Rewrite history? Like Trump tries to do on Twitter on a daily basis? Alex Jones broke rules on these platforms - probably multiple times over - and was shown the door. Any attempts to read further into it is speculation. There is all sorts of conservative media available on all of these platforms - trying to turn Jones into some sort of martyr or symbol of some non-existent left-wing agenda to "hinder conservatism" is a theory with no basis in fact. When it comes to hindering conservatism, I would say the doofus currently in control of the White House is doing far more to help that cause than Apple, Twitter or Nike.
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
Rewrite history? Like Trump tries to do on Twitter on a daily basis? Alex Jones broke rules on these platforms - probably multiple times over - and was shown the door. Any attempts to read further into it is speculation. There is all sorts of conservative media available on all of these platforms - trying to turn Jones into some sort of martyr or symbol of some non-existent left-wing agenda to "hinder conservatism" is a theory with no basis in fact. When it comes to hindering conservatism, I would say the doofus currently in control of the White House is doing far more to help that cause than Apple, Twitter or Nike.
Speaking of victim hood, start your own social network and spew whatever crap you want. While you’re at it, start your own search engine to skew results as your kind sees fit. In other words, stop playing the victim.
The world isn't black and white, nor is it a left vs right stop trying to complicate an issue that's far less cumbersome. AJ broke the services TOS that he not only chose to use but agreed to abide to. It's just that simple.
Excuse me - The Right, is just as guilty. Alex Jones was kicked off of Twitter for abusive behavior - Yet what do right side pundits claim? They lie and claim he was kicked off for speech. What about Trump claiming that only a small handful of individuals died a a result of hurricane Maria? Or that recovery efforts were absolutely the best ever? Where is the unequivocally denouncement of this? Instead you've got very couched statements from Florida Republicans and Paul Ryan saying saying they "won't dispute the death toll" these are American citizens we're talking about here.
You engender disfavor by not caring at all about the factual accuracy of what the "The Right" members say because you've got an agenda and you're going to push it. The only reason why Florida Republicans and Paul Ryan are saying anything here is because loss of the house and senate would be devastating.
Aa a member of the right you can absolutely give Alex Jones his space to spout whatever nonsense he wants - but you very clearly need to distance yourself when he gets in trouble for personally being abusive to others or when he incites criminal behavior in his listeners. Don't let him conflate issues either. Discriminating based on a personal characteristic of an individual is completely different from discriminating based on specific text or imagery or concepts they ask be placed on a cake. You need to educate your own kind that this isn't acceptable behavior.
You're right it's going to take a lot more work to reach the point wherein your conservative ideals are respected by liberals. Likewise I try to educate my own brethren that you can't physically attack christians or catholics just for their beliefs. You can't rally behind banning conservatives just because you disagree with them. Because liberal ideals are not going to be respected by conservatives if we don't respect their rights, as well.
Here is another idea to consider: You're really concerned about social media banning Alex Jones, but have you thought about the internet service providers themselves getting a say in what media gets promoted?
I guess it’s infected the right then, too? The “Woe is me, I can’t put up a monument to religious law at the courthouse” or “how dare you challenge our right to teach abstinence only”? Or conservatives in Congress complaining about obstructionism on the left - or the left “rushing” bills through after stunts like Gorsch, Kavanaugh, and their tax bill that didn’t even have fully typed pages? The right has cried victim plenty, as well.
Ask your self, what do you worry about the most, if you were doing in public , during Xmas, in front of the White House. Put all laws aside. There are no laws.
Why won’t YOU do it in public?
You can sure as hell bet, if given the chance, there would be people willing to have sex in public on the WH lawn.
LOL
You are right. It would be a free for all orgy. People would travel from Mars to get their freak on at the White House front lawn, back lawn, in the pool, etc.
But, we have laws, laws that go back centuries, thanks to conservative religious groups. Many today’s laws to this very second, still exist thanks to religious beliefs.
Even though, US government has a separation from church, religious groups continue to dictate to government... what should be and should not be.
Look up how many States alow public nudity. You can’t even watch porn inside your vehicle, unless you abide by a specific set of rules/laws.
Religious groups? If you mean sufficient quantities of voting Americans who are of a religious faith (Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, etc.) being able to dictate the vote, that's just how it is. If there's more of them voting than the other side, they're going to get their laws passed and mold the world around them as they see fit. That might suck at times, but I don't see how that violates separation of church and state. People are allowed to vote how they want and they're free to seek guidance on upcoming elections from whatever source they please. That could be a church, Facebook, reading about it for the first time while in the voting booth, TV news, commercials, fortune tellers, newspapers, their own independent research and functioning brain, etc.
If you're suggesting churches, as institutions, are directly interfering (vs. influencing the thinking of their members) with the voting system, I think I'd be interested in reading any sources you have on that.
Im aware of why we have decency laws, just pointing out that some given the opportunity would take it.
Votes are irrelevant. Founding fathers took away the right for people to decide who the president will be.
Ever heard of lobbyists????? They spend $$$$$$$ to influence politicians decision.
Washington DC, has every largest lobbying group in the country. To my knowledge.
If you have money and a team behind you, who is willing to bend and to support your cause , you will lobby anyone and everyone.
If that had been the reason for the ban every sane person would be forced to side with China
Still waiting for my kids targeting pr0n app to go online.
Them damn facist at Apple are oppressing my right to free speech !!!!!!!!!
If you think Tim Cook bows to China, surely you believe Trump is on his knees for Putin, if you know what I mean. Helsinki?
I'm self conscious about my body. But, what does that have to do with whether or not it's acceptable to do in public?
...
now the internet does make things a little tricky but following the business practices of a given country when doing business in that country is hardly collusion. Don’t forget that SCOTUS ruled a company is beholden to their shareholders. Apple is publicly held. Leaving a market that big could get them in trouble with their shareholders.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/technology/paypal-blocks-infowars.html
For those who cheer on acts like this, I'm curious: what's your end goal? To have literally every possible business path eventually blocked for those you disagree with? And, is it just Alex Jones, or is there a wider net you'd like to see for this collective banning, even when it's "not because of any policy violation" such as PayPal?
For those who cheer on acts like this, I'm curious: what's your end goal? To have literally every possible business path eventually blocked for those you disagree with? And, is it just Alex Jones, or is there a wider net you'd like to see for this collective banning, even when it's "not because of any policy violation" such as PayPal?
We dont have an end goal, we are not the businesses involved. AJ is doing business by choice and as such he is subject to those businesses TOS. Any company that chooses to violate another companies TOS is doing so at their own risk. So it's not about casting a wider net on to others as it is just simply don't violate the terms to which you agree to when you chose to use another companies service.
Then AJ will have to decide on whether he has any legal recourse or if he's SOL.
Replace infowars with the KKK, do you think that paypal has the right to refuse service to the KKK if they chose to due to their views?
Last edited:
It’s not that they disagree with him. At least not myself or most of the others I have seen in this thread. It’s the fact that he’s a provocateur. He has made a living usually pushing the boundaries of what is considered free speech vs inciting violence/harm/etc. He is being sued currently for doxxing a family so much they’ve moved several times - in addition to saying their murdered child isn’t real. He was part of that idiot’s reason for shooting at the pizza parlor.
TLDR: We cheer his misfortune because it is limiting his ability to cause harm to others.
I cheer it on. As for the end goal, I have none. I don't need an end goal. I'm not one of the participants in this little drama, just a spectator. Why do I need to have an end goal?
And since I know that won't be enough... If I did have an end goal it would be for buttheads (regardless of their politics) to learn to behave appropriately when common sense and social ettiequte dictate such. As I'm expected to do on those services. If they choose to make an example of him, so be it. That's their right. If they ban him and don't ban others doing the same thing, that's their right as well. If they ban more people, that's also their right. If they ban people I don't think should be banned, then guess what? That's their right. If they choose to ban him for no other reason except everyone else did, that's their right. They're privately owned services and they can choose who they do business with.
I, as a free American, have my own rights. I can continue to use those services or not. If I don't like what they're doing, it's my right to quit using those services. Heck, I even have the right to hate what they're doing, continue to use their services and then go online and bitch about it.
This isn't a "free speech" issue. It's a "you can't walk into a private business, act like an ass and expect to get away with it" issue.
Actually it is a pretty bad idea for hardware manufacturers and OS makers to restrict users from doing things. period. it's evil.
an iphone is not a service. it is a device. so are Macs, Ipads, and even Apple TV's. You can talk about companies being able to block things from their devices....
i'd say that is evil. wrong on about every level. A big restraint against their customers and device owners i would say.