Apple Permanently Bans 'Infowars' App From the App Store

[pacmacman]

As self defense against extremist violence, not for assault. That’s one of the purposes of arms. It’s well-established in the 2nd amendment.

He was inciting violence. Your attempt to qualify it doesn’t change how the English language works.

 

[masterhiggins]

He was inciting violence. Your attempt to qualify it doesn’t change how the English language works.

Inciting violence would be, “It’s time to shoot some people.”

 

[pacmacman]

Inciting violence would be, “It’s time to shoot some people.”

No, inciting violence does not have to be a direct call to be violent. Jones promotes theories that seek to “warn” his viewers of impending danger. It’s a call to arms. That his viewers are too dumb to figure out he’s lying and just wants to sell them supplements is another level of sad.

 

[masterhiggins]

No, inciting violence does not have to be a direct call to be violent. Jones promotes theories that seek to “warn” his viewers of impending danger. It’s a call to arms. That his viewers are too dumb to figure out he’s lying and just wants to sell them supplements is another level of sad.

Okay. So could we say that TV personalities supporting terrorist groups be inciting violence as well? As those groups are steeped in violent rhetoric? Or are they magically excluded by that criteria based on some convoluted logic?

 

[cmaier]

Okay. So could we say that TV personalities supporting terrorist groups be inciting violence as well? As those groups are steeped in violent rhetoric?

Just because Fox News says so doesn’t make it so.

 

[masterhiggins]

Just because Fox News says so doesn’t make it so.

Wtf are you talking about? Fox was never even mentioned.

 

[duffman9000]

Dude..

How many days did it take for Judges to make a decision on that case?
So I can’t always interpret the law in 10min.

And I did ask for your help.

Did you finish trying to process the information? Someone did bother to explain it to you. Do you need help in finding explanation?
[doublepost=1536549071][/doublepost]

Wtf are you talking about? Fox was never even mentioned.

I was sure you got that talking point from Breitbart. Oops?

 

[pacmacman]

Okay. So could we say that TV personalities supporting terrorist groups be inciting violence as well? As those groups are steeped in violent rhetoric? Or are they magically excluded by that criteria based on some convoluted logic?

You’d have to give me an example.

 

[KGB7]

No, inciting violence does not have to be a direct call to be violent. Jones promotes theories that seek to “warn” his viewers of impending danger. It’s a call to arms. That his viewers are too dumb to figure out he’s lying and just wants to sell them supplements is another level of sad.

People spend millions of dollars on fancy, fall out bunkers and the business is booming.

Because same millionaires are watching random YouTube videos, videos that are made by doomsday preppers.

Hollywood makes movies about grand scale event that kills off 90% of life on earth. The seed gets planted in to peoples head. They start stock pilling food, water, guns and emmo.

But it’s not ok for Jones to warm his viewers of impending dangers??

Give me a break...
[doublepost=1536550065][/doublepost]

Did you finish trying to process the information? Someone did bother to explain it to you. Do you need help in finding explanation?

This is between you and I, don’t involve anyone else in to it. I asked for your help and your help alone. You don’t get to get out of it that easily. If you don’t want to help, say so but, be blunt and direct about it.
If you don’t fully understand it your self , say so.
So stop dancing around the topic with excuses.
I’m not trying to trick you, I bluntly asked for your help.

And I got distracted, so no , I did not finish processing it.

 

[dennysanders]

"Offensive" is quite subjective isn't it?


"Im sorry puff but I dont give a **** if this chick was my own mother. I’d still **** her with no rubber and cum inside her and have a son and a new brother at the same time and just say that it aint mine" I'm Back by Eminem

Could one not argue this might be offensive?

 

[katewes]

I don’t look at any issue as right versus left. I only care about what is real vs what is fantasy. The problem with people like Alex Jones and Trump is they just talk utter nonsense.

Let's narrow it down to just one example.

For years, the mainstream news poo-pooed the idea of a Deep State, namely, technocrats who secretly act against the President, and where a group of such technocrats are in communication with each other and sharing that common aim.

Now, if you 100% believe everything you read in the NYT, then you will say it is "utter nonsense".

But on 5 September 2018, the NYT times published the article entitled, "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration", you mikethemartian are faced with the decision to maintain your belief in the NTY's pre-5 Sept narrative, or its post-5-Sept narrative.

The only way you can maintain your "it's utter nonsense" narrative is to ignore the latest developments.

For instance, the mainstream news said it was "utter nonsense" for Trump to accuse Obama's Administration of wire tapping his election campaign, but, ethically, should the mainstream news offer a retraction when it proved that Trump was indeed wire tapped?

If you follow the above line of reasoning, you will find yourself shifting from (i) Infowars is total garbage, to (ii) Infowars is sometimes garbage, sometimes truth". As a fair minded person, that's all I would hope you would do.
[doublepost=1536552439][/doublepost]

No. There is actual hate speech- ya kno, speech and actions rooted in nonsensical hate..and these arguments deserve no quarter. The hateful members of the far right have successfully muddied the waters and projected their hatefulness against folks that are against hate. When you give room to legitimizing items like nonsensical racism and supremacist ideologies, you also fall prey to those arguments by proxy.

The term "hate speech" cannot be understood in isolation from the values that the person, saying that, has in their heart.

e.g. abortion vs right to life

If a person supports the right of the unborn fetus, I find that pro-abortion speech to be "hate speech" against the aborted children.

If a person supports abortion, they find that anti-abortion speech to be "hate speech" against the women's rights to control their reproductive system.

So, you see, the term "hate speech" is relative.

At the moment, the Mainstream media and social media are controlled by their Left, and it is their Leftist-definition of hate speech that is used to determine who can and cannot speak on social media.

 

[mudslag]

Let's narrow it down to just one example.

For years, the mainstream news poo-pooed the idea of a Deep State, namely, technocrats who secretly act against the President, and where a group of such technocrats are in communication with each other and sharing that common aim.

Now, if you 100% believe everything you read in the NYT, then you will say it is "utter nonsense".

But on 5 September 2018, the NYT times published the article entitled, "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration", you mikethemartian are faced with the decision to maintain your belief in the NTY's pre-5 Sept narrative, or its post-5-Sept narrative.

The only way you can maintain your "it's utter nonsense" narrative is to ignore the latest developments.

You mean the anon post from the WH insider who also supported Trump but got tired of his nonsense? That's not deep state, that's someone who got sick of his ****, huge difference.

For instance, the mainstream news said it was "utter nonsense" for Trump to accuse Obama's Administration of wire tapping his election campaign, but, ethically, should the mainstream news offer a retraction when it proved that Trump was indeed wire tapped?

Except Trump wasn't wiretapped and that's never been proven. Talk about nonsense.

 

[katewes]

Dude, half, if not all of his broadcats have been about his sales of his nutrasutical products. Just look at this garbage: https://www.infowarsstore.com/?ims=...om&utm_medium=Magento&utm_content=Top+Of+Page That's all he's about right now. He's more concerned about selling his products than reporting the news. It's a giant money making factory, pedaling conspiracies.

The Infowars advertisements are similar to CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS indispersing their content with commercials.

Do this for me. Copy and paste your comment into a word processor, and substitute Infowars with CNN, and substitute "nutrasutical products" with various ads from McDonalds, Ford, Amex.

You get my point?

Now, realise the hatefulness of a heart who would seek to use a false analogy to tear down an organisation whom you disagree with. That is the hatefulness of the culture that is doing this en masse.
[doublepost=1536552827][/doublepost]

There are clips of him on the internet saying all this stuff. I don’t know how much more "straight from the horse’s mouth" a lie can be.

I have no wish to defend 100% of what Alex Jones says.

My stance is: (1) he says lots of crazy stuff, (2) he says a lot of truth that the Mainstrea media takes the opposite stance.

For instance, regarding 9/11, as a university-qualified scientific person, I find that Alex Jones mirrors the opinions of Structural Engineers who question how the 3rd WTC tower could just fall down by itself without any plane crashing into it. For all the crazy stuff Alex Jones says, I use discernment to realise that, amidst his verbiage, there is something he is emphasising that the Mainstream Media tells you to ignore.

 

[KGB7]

.

"Offensive" is quite subjective isn't it?


"Im sorry puff but I dont give a **** if this chick was my own mother. I’d still **** her with no rubber and cum inside her and have a son and a new brother at the same time and just say that it aint mine" I'm Back by Eminem

Could one not argue this might be offensive?

Is this from Eminem’s latest album?

Rappers have said many violent things in their thongs, but are protected under Freedom of Expression and the Arts of Entertainment.

Similar to porn or full nudity.

Sex is a Gods given gift to reproduce, as long as you don’t do it openly in public. Hence why porn is not banned from internet or cable tv. Porn is legal, as long as you don’t target or sell to minors.

Nudity, even in public, is art. You will find nudity in many museums across the globe.

 

[m0sher]

"Offensive" is quite subjective isn't it?


"Im sorry puff but I dont give a **** if this chick was my own mother. I’d still **** her with no rubber and cum inside her and have a son and a new brother at the same time and just say that it aint mine" I'm Back by Eminem

Could one not argue this might be offensive?

True, on the other foot like David Allen Coe “Adults Only”. Let’s not split hairs on music though.

Its not the same comparison, the difference between putting out your own album where you contract out a studio vs doing it on another business model platform where you agree to its rules in order to use to post or stream.

 

[KGB7]

The Infowars advertisements are similar to CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS indispersing their content with commercials.

Do this for me. Copy and paste your comment into a word processor, and substitute Infowars with CNN, and substitute "nutrasutical products" with various ads from McDonalds, Ford, Amex.

You get my point?

Now, realise the hatefulness of a heart who would seek to use a false analogy to tear down an organisation whom you disagree with. That is the hatefulness of the culture that is doing this en masse.
[doublepost=1536552827][/doublepost]

I have no wish to defend 100% of what Alex Jones says.

My stance is: (1) he says lots of crazy stuff, (2) he says a lot of truth that the Mainstrea media takes the opposite stance.

For instance, regarding 9/11, as a university-qualified scientific person, I find that Alex Jones mirrors the opinions of Structural Engineers who question how the 3rd WTC tower could just fall down by itself without any plane crashing into it. For all the crazy stuff Alex Jones says, I use discernment to realise that, amidst his verbiage, there is something he is emphasising that the Mainstream Media tells you to ignore.

Thank you god, universe and spaghetti monster. A person with a brain has finally joined our discussion.

I’ve never sacrificed a virgin goat before, but there is first time for everything.

 

[Bawstun]

Hate speech is (generally) protected under the First Amendment, so it cannot be made illegal. The App Store will almost certainly never be considered a public forum legally, if for no other reason than you have to pay $99 per year (except eligible nonprofit entities who can be in the Apple Developer Program for free) to put anything up.
[doublepost=1536539174][/doublepost]
He hasn't, and he doesn't need to have done anything illegal. Until a court finds otherwise, and that will almost certainly never happen, Apple is free to allow or forbid any individual or entity it chooses to put content on its servers. Any other legal ruling would, at its core, involve the federal government forcing Apple to do business with another company, and that's just not gonna happen.

I understand Apple having the final say on apps within its App Store. I meant more along the lines of FB and Twitter, where nothing is expected of the user other than not being a bot

 

[duffman9000]

This is between you and I, don’t involve anyone else in to it. I asked for your help and your help alone. You don’t get to get out of it that easily. If you don’t want to help, say so but, be blunt and direct about it.
If you don’t fully understand it your self , say so.
So stop dancing around the topic with excuses.
I’m not trying to trick you, I bluntly asked for your help.

And I got distracted, so no , I did not finish processing it.

Of course you got distracted. Would you like me to copy and paste the explanation? It’s what I would have wrote. I was too busy laughing about why I had to explain this and someone else beat me to it.

 

[syntax]

The Infowars advertisements are similar to CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS indispersing their content with commercials.

Do this for me. Copy and paste your comment into a word processor, and substitute Infowars with CNN, and substitute "nutrasutical products" with various ads from McDonalds, Ford, Amex.

You get my point?

Now, realise the hatefulness of a heart who would seek to use a false analogy to tear down an organisation whom you disagree with. That is the hatefulness of the culture that is doing this en masse.
[doublepost=1536552827][/doublepost]

I have no wish to defend 100% of what Alex Jones says.

My stance is: (1) he says lots of crazy stuff, (2) he says a lot of truth that the Mainstrea media takes the opposite stance.

For instance, regarding 9/11, as a university-qualified scientific person, I find that Alex Jones mirrors the opinions of Structural Engineers who question how the 3rd WTC tower could just fall down by itself without any plane crashing into it. For all the crazy stuff Alex Jones says, I use discernment to realise that, amidst his verbiage, there is something he is emphasising that the Mainstream Media tells you to ignore.

But can’t you get your 9/11 truther fix and/or vitamins from a dude who doesn’t also actively ruin the reputations and lives of people whose children were murdered in mass shootings? He can’t be the only dude preaching this gospel/selling colloidal silver.

 

[KGB7]

Of course you got distracted. Would you like me to copy and paste the explanation? It’s what I would have wrote. I was too busy laughing about why I had to explain this and someone else beat me to it.

/facepalm

I’m trying to be civil and doing my best to have an adult conversation with you.

Outside of the forums, I do have a personal life. Being homeless, living in my car, having a job, dealing with my mothers estate after losing my mother to 3rd cancer. Dealing with my mothers 3rd husband who has defrauded insurance and my mothers estate and is trying to profit from my mothers death.
Should I continue??

But hey, you want to be a clown, don’t let me stop you.

I was trying to have a civil conversation with you. I don’t know how many more times I have to repeat my self. But **** it. Lol.. I give up.

 

[Juan007]

This is not a free speech issue. If you don't like the fact that Apple doesn't want hate speech on its platforms then go ahead and build your own phone and your own app store. The fact is that bozos like 'Infowars' add no value to the platform, they subtract value and harass paying users. There is no legal, moral, ethical, or business reason to accommodate 'Infowars' and other vendors of hatred.

 

[syntax]

Outside of the forums, I do have a personal life. Being homeless, living in my car, having a job, dealing with my mothers estate after losing my mother to 3rd cancer. Dealing with my mothers 3rd husband who has defrauded insurance and my mothers estate and is trying to profit from my mothers death.

Just a quick aside: I’m sorry you’re dealing with all that stuff. I hope you’re hanging in there.

 

[31 Flavas]

The precedent of muzzling people whom you disagree with is VERY disturbing. Whether you like a person or not, there is no fine print on the 1st Amendment. Free is exactly that...and Social Media/Technology companies ARE today's public forums. We are in new territory so don't hide behind the private companies argument. Besides, censorship appears to directly reflect the politics of the companies doing the censoring.

Becareful, here. You might not like the fall out because this will swing both ways. You want to take away the freedom of speech and freedom of expression for liberal comapnies - you’ll endanger Hobby Lobby, Chic-fil-a, bakeries, photographers, florists, pizza parlors. You dont get single direction freedom of speech.

I posted this earlier to someone who chose not to respond. I’ll see if you're interested in responding to it. You say you find “muzzling” those who disagree disturbing. What about conservatitives who do the same regarding anthem kneeling? We’re told kneeling is so reprehensible as speech or expression that it need be prohibited and not allowed. Punished. If not by law, by social justice. Character assination. Loss of employment. Business boycotting.

Everyday conservative minds tell us it isn’t fair that they face demonization, social ostracism, loss of business, or lose employment because their speech or expression is labeled “hate”.

To that I say: oh boo hoo. Cry me a river and get in line. They’re not getting any symphony until they stop “muzzling” anthem kneeling as unacceptable speech and expression.

 

[duffman9000]

/facepalm

I’m trying to be civil and doing my best to have an adult conversation with you.

Outside of the forums, I do have a personal life. Being homeless, living in my car, having a job, dealing with my mothers estate after losing my mother to 3rd cancer. Dealing with my mothers 3rd husband who has defrauded insurance and my mothers estate and is trying to profit from my mothers death.
Should I continue??

But hey, you want to be a clown, don’t let me stop you.

I was trying to have a civil conversation with you. I don’t know how many more times I have to repeat my self. But **** it. Lol.. I give up.

I don’t care to hear your life story lol.

 

[syntax]

I don’t care to hear your life story lol.

Be kind.