I said, make you own platform, apply your own rules. That's kind of why many of these businesses come to be. They didn't care for the previous business model and set out to make their own.

If I don't care for a platform ( say Facebook which I got annoyed & bored of ), I have the option to leave it, and go elsewhere if I want.

So do you.

 

[Jsameds]

You are saying they are applying it unevenly. I am supposed to take it you are more objective than they?

Well since there is still hate speech, or the advocation of violence on all the aforementioned platforms that can be found at the drop of a hat, the rules are by default being applied unevenly.

Sarah Jeong posted tonnes of racist comments and she gets verified.

Other twitter users literally repost her comments but replace ‘white’ with ‘black’, and they are insta banned.