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.
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
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.
No, because of what I said originally, that he puts false facts in them too. It's not just theories. That and he presents theories as facts. I'll bet there's some hidden disclaimer saying "this isn't real" or something so he can get away with it.
Politicians state false facts all the time. Should we suppress all political apps and podcasts too?
Same goes for tv discussion shows. Same goes for movies. Same goes for anyone speaking like you and me right now.
Before you know it you’re surpressing free speech.
It's true, as long as people actually watch those. But sometimes I hear the "edited" version from all my friends, like how I was told Ben Shapiro is a white supremacist or alt-right, then I actually watched his speech people were rioting over and saw he's just a moderate Republican-type guy. Good to look at the raw video yourself rather than trusting secondary media, both friends and big news corps.
Yeah it is. Are you kidding. You tube gets complaints about that all the time and they take it very seriously. People have had their videos taken down just because they said something that sounded hate speech.
Only the ones telling lies, except in cases where the politician is so important that it'd be dangerous to cover up what they say. Twitter for example has an exception they created for world leaders mainly because Trump broke their rules on violent threats when he threatened Kim Jong-Un.
But they still host it, and Apple still host the app. If you play it by the book and by your own rules then the YouTube app should not be hosted. Would take me less than a minute to find some “hate speech” on YouTube at any given moment.
Do you agree that the youtube app should be banned? And if not why not?
[doublepost=1536398016][/doublepost]
They all tell lies. So where do you draw the line?
No, because YouTube polices their own content. And it gets taken down quickly. The only thing that is wrong here is that it took them this long to take it down. Alex Jones doesn’t police his hate speech, that’s his bread and butter. So out he goes.
Apple draws the line, not me. If an app is spreading lies beyond reasonable doubt, they will take it down. I'll bet they tolerate some amount of lying from politicians because it's a bad idea to start that war taking them down. I don't know how you're saying that all politicians tell lies because some people could truly be honest, like maybe Gary Johnson and Bernie Sanders (not that I support either).
And Alex Jones policies their own content. That’s irrelevant because we’re talking about Apple here.
Youtube is still on their store despite breaking the same rules.
[doublepost=1536398410][/doublepost]
I don’t support Alex Jones either, but I feel like this is a surpression of “wrong think”.
I’m giving examples of why I believe this whole thing is hypocritical of not just Apple, but the whole industry.
Maybe when this happens to a person you share an opinion with, you’ll care.
Peace out.
YouTube isn’t breaking any rules. They police their content. Alex Jones doesn’t police his content because he’s the one saying it. That’s his bread and butter.
The leftists don’t debate it’s a quick ban when they can. Next phase is Sharia law and if you protest then you’re hateful and racist. I’ve been voting left as far as I can remember only recently that I woke up when I saw these leftists associate theme selves with some religious and anti democracy groups. It looks like libertarianism is the right way to go from now on.
What the heck are talking about? The left is leading us to sharia law?! Put down the bong dude, you are way to high. If anything the right is moving us to a Christian version of sharia law... but banning Alex Jones app from the App Store has nothing to do with any of that. Apple just doesn’t want to host AJ’s BS. As is their right guaranteed in the first amendment.
Growing polarization is a major problem in US political discourse, but Jones doesn’t spread opinions. Almost nothing he claims has any basis.
As a non-American, can somebody explain to me why a lot of conservatives feel the need to stand up for this guy? My guess it’s because their party and president have lost the plot, so they support anyone and anything that backs up their case. Even hate spewing crazy people.
Banning Alex Jones is the tip of the iceberg I know of people that criticizied the ideology of Islam got banned from Facebook and their YT channel after some islamic groups flagged the channel as hateful against the religion of Islam (Islam is a person now) and offensive to muslims Youtube along with Facebook complied with their demand and took the accounts down.
I’m secularist and I can’t accept this stuff. The future of free speech looks grim and dark.
More left wing silencing right wing ppl but terrorists still have social media pages
Have you seen this video ? The guy was laughing right before his press conference. Creepy.
Think back to when the App Store was first opened. How much backlash Apple got over the concept that it was a walled garden store, and the option to independently load external apps on your iPhone was blocked by the OS software (you could jailbreak and play the cat and mouse game until Apple plugged the software holes). Basically, that this was being set up in a very bad way and would leave a lot of room for Apple to control what you could or couldn't do or what content you could or couldn't see on your own devise.
Remember that time? Remember the countless number of people who said they should be able to put whatever Apps on their phone as they wanted. If they wanted to use the App Store, great, but they shouldn't be actively prevented from loading third party apps on a phone they purchased. Basically, like how things run currently on MacOS.
This is an example of when Apple not only distributes what someone can install on their phone, but also actively prevents you from having the choice to install software via 3rd party solutions. This is what the original backlash spoke of. Not to the specifics of the WHOEVER is deleted from the app store this week, but the mechanisms by which it is possible. You'll find this story all over the place over the past few years, whether it's Apple using their leverage to charge whatever fee they want on app developers (feel free to read about Spotify), to blocking perfectly valid apps because they may compete with what Apple software does (feel free to read about Valve), or because an app has sexual content (remember all of the non-relevant apps that were deleted in the wake of that particularly ******** company initiative?).
So you are, in fact, denying open court records that were reported around the world? Nothing at all insane about that!
/s
[doublepost=1536403103][/doublepost]
Did that work out for the Sandy Hook parents?
60 seconds on YouTube at any given moment and I can find something that breaks Apple’s rules.
So why isn’t their app banned?
Um, you know you can watch YouTube on Apple products without an app, right? It’s a website.
Well I guess that depends. Does Youtube consider themselves to be a platform offering content creators a chance to share their voice, free of Youtube curation or demonetization over whether they approve of the content of the message or not?