Do you agree with what Jimmy Dore says below?

[Juxtapose]

"Censorship is all the rage, so if you find yourself being for censorship.. uhh you're wrong. You're supposed to be against censorship, it doesn't matter if it's a private company it doesn't make it morally or ethically okay to censor.

They started banning Alex Jones because everybody hates Alex Jones. Yeah, it's not about Alex Jones but about the fuckin' principle. Now they are banning anybody they don't like, so we should have free speech laws apply to social media and social media should be turned into a public utility. Something essential that everybody has a *right* to and if you're gonna take that right away from someone they deserve a court case.

They have to have a hearing, because if you're going to take away somebody's free speech that's a constitutionally protected right, you do it in court. That is the way it should be done. So you got to go to court every time you're going to take somebody's free speech away? YEEESSSS! Banning somebody from social media and taking away their free speech rights.. there is no judicial process *whatsoever.* Went from Alex Jones to everybody. Congratulations shitlibs!"

https://youtube.com/shorts/N818ouXrCd4?feature=share

Yes.

No.

[Screenwriter]

We still have free speech. But private internet companies can decide HOW free their sites and their on-air personalities and their content are going to be.

Rogan, who's not a journalist, was sloppy about having on guests who are spreading Covid misinformation. If you have such a guest, you need to have someone on the other side as a balance so listeners can weigh the validity of the two.

If you're simply having "shock" schlock to draw listeners, this kind of reaction will happen.

As for Mitchell and Young saying they were pulling THEIR content from Spotify: that's their choice and their method of protest about having someone on the channel where their product, their music, resides. If they no longer want to be associated with the Spotify Channel, what's wrong with that? Doesn't stop Rogan from talking. I personally don't know why Rogan apologized. So he's obnoxious and not PC. That's who he is. Maybe he's a racist. Maybe he just used the "n**" term the way so many younger people use it: to mean dudes, my homies. Maybe he used it to mean disgusting people who are black.

I don't listen to Rogan because I find his show obnoxious. I didn't have to hear the Covid misinformation. But to some folk, this is a big deal. Seems overblown to me.

[Juxtapose]

That's the thing, I don't think these companies should have the choice. I think they should act like platforms and not editorialized. If they do editorialize, let us make them public utilities like telecommunication companies who are not allowed the censor or we just drive them out of business by making them a new publishers and then they are liable for absolutely everything people post there :)

Rogan is literally a more reliable source of information than CNN. He's a regular guy that does not get everything right but CNN is a malicious propaganda apparatus of the government. Anybody who trusts cable news or any corporate news is absolutely insane.

I personally don't care about racial epitheads, the less you say them the more power they have over people so it is best we get people comfortable with vulgarity and find out the true context of what people are saying.

Rogan had Dr Robert Malone on his show who is shamefully being censored. He laid the foundation for mRNA technology. Him being censored should really tell you something.

[Juxtapose]

(if some of my paragraphs are phrased a little strangely it is because of text to speech and I forgot to check it)

[MrOracle]

Joe Rogan hasn't ever pretended to be a journalist. He's not "the news." He simply does long-form interviews with people, and he asks mostly common-sense questions that most reasonable people would have, and pushes for answers to those questions. He makes interview offers to anyone who is interesting and relevant at the time, across the political spectrum. He recently had on Sanjay Gupta, who is CNN's "resident medical expert."

And the "COVID Misinformation" you are likely referring to is Dr. Robert Malone. Surely he's a crackpot, right? A podiatrist, maybe, spouting off about vaccines that he knows nothing about? It turns out that he is an immunologist, and the creator of mRNA vaccines and a leader in DNA-related vaccines, and holds 8 patents on the mRNA technology.

His crime? Not towing the line. It's a dirty, poorly-kept secret that much of the scientific community - in particular anything to do with medicine or the environment, which are highly political - is corrupt because they are heavily dependent on discretionary government funding to make a living, and any scientist that doesn't give the politicians the answers they want will find their projects and research unfunded. Since most such scientists have significant debt coming out of school and would very much like to eat and live indoors, they quickly adjust to delivering "politically convenient" results.

[MrOracle]

Dr. Malone decided that actual science - meaning facts, as best we know them - was more important than political correctness, and the government and mainstream media immediately jumped to "cancel" him as that kind of truth is a threat to the narrative.

In any event. anyone who listens to Joe Rogan is PAYING to do so, because you have to have a Spotify subscription to get his podcast, and his podcasts currently get over 11,000,000 live listens, which is SIGNIFICANTLY more than a CNN broadcast, which only gets 800,000 in prime time these days. That's why Rogan is considered a threat, and why the government wants him gone: he's far more popular because his conversations aren't just about quick soundbytes, but delve deep into the context of whatever is being discussed - things you'll never get in the news - and it changes the context and the narrative, and the government wants to be the sole provider of the narrative.

[Screenwriter]

@MrOracle Your point is absolutely strong. They are PAYING to hear Rogan. Which is why I don't hear him, but see him on some youtube vids. He is being paid by Spotify and has 11 million fans? Correct? Means Spotty is make multi million dollars of dollars because of his show. 11 million people aren't listening to Young and Mitchell daily, are they? And the people listening to Rogan are unlikely Young and Mitchell fans anyway.

Spotify is a private network. Like TCM or Netflix. IT is the arbiter of who and what is acceptable on their network and who and what should be censored. I personally don't care what Rogan has said in the past. He is who he is. The derogatory term, "n**," is given too much power by being censored. Just as books shouldn't be censored, a PRIVATE PAY NETWORK determines who and what their content is.

I'm sure controversay draws fans to Rogan. He's brash. I haven't heard what Dr. Malone said on his show, so I can't render an opinion. Since Spotify is not FCC brokered TV, I say, leave Rogan alone. Mitchell and Young are cutting off their noses to stop a cash stream for access to their music. There are better ways to protest.

But the problem is the ignorance of the actors. Private networks do not come under government censorship. This is why Mitchell and Young make money for having their music on spotty. Clearly they don't need the revenue stream because they're really rich already. But a doctor who might be spouting bad medical information and a host who isn't PC? They aren't good, but what's the big deal. Tempest in a teapot.

[CrazyGirl2]

Yes, I don’t know if it was at some point longer, but I only heard the free speech is a right, social media needs to be made a public utility (because everyone needs it) and if they wanna silence you, they need to take you to court! I agree wholeheartedly!
social media has become the new town square! That’s where people go to get their news, catch up on gossip, and talk to their friends! I absolutely believe in free speech as a human right. And I also believe that free speech is absolute! There are NO special words that should be illegal, and no group of people who are exempt from scrutiny, scorn, or ridicule. Free speech MEANS free speech. That being said, special places like gag could still exist as a private club, where there are rules governing what can and more importantly what cannot be said. I also feel that free speech is a right of adulthood, children should not only be restricted from what they can & cannot say, but as to whom may speak to them!

[Juxtapose]

I don't entirely agree, mostly with the points where you want more restrictions but all in all your point of view would get us a lot further than the status quo.

[CrazyGirl2]

You don’t think I should have the right to tell someone to leave my house if the are saying things that I. Feel are offensive to me? Because that was all I said. That small private “CLUBS” that would require membership, the members are to pay membership dues (submit a real ID) and become a member of the private club, only after reading and agreeing to any speech codes. I don’t have issue with Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and ALL major social media forums being public utilities! But even with cellphones being a public utility, where you can say whatever you want on your phone, HAM radio is run by private clubs, and if you curse on a ham radio you can be either fined by your club, or kicked out and loose access to the repeater’s. Also there is the government side (the licensing) and if you curse you can get tens of thousands in fines. It’s not censorship, you can talk about anything you like you just cannot use foul language and because any child with a decent radio scanner can hear that, the Supreme Court has upheld that many times as not violating the constitutional limit on free speech. I’m just talking about private property and private clubs.

[Juxtapose]

I just don't like censorship and I don't see the worth of censorship except in rare cases. I want to keep it as minimal as humanly possible.

[CrazyGirl2]

I totally agree, but you are pushing free speech rights (which I believe are absolute) up against property rights! I don’t know if you OWN a house, but I do, and I cannot imagine a world where I cannot order someone out of my home because they are disrespectful, rude, and obnoxious, just because the asshole cries out that I’m censoring him! Rights have to be balanced or you run the risk of the rights of one, infringing on a different right of others! You wouldn’t argue that it I bought a server and put it in my house, and created a web page with a chat feature that I could allow whoever I want on it, but I could also kick anyone off right? Well that’s what I’m saying, a PRIVATE club where if YOU don’t like the “NO F-WORD” rule, you don’t have to pay for membership. But if you do, and break the rule… you get kicked out! How is that censorship? Would you say that the trolls have a right to fill this site up with bullshit questions and annoying arguments about nothing? Or do the mods have the right to take it down b/c it violates the TOS? Eh? See? It’s not so cut and dry when you realize that w/o any rules the trolls win!

[Juxtapose]

A private blog or whatever should be private sure and luckily g@g really doesn't censor shit. I think as long as the moderators just do the absolute bare minimum on this site it is pretty cool, a lot of shit that would not fly in other websites is free here.

[CrazyGirl2]

Just think it it became a “VERIFIED USER ONLY” private club, what else we could say and post? With guaranteed NO minors in any forum other than “teens”, and mods on the lookout for pedophiles in there. No more catfish! Pink accounts would be strictly female, blue strictly male. The age would always be correct, and we could basically say whatever we wanted as long as it did not libel anyone? Not bad eh? Anyway, they won’t do that, but it’s just a thought from one free-speech absolutist to another who maybe disagree on a few details, and some minor minutiae. 😙💋

[Juxtapose]

It sounds good to me, I would much rather have you making the rules than these aging fossils that fuck over everybody else for profit.

Keep on truckin', the world needs more people who value freedom like you and I 💪😎

[CrazyGirl2]

Hey, thank my dad! He clawed his way out of a socialist shithole, where you can literally be jailed for singing a non-approved song (google: British singer arrested for singing “kung-fu fighting” + hate speech). He taught me the value of free speech, and how quickly it can all go away! So I treasure all my freedoms. I also respect the rights of others, and understand that my right to (X) ends when it infringes on other’s right to (Y). Good talk, thanks 🙏🏼 😊

[Lliam]

It's interesting how ideologues (regular people) on both sides support censoring information that they don't agree with. That is support for mind control. They are too stupid to realize that they are supporting having their own minds controlled, as well.

Who decides that certain thoughts are bad? Are we supposed to allow shrill social justice warriors silence debate? Are we supposed to allow giant, multinational corporations to hijack our liberty and control out minds?

If we allow ideas to be censored, how do we even know what thoughts are being censored? How much actual science has been censored by the inventors of the covid narrative. How much truth has been hidden by governments in order to justify war? And has anyone ever heard of CIA programs like MK Ultra?

How stupid do people have to be not to see how much harm propaganda and censorship have caused throughout all of history? Only morons "trust" people in authority rather than trusting their own powers of reason.

I have the lowest possible opinion toward those who are afraid to process information with their own brains. They are nothing but factory farm animals.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Censorship is functionally different than blocking.

I'm anti-censorship when it comes to useful information, or freedom of speech or expression, things like sciences, nature, art, technologies, opinions, etc, but I also value privacy, the 4th ammendment, and the ability to avoid those I disagree with for safety reasons.

So for example I don't want religious preachers, sports, political news articles, or gay fashion shows in my news feed, so I censor them out so I don't see them, but it's my job to decide what I consider useless info, not someone else's (unless it pertains to their own personal information, in which case they have say in the matter)

[Juxtapose]

Well in your case it would just be one private citizen cutting off contact with another private citizen. You are not the platforming anybody by doing that really.

[Exterminatore]

Yes and no. I think private companies have the right to decide what type of content they will and won’t allow including social media.


I do not support the agenda though. It is clear social media or at least FB seeks to promote left wing ideology while suppressing right wing ideology. I think what needs to happen is we need to make our own social media that will be for right wingers. There is no doubt they intend to indoctrinate the masses and use propaganda. The same with cooperations. They also have the right to decide what they will allow and not. The same as I have the right to decide if I will buy their product. Conservatives need to start boycotting Woke companies. I refuse to purchase Gillette products because of their toxic masculinity commercial and Coke products because they told their employees to be less white.


The truth is if there was honesty with all this there would be no need to silence “misinformation” while promoting views in line with left wing ideology but it is clear there is not and there is an attempt to silence certain points of view while promoting others.

[ObscuredBeyond]

They tried to ruin the entire life of a woman who'd previously had a very successful career at GameStop, all because she dared to associate once with Jeremy from The Quartering. And told the morons at GameStop that he was a "white supremacist" - a charge which makes no sense at all, for anyone actually watching his channel. Because anyone who exposes the woke cultists as frauds, they accuse of being the KKK. So pathetic. GameStop never even conducted an investigation. This woman came under fire over nothing but a baseless rumor, because eek gads she talked to him once, and didn't curse his name when doing so!

The cancel mob belongs in the bronze bull.

[RolandCuthbert]

Banning Alex Jones?

That freak claimed the parents of the children of Sandy Hook were liars and crisis actors. He claimed their children hadn't actually died. Forcing them to relive the murder of their kids over and over again. His followers, which I guess means you, harassed these parents, drove them into hiding. . . all because of the great crime of having their children murdered.

So no one silenced him. They just sued his ass into the ground.

Good riddance. I will save my pity for the families he tried to victimize.

[Chthou95]

He talked about Jeffrey Epsteins island long before the allegations came out and look how that turned out 🙃

[RolandCuthbert]

@Chthou95 He also talked about gay frogs. . and looked out that turned out.

Anyone in Jeffrey Epstein's circle knew what he was about. From Bill Clinton, to Prince Andrew, to Trump to Alan Dershowitz.

They were all on his island, used his services and they are all liars.

[Chthou95]

Can't be right all the time. But im not arguing that those dudes are just as guilty

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

I believe censorship should only happen when it's threatening to someone who intends to do harm for example President Trump told his supporters the day of Jan 6th, 2020 he ordered all of them to go find them votes that legally belong to him so I don't know if he made threats but he did cause his supporters to do harm and people died that day so we got ask ourselves about this subject and what was wrong and what was right I did not vote for Trump I supported Biden but now with inflation, high cost on foods I just bought Angus Ground meat yesterday was $10.00, will the polls show Biden way behind Trump if he runs 2024 this all remains to be seen?

[Juxtapose]

As much as I would love to apply the same standard to BLM leaders and let them rot in jail, that does not fall under incitement.

[DWornock]

Not that it will do any good because the masters have all the power and the people are powerless. Although people are giving the illusion that their vote matters, the fact is, it is almost impossible elect anyone other than local officials that is not approved by our masters.

[goaded]

They've the right to free speech, they don't have the right to insist that it's amplified by private companies (or the government, for that matter). The only people who don't get much of a say is the government.

Anyone can set up a website and say pretty much anything they like.

Remember "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump"?

[Juxtapose]

I would personally argue that the virtual world is so prevalent that social media websites are effectively the public square. One day you will see people in town hall meetings in a virtual world like a video game I shit you not.

[goaded]

Show me a public square where your average person can get a bigger crowd than the Pope. You're not allowed to set up a massive speaker system in a public square without a permit, either.

[Juxtapose]

I'm not talking about the pope or massive speakers, I'm talking about average people that would go to town halls back in the day because they did not stay in their house and play with electronics instead.

Now people debate each other electronically far more than they do in person. More and more of our lives are being moved to the virtual world.

I would prefer doing things in person but I cannot change the flow of technology.

[Juxtapose]

I do not want corporations getting to decide who gets to speak. They do not even behave as platforms should to begin with. If youtube censors a video or they put an advisory in the video for example, that is editorializing and should immediately remove their status as a platform.

[anylolone]

FTDODJT wasn't a platform, it was a glorified blog.

And you are right, if you aren't a platform and are completely and utterly liable to everything you allow to be published.

[goaded]

Nobody ever got ejected from town hall meetings for breaking the rules?

The companies aren't deciding who gets to speak, they're saying they won't broadcast certain subjects (or at least mark them as being against the scientific consensus). You can set up your own platform, and set your own policies. That's what Trump's supposed to be doing with his Pravda platform. I guarantee there's a lot of speech that won't be permitted on there. (You aren't even allowed to "disparage" the site! https://truthsocial.com/terms-of-service/ )

For that matter, when did the right to free speech become the right to free electronic speech? You can open your window and shout your opinions as much as you like.

@anylolone So if you have a platform, and someone uses it to post child pornography, you're required to leave it up or be liable for it?

Blogs are a avenue for free speech that can be read by anyone around the world, which is more than anyone ever got standing on a soap box.

[anylolone]

Not a problem as long as they are held criminally responsible for all the child porn in facebook and twitter.
After all, they are just a publisher that doesn't want some subjects in it's property taking all the traffic away from their favorite CP.

[Juxtapose]

To get ejected from a town hall should take a lot, a lot more than what it takes online. You can't really be louder destructive online though, you can't really speak out of turn. You're just putting commentary out there.

"Setup your own platform" yeah that is just not realistic for the majority of people mate.

[goaded]

Yes you can, you can falsely call people rapists or paedophiles, you can threaten them or their families with violence or death. That's not "just putting commentary out there".

""Setup your own platform" yeah that is just not realistic for the majority of people mate."
https://godaddy.com etc. Set up your own website (blog) in a couple of clicks; as long as you don't do anything illegal with it, they won't do anything about you.

[Juxtapose]

It's just words typed out man. I have gotten countless threats on my life from just playing video games. These are the type of pencil necks who are too pussy to say it to my face because they know I would immediately attack them for threatening my life.

Meanwhile in person, somebody could pull a gun out on you. Irl is way more dangerous.

Oh, a blog. How lovely, I'm sure all the 10 people who would read it would really make a difference in this country compared to all the people I could reach in a town hall or a platform.

[Juxtapose]

Big tech companies should either be made into utilities like telecommunication companies or be forced to be publishers instead of platforms because they editorialize through their censorship.

[anylolone]

Man, as I said, I'll say it again, as long as facebook and twitter is held liable for all child porn in their site, they are free to behave as publishers.
They would of course, lose everything in a second, being the single largest child trafficker and CP distributer in the world in that instance.

[goaded]

Why, exactly, do you think you have a right to be broadcast loudly around the world?

It's one thing for one-to-one communications (like telephone calls) to be relatively free of restrictions, but it's another to insist that a company provides you with a mechanism to push your messages to everyone.

[anylolone]

Why does you think facebook and twittter have the right to broadcast child porn to the whole world and facilitate human trafficking, worst, even profit from it?

[goaded]

@anylolone Of course you'd know where to find that sort of thing. There's no way they're doing it knowingly.

[anylolone]

Well, they are publishing it, then they are responsible for it.
We do not know if it's a case o malicious compliance when they remove after a long time in their site.
Specially since the software is fairly good at recognizing humans and fairly good at recognizing links.

A publisher doesn't get to say "well, it was third party, we just didn't recognized fast enough that we sent child porn to the print", doesn't even have to be child porn, can be just libel.
Way worst with human trafficking and child porn, though.

[goaded]

@anylolone How do you know they're publishing it? Have you seen it?

[anylolone]

Are you really going to play that game? I saw them admitting to doing it, their own press conferences.
www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-a-hotbed-of-child-sexual-abuse-material-with-203-million-reports-far-more-than-pornhub
https://endsexualexploitation.org/facebook/
fortune.com/2017/03/07/facebook-child-pornography/
www.facebook.com/.../
www.washingtonpost.com/.../
www.nytimes.com/.../...ion-child-exploitation.html

[goaded]

@anylolone They have nearly 3 billion regular users. That's 10 times the population of the US. Isn't your position that they should leave it all up, since it's free speech?

[anylolone]

My position is that if they want to behave as a publisher, then they are liable as a publisher.
You don't get to say "well, we didn't saw it before it went to print."

What ever they are doing is clearly not working, it's even worst than what it was.
And they clearly are particularly good with facial recognition software and link recognition, we saw it with the hunter laptop scandal and any picture anyone takes.
Facebook is so good with this stuff that you can't even speak positively about some British bloke covering grooming scandals involving a lot of Asians without epicanthic folds.
You know, the one where the rainbow police that will arrest people over a pug, that told young girls they were whores and deserved it?

Makes you wonder.

[goaded]

@anylolone I wonder what you're talking about.

[anylolone]

As I said, if you want to be a publisher, you don't get to publish CP on accident.
Your millions of "happy little accidents" make you criminally liable.

If you aren't a publisher, you get to cooperate with the law, as any platform can.
And that's how they are fucked, turns out there's more to the world than the politicians they bought.
If I'm not mistaken, twitter is fucked in india due to how prolific CP is in twitter.
www.opindia.com/.../

[goaded]

@anylolone " As I said, if you want to be a publisher, you don't get to publish CP on accident."
Yes, that's why it works the other way around. By default, the users can post what they like, and the company removes content and bans people for certain content, as they become aware of it.

You're agreeing that the company gets to decide limits on what people post, you're just complaining that they're not perfect at it. I think you're right; they should have banned Trump before 2021.

[anylolone]

If you want to behave as a publisher, it's not users, it's free lancers, it's tercerized work which you are a 100% liable for.

A publisher get's completely to decide what's published and it's completely responsible for everything published. No ifs and butts, plenty of jurisprudence on the matter.

[goaded]

@anylolone A publisher gets to read everything before it's published. Would you be willing to wait for a moderator to read each of your posts and decide whether it's worth publishing before anyone else could see it? If you want all social media to do that, fine, just expect to pay per message. It would, at least, get rid of a lot of fake news.

If they're not allowed to do anything about postings, then they'd have to leave all the unacceptable stuff up, too.

The current situation is a reasonable compromise: postings and users get removed when they're found to be breaking the rules.

[anylolone]

Actually it doesn't work like that today, plenty of publishers outsource articles.
But they do have a right to, and those social media have given themselves that right.
And no, no one would be willing to wait for moderation, but, hey, it's their choice how they run their business and their responsibility.
Clearly they are faded to die if they behave like publishers, either from moderation costs, or lawsuits, but it's their choice to die.

[Juxtapose]

@anylolone you are 100% right. If they behave like publishers then they should BE publishers.

[anylolone]

Fun thing, what those lawsuits about CP against FB and twitter argue is that even if we say they can act like this if they are on good faith, it's demonstrable that they aren't on good faith and will actively suppress reports against CP and whistle blowers.

They argue that they only moderate the minimum amount possible of CP and not in a consistent manner. As if they were in collusion with some CP producers and distributers, and acting like a corrupt cop in collusion with organized crime.

[goaded]

@anylolone @Juxtapose Hey, I'd be happy to go back to blogs and moderated-until-trusted user comments. It would be the death of this place, for a start. There's no way anyone would pay enough for advertising to you to pay someone to read your nonsense.

[anylolone]

Well, that's how interned started, goaded, my "non-sense", the internally consistent, crowd sourced, strictly logical "non-sense" is what attracted the general population to this place called internet.

And the liberty is what keeps this lowly moderated site alive, even though it has some moderation.

What attracted you guys to this place, and I remember very well from the marxist forums on IRC times, at least some at the very beginning, was CP and sharing anti-semitic content, besides advocating for violent crimes. Oh, how quickly IRC made me an anti-socialist.

What attracted people to social media was freedom and the ability to communicate, not moderation.
That's what attracted people to FB and twitter and the lack of it is what is killing them, despite the state enforced monopoly.

[goaded]

@anylolone That's a pack of lies, and I've been around since gopher was the bee's knees.

[anylolone]

That's a pack of observable truth. It's the reason TV went the way of the radio, and why the MSN are dying just as fast. Which is why any platform that's isn't heavily moderated turn "right wing", and any platform which is heavily moderated dies, that's how orkut and MySpace went the way of the dodo and reddit is basically dead.

[normalice]

The right tends to confuse "censorship" for just not being guaranteed a captive audience that will give them the benefit of the doubt no matter how ridiculous what they have to say may be. Well, i say "confuse" but they are well aware - but a scammer who acknowledges that they are a scammer can't expect to be successful.

The fact is for 40 years boycotts have been touted by right wingers as the main necissary check on capitalism. Now, predictably, they are seeking to undermine the power of boycotts. This should mean we need to revisit their arguments for capitalism, but we all know that's not going to happen - because it was a scam from the start.

[Juxtapose]

What happened to Alex Jones was not people denying him a captive audience. It was unpersoning him from the digital public square.

[normalice]

If the government did not do it then it does not fit the definition of censorship. The thing that happened to Alex Jones is the same thing that happened to The Prince of Nigeria - he was redirected to the podcast equivalent of the spam box. Where scammers should be.

Government mandated book bans, however, does fit the definition of censorship. Predictably, no one on the right gives a hoot about that, though.

[Juxtapose]

The public square is now in the digital world and the laws should change to reflect that.

Excommunicating Alex Jones from the internet is like excommunicating him from telecommunication functions such as cell phones. You wouldn't have your cell phone company censor people would you?

[Juxtapose]

And if you censor somebody it counts as editorializing so that automatically makes platforms such as YouTube shift from platforms and all the protection that brings into the same category as newspapers.

[Juxtapose]

Without the protections of being a platform, YouTube would be responsible for every single comment, every single video and so on. So they better watch their fucking ass.

[anylolone]

Great, so you are saying twitter and facebook should be held liable for all CP shared in them, like the publisher they are.

[Fuentes]

Funny lol they stopped banning people for bullying and harassment which causes more people to off themselves everyday but instead wanna bann people for saying facts or having a different opinion then others and them not liking it because others see it and agree lol it's pretty sad

[FunkyMonkee]

Only idiots and crooks hate Alex Jones because he bothers to tell the truth and that'd severely fuck up their plans!!

[Juxtapose]

Well what he did to the Sandy Hook families was despicable.

[Juxtapose]

But canceling him was stupid.

[FunkyMonkee]

Why? What did he do? Thanks to my ex-sisters my life has been completely insane the past few years and I missed anything about it.

[Chthou95]

Private companies can do whatever they want but it's still a bitch move. Just because you censor someone doesn't mean they're wrong. They do it because they don't like or agree with the comments or opinions. Gurantee you though these same people that are for censorship though are the same that would complain if conservatives tried to censor them. The left is full of hypocrisy

[Gwenhwyfar]

Rambling and obnoxious but he may have a point about social media platforms being places of public accommodation (i. e. communities) under the First Amendment. I would have to review the law in depth before I formed an official opinion.

[ninaneedshelp]

People need to grow a spine. You can't expect to say whatever you want but only hear what you want to hear. It's like when the left canceled the right and then got mad when it happened to them. Freedom of speech works both ways.

[joeldalton]

How long before they start calling Jimmy Dore alt-right.

[Juxtapose]

Oh it's already been happening. Old school liberals are often confused with the right wing because the left is so different from what it was 20 years ago it is unrecognizable.

[Juxtapose]

People are even calling Bill Maher alt-right just because he is questioning identity politics.

[Juxtapose]

And Joe Rogan is a Bernie Sanders supporter so.. yeah

[888theGreat]

I said when they banned Alex Jones and got by with it , it would the start to banning everyone else.

[Juxtapose]

"first they came for Jones, but I said nothing.."

It is good that people are waking up. This battle has been a long time coming.

[Deserter]

Yes, there's so many alternatives that are labeled as fringe or just outright ignored. There's a big world out there but most people don't see that thanks to the news.

[OddBeMe]

Yeah. So why are people trying to censor feminism or lgbtq?

[Juxtapose]

They are cowards who cannot face different ideas in the open marketplace of ideas.

[Slartybartfast]

Yeah look at Texas banning books again.

Cancel culture is hard core in the Bible belt as well.

Nothing says cancel culture like evangelicals.

[Juxtapose]

They were prevelant in the Bush era but the Bible thumpers have been stripped of most of their power. You had to use an example from Texas, a Christian stronghold.

The far left are the NATIONAL censorship kings atm.

[Slartybartfast]

The problem you may run unit is that I'm old enough to remember the massive "cancel culture" of the right during the 80's.

In also to educated to not understand that this has been going on for centuries and it's only now that things like open racism are being "censored" that the right is complaining.

They were litteraly marching for censorship after Epperson v. Arkansas !!!

Hypocrisy Thy name is Republican.

[Juxtapose]

I don't like it when anybody censors, I just think that in America the far left is the one working with corporations to censor more heavily since they are closer to big tech.

[ragooo8]

Alex Jones should not be banned. We didn't bann Neil Young at height of the AIDS epidemic when he was blaming the gays.

[Massageman]

If I sued someone every time I was "offended" by something, or didn't agree with someone else's choices, I could keep an army of lawyers employed.

[anylolone]

Don't forget, gay people in the cashier will spread you aids through the potatos, as neil young said.

[msc545]

I think that suppression of false medical and legal information is warranted. Other than that, no.

[Juxtapose]

Who determines if it is true or not?

[msc545]

That is a sticky question but if the mainstream medical opinion and the data is that something doesn't work or causes harm, that might be enough. I realize the term "mainstream medical opinion" leaves a lot to be desired. However, based on the actual DATA which we now have, we can easily say that vaccines and bleach and hydroxychloroquine and zinc do not.

[Juxtapose]

I think almost anything mainstream has been compromised in some way by the oligarchy at this point. Even an organization seemingly benign as the FDA is manipulated by oligarchs, they are practically omnipresent.

[msc545]

That is probably true but short of deporting all of these people to Mars there is not much we can do about it

[Snakeyes7]

I 100% agree