Apple Removes Five of Six Infowars Podcast Series From iTunes Directory

[Stella]

What happens? **** all.

At worse, his advertisers quit.

Social media won’t suffer due to a few tin foil hatters / racists / xenophobics / are removed from their pages.

You are correct, but what happens if Jones can demonstrate a pattern of collusion between these companies with intent to harm and libel?
What happens to the money Jones spent on ads on socials and other services for terminations without notice?
What do shareholders and investors do if the socials keep reporting millions of fewer users than projected?

 

[HMFIC03]

Where can we submit more recommendations for more censorship? I’m so offended

 

[widgeteer]

Where can we submit more recommendations for more censorship? I’m so offended

www.startyourownpodcastnetwork.com

 

[mudslag]

So it would be fun to watch, mostly because they would subpoena all Jones records, but also because Jones would lose his shirt.

Too late

 

[BaldiMac]

Counterexample: The KKK are Democrats.

The KKK were Democrats. Now they are Republicans.

You've listed one guy, in one instance, who was very mentally deranged, and you're pretending that one instance somehow dwarfs everything else.

I didn't list one guy. I didn't list any specific acts of violence. You just made that up.

I referenced all political violence of the last 50 years in the US. 75+% of which was right wing violence.

 

[Irishman]

[doublepost=1533749239][/doublepost]
Holding to account and evaluating speech is getting people to have better speech that is more productive to society. In this specific case it would be people pushing for the podcasts to have better quality content. Or content that you and others feel is more truthful.

Censorship on the other hand is removing the podcasts.
Improving is always better than removing.
[doublepost=1533749392][/doublepost]Note Well - to everyone here.

I don't care which way Alex Jones swings on the political spectrum. I'd be just up in arms if this was done to a left wing independant news source as well, or any news sorce regardless of which way they swing. Both sides should have the right to say their piece without being unfairly censored.

Robert Epstein, in the Brietbart article, is listed in his byline as a research psychologist. I read the article through, and nowhere in it does he break news about these developments. He simply offers his opinion on them.

He doesn't have any more credibility than you or I would have. Therefore, Epstein doesn't fortify your claim that this was coordinated.

 

[Irishman]

Tell me the legitimate sources of truth.

You're asking the wrong question. You're not looking for truth. You're looking for facts. What you should be looking for are sources that practice journalism. Sources, that have that obsession with the process of checking everything for accuracy, and if you're not sure what that looks like, then hit up factcheck.org, and politifact. Those fact checkers will show you clearly how they do it, and help you develop your critical tools, so that you can do so, too.

 

[Thomas Veil]

Sounds like a cop out to me

Also-

You say no context because you didnt watch the Stzork hearing, I did. Many people, on both sides, did.

You’d rather pretend to be right than do your own research/homework - thats cool but thats on you. Cant spoon feed you everything I’m an adult. You may have child like tendencies but you’re an adult, or if you’re not an adult you’re someone else’s kids and not at all my problem. Spoon feeding I dont do. I give crumbs. If you wanna follow the trail with a search engine and 5 seconds of your time, I encourage that.

Plus your avatar makes you seem amenable to new ideas so there’s that.

You didnt really say anything specific, as I would’ve expected, just like ‘I would point by point but nah ill write a few random vague paragraphs instead’

I implore you to dissect what I wrote.

It’s just that life is too good to waste much time on you, and you’ve more than amply demonstrated why.

When you’re calling (without a trace of irony) people who don’t agree with you immature, and playing at psychoanalyzing them, and arbitrarily calling yourself the victor in a discussion, and declaring (again, without any semblance of irony) the left to be obstructionist and ineffectual, and name-calling politicians, well…you’re just not worth my time. Sorry, but what I’m reading from you is the very definition of smug. I don’t get pulled into “discussions” like that.

I’m glad, though, that the accuracy of my avatar bothers you. You’re the fifth or sixth person that’s publicly copped to that in this forum. That’s by any measure a success.

Oh, and because you’re not worth my time, I’m putting you on my ignore list. It’s not an overly-long list, but more than half of the people I put on it were later listed as suspended, most of them for quite some time. Just saying’.

But I’ll leave you with one final thought: your own. You told widgeteer:

The best way to curtail a discussion, in the absence of substance/something to actually talk about and sorely wave the surrender flag that you’ve lost the plot, is with a meme/gif.

…and then you went and posted this:

Thanks for surrendering.

See ya.

Oh, wait. I won’t.

 

[widgeteer]

It’s just that life is too good to waste much time on you, and you’ve more than amply demonstrated why.

When you’re calling (without a trace of irony) people who don’t agree with you immature, and playing at psychoanalyzing them, and arbitrarily calling yourself the victor in a discussion, and declaring (again, without any semblance of irony) the left to be obstructionist and ineffectual, and name-calling politicians, well…you’re just not worth my time. Sorry, but what I’m reading from you is the very definition of smug. I don’t get pulled into “discussions” like that.

I’m glad, though, that the accuracy of my avatar bothers you. You’re the fifth or sixth person that’s publicly copped to that in this forum. That’s by any measure a success.

Oh, and because you’re not worth my time, I’m putting you on my ignore list. It’s not an overly-long list, but more than half of the people I put on it were later listed as suspended, most of them for quite some time. Just saying’.

But I’ll leave you with one final thought: your own. You told widgeteer:



…and then you went and posted this:

Thanks for surrendering.

See ya.

Oh, wait. I won’t.

That, my friend, is one of the best forum takedowns I’ve ever read. Bravo!

 

[Thomas Veil]

Thank you.

 

[Naaaaak]

The KKK were Democrats. Now they are Republicans.

When did that happen? In the last election the KKK endorsed Hillary Clinton. Did she disavow it?

I didn't list one guy. I didn't list any specific acts of violence. You just made that up.

You listed one guy in Charlottesville the media used to hype up "the violent right".

I referenced all political violence of the last 50 years in the US. 75+% of which was right wing violence.

Citation needed.

Notice the numbers this weekend? 20 idiots who walked down a street and vanished (who they claimed represent "the right" because it's in their name so it certainly can't be a psy-op or a bunch of larpers) vs many hundreds of Klan-like Antifa who were violent and threatened violence. Who is the bigger threat?

What historical events are you referencing where "right wing violence" occurred predominantly over the last 50 years?

 

[Irishman]

When did that happen? In the last election the KKK endorsed Hillary Clinton. Did she disavow it?

That is patently false and provably wrong. The KKK endorsed Trump during the 2016 election! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-trump-for-president/?utm_term=.515e5b2305af

 

[BaldiMac]

When did that happen? In the last election the KKK endorsed Hillary Clinton. Did she disavow it?

The KKK endorsed Trump.

You listed one guy in Charlottesville the media used to hype up "the violent right".

No, I didn't. You just made that up.

Citation needed.

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising
"The far left is very active in the United States, but it hasn't been particularly violent for some time," says Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

He says the numbers between the groups don't compare.

"In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says.

 

[Handsome Bacon]

I need a new iPhone but this behavior really disturbs me. I'm not a Jones follower but he has just as much a right to be offensive as anyone else. I suppose I will go shopping elsewhere this time around.

 

[mudslag]

When did that happen? In the last election the KKK endorsed Hillary Clinton. Did she disavow it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/


I see you're trying to sell alternative facts.


Edit: I see Irishman beat me to it.

 

[Handsome Bacon]

CNN pushed pretty hard for these removals. Maybe someone ought to organize a protest group to shame US airports from freely broadcasting CNN's propaganda all over the place?

 

[RichardMZhlubb]

I need a new iPhone but this behavior really disturbs me. I'm not a Jones follower but he has just as much a right to be offensive as anyone else. I suppose I will go shopping elsewhere this time around.

You do know that you can still listen to all of his podcasts on your iPhone, right?
[doublepost=1534339860][/doublepost]

CNN pushed pretty hard for these removals. Maybe someone ought to organize a protest group to shame US airports from freely broadcasting CNN's propaganda all over the place?

Have a link for the claim that CNN "pushed pretty hard for these removals"?

 

[Handsome Bacon]

You do know that you can still listen to all of his podcasts on your iPhone, right?
[doublepost=1534339860][/doublepost]

Have a link for the claim that CNN "pushed pretty hard for these removals"?

Yep.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/media/facebook-infowars/index.html

Google is your friend, too!

http://******.com/?q=cnn+lobbies+facebook+to+shut+down+infowars

It's the kind of thing they do when they're not harassing old people in their driveways, Reddit users, or lying about their Russian "investigation".

 

[dannyyankou]

I’m torn on this issue, but I’ll say this:

If the NFL, a private company, can introduce rules to fine and suspend people for kneeling, Apple, Facebook, and YouTube, private companies, can enforce their rules to block what they think is offensive content on their platforms. You can’t have it both ways.

Edit: Before people misinterpret this (because they will)... I’m NOT saying NFL players should be kneeling. What I’m saying is people should be consistent and genuine with their arguements when it comes to freedom of speech/private companies.

 

[darksithpro]

It might actually just come down to money, or lack of. I don't think anyone has has talked about it here, but I have read that Google was loosing money, while Infowars was making money off YouTube. That's because advertisers pay Google to inject their ads into popular YouTube channels. That being said none of the advertisers wanted to put their brand on Infowars, because of it's conspiracy nature and past, so YouTube allowed it as a financial loss. AJ and his staff have said in the past when they air an episode they can get as many as 500 orders of nutraceuticals an hour. Times that by 20-40 dollars per item and that will give you an idea of how much they can make. So it was a win-win for AJ to use YT as a business platform to make tens of thousands of dollars off each episode selling his products, while Google was providing that platform at a loss to them.

 

[RichardMZhlubb]

Yep.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/media/facebook-infowars/index.html

Google is your friend, too!

http://******.com/?q=cnn+lobbies+facebook+to+shut+down+infowars

It's the kind of thing they do when they're not harassing old people in their driveways, Reddit users, or lying about their Russian "investigation".

The first link doesn’t support your claim at all and the second one doesn’t work. Have a legitimate source?

 

[Handsome Bacon]

I'm not going to spend time doing what you can do on your own. Go look around, or just stay in la-la land, don't care. You libs are supposed to be educated and smart, isn't that what you're always telling everyone?
[doublepost=1534627273][/doublepost]

I’m torn on this issue, but I’ll say this:

If the NFL, a private company, can introduce rules to fine and suspend people for kneeling, Apple, Facebook, and YouTube, private companies, can enforce their rules to block what they think is offensive content on their platforms. You can’t have it both ways.

Edit: Before people misinterpret this (because they will)... I’m NOT saying NFL players should be kneeling. What I’m saying is people should be consistent and genuine with their arguements when it comes to freedom of speech/private companies.

Depends on whose mouth things are coming out of. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting any kind of fairness, especially since the media and most of silicon valley are so heavily liberal. A baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple and it's complete outrage, but YouTube decides to follow its beliefs and this is completely acceptable. Some people are more equal than others. I tune it all out a little more every day.

 

[RichardMZhlubb]

Depends on whose mouth things are coming out of. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting any kind of fairness, especially since the media and most of silicon valley are so heavily liberal. A baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple and it's complete outrage, but YouTube decides to follow its beliefs and this is completely acceptable. Some people are more equal than others. I tune it all out a little more every day.

It’s not that complicated. Sexual orientation is treated, in many instances, as a protected class. Douchebag conspiracy theorists are not.

 

[Handsome Bacon]

Since you're too damned lazy.

http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/07/facebook-wont-ban-infowars.html

Earlier this week, Facebook invited journalists to come hear what the company is up to these days with regards to the platform’s fake-news problems. Amid pledges and promises and evidence of progress, CNN’s Oliver Darcy started asking questions about infamous conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his media company Infowars — specifically, how Facebook reconciles its commitment to reducing or eliminating misinformation while also allowing Infowars to maintain a page. (Remember that time Jones claimed the Democrats were supposedly going to launch a civil war on the Fourth of July? Right.)

-----

YouTube is loaded with videos by crackpots about 9/11 being a government-sponsored attack, the moon landings being faked, the earth is flat, and countless other drivel. If you can't do what most ordinary thinking people - ignore them - then I cannot help you. You don't like what he was saying, I get it, so his being removed is totally fine. Liberals currently have the power to do such things. Doesn't make it right, but whatever, it's about their feelings.

CNN also lobbied InfoWars advertisers to remove their ads.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/03/technology/youtube-ads-infowars-alex-jones/index.html

 

[mrsir2009]

Depends on whose mouth things are coming out of. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting any kind of fairness, especially since the media and most of silicon valley are so heavily liberal. A baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple and it's complete outrage, but YouTube decides to follow its beliefs and this is completely acceptable. Some people are more equal than others. I tune it all out a little more every day.

The proportion is completely out of whack too. The gay couple were refused service from one bakery, what's the effect of that? Not much, since there are countless bakeries so they could just go to another one. Alex Jones has been refused service by YouTube, what's the effect of that? A lot, because there isn't "another YouTube" he can go to.

Of course that's the argument from effect. In terms of principals, you'd either believe in Freedom of Association as a principal or you do not. Whether you don't want to associate with someone because of something they were born with or because of something they chose doesn't matter.