Alex Jones and Social Media Censorship

[babe]

Calling babe and Dutch idiots isn’t defaming because it’s truth and we all (except them) know it’s true.

I realize there's no need to get too serious about your comments.

I think Dutch might not really be staying in here much, probably doesn't care much about anything here but the Jazz.

Its a good thing to let people talk whatever they think, and it's a good thing sometimes to think twice. . . .

JFC doesn't need 'net bullies on staff to keep the streets of Jazzland pure as the driven snow.... well, we're not really significant in Utah community scales. But as long as wild-eyed crazies can shout in the streets..... well maybe they do need to get online and shout down the 'net lines..... we probably won't have a guvmint that can just load us up in cattle cars, street by street in the dead of night, and haul us out to some desert camp.

Having people show up to harass you on your lawn is something Rand Paul might sympathize with. Or that congressmen Scalese from the baseball field. I know they're not children, but cry some for them too, OK.

whaddya think.

I think there's plans in some people heads to shoot up some schools with kids in them.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...ing-kids-to-carry-out-mass-shootings-n2508108

 

[Jonah]

I have a soft spot of admiration for free speech liberals and principled civil libertarians, the types that are likely to be ACLU supporters and volunteers. They are a welcome voice in these hyper-partisan times when personality and party so often trump principal. The ACLU has been around for almost one hundred years (it was founded in 1920). And it remains far and away the leading advocate and defender of the First Amendment and more general free speech issues.

Following Alex Jones’ removal from Apple, Google, Facebook and Pinterest platforms, the ACLU reiterated it’s position that social media should not censor offensive speech. Vera Eidelman, a fellow with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, has subsequently expanded on this position:

“The recent decision by Facebook and YouTube to take down Alex Jones’ content may have provided a quick solution to a challenging situation, but encouraging these companies to silence individuals in this way will backfire. Whether out of distaste for hateful speech or inaccurate content, they will get it wrong.”

We can be sure in the next decade Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, will continue to get privacy and free speech issues wrong and that Third Way liberals and establishment conservatives will continue to make excuses for them and whine the timeless tagline that what’s good for big business is good for America.

As the ACLU’s centennial approaches it’s a good time to reconsider outdated and partisan reasons for not supporting the civil liberties organization. More than ever the ACLU will be a vital voice against both governmental and corporate violations of privacy and free speech.

 

[Gameface]

I have a soft spot of admiration for free speech liberals and principled civil libertarians, the types that are likely to be ACLU supporters and volunteers. They are a welcome voice in these hyper-partisan times when personality and party so often trump principal. The ACLU has been around for almost one hundred years (it was founded in 1920). And it remains far and away the leading advocate and defender of the First Amendment and more general free speech issues.

Following Alex Jones’ removal from Apple, Google, Facebook and Pinterest platforms, the ACLU reiterated it’s position that social media should not censor offensive speech. Vera Eidelman, a fellow with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, has subsequently expanded on this position:

“The recent decision by Facebook and YouTube to take down Alex Jones’ content may have provided a quick solution to a challenging situation, but encouraging these companies to silence individuals in this way will backfire. Whether out of distaste for hateful speech or inaccurate content, they will get it wrong.”

We can be sure in the next decade Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, will continue to get privacy and free speech issues wrong and that Third Way liberals and establishment conservatives will continue to make excuses for them and whine the timeless tagline that what’s good for big business is good for America.

As the ACLU’s centennial approaches it’s a good time to reconsider outdated and partisan reasons for not supporting the civil liberties organization. More than ever the ACLU will be a vital voice against both governmental and corporate violations of privacy and free speech.

Do our laws need to be updated to protect these companies when the people they host slander and libel? I am pretty sure the people who want to sue Alex Jones have pretty big dollar signs in their eyes thinking that if Facebook, Google and Apple allow slander after being given notice by them that it's happening they could get a settlement in the many many millions of dollars.

Should these companies just pay these cases in their devotion to protecting speech?

 

[fishonjazz]

Do our laws need to be updated to protect these companies when the people they host slander and libel? I am pretty sure the people who want to sue Alex Jones have pretty big dollar signs in their eyes thinking that if Facebook, Google and Apple allow slander after being given notice by them that it's happening they could get a settlement in the many many millions of dollars.

Should these companies just pay these cases in their devotion to protecting speech?

If so then I hope someone slanders the **** outta me and I get to sue one them top dogs for millions. Be like winning the lottery.

 

[Jonah]

Do our laws need to be updated to protect these companies when the people they host slander and libel? I am pretty sure the people who want to sue Alex Jones have pretty big dollar signs in their eyes thinking that if Facebook, Google and Apple allow slander after being given notice by them that it's happening they could get a settlement in the many many millions of dollars.

Should these companies just pay these cases in their devotion to protecting speech?

Probably best to wait and see how case law develops before writing new protections that may not be necessary. Has Apple had to pay out on a single libel lawsuit? I have to say as an Apple stockholder I’m not too worried.

 

[babe]

Do our laws need to be updated to protect these companies when the people they host slander and libel? I am pretty sure the people who want to sue Alex Jones have pretty big dollar signs in their eyes thinking that if Facebook, Google and Apple allow slander after being given notice by them that it's happening they could get a settlement in the many many millions of dollars.

Should these companies just pay these cases in their devotion to protecting speech?

Actually, all joking aside, I would rather be shot in the head than go to court asking for a billion dollars in damages. Mostly I just can't stand being in court period. It's worse than being in a coffin, I'm sure. Courts are endless torture. Coffins are the end of torture.

I had an argumentative childhood. If you couldn't stand up for yourself, or elbow your way to your plate at dinner, you had no chance. I don't think slander is the worst thing ever, not even close. Being a hyper-sensitive emotional weakling just bawling because somebody doesn't treat you right would have to be the worst thing you could ever experience in life.

Having a bunch of fake sympathizers egging you on to complain about other people's stupidity would be the next worse thing, maybe.

Corporations actually aren't immortal. When they lose their capital, somebody buys out their business, assets and clientele positions. The stockholders sometimes get nothing out of the sale, but the officers have most likely bulked up their private resources quite handsomely.

So the people who make the big mistakes are not the ones to feel sorry for, but the people withn 401(k) accounts vested in the stupid corporation. Sorta makes it certain that corporations never learn, really.

The Big Platforms folks have big-pants lawyers who write legalese into the agreements you have to make to get on their platform, generally running like this: We are a public host service. We are responsible for nothing but keeping the site open for users. We may throw out any user who is just plain obnoxious in our opinion, but we are not responsible for what anyone puts in here. All of our assets are buried under six feet of concrete at an undisclosed sewage treatment plant, guarded by ten thousand hungry lawyers. You have no chance. Give up. We own you. Don't pray to the Sky Daddy, he ain't there and he won't help you. If you want to use our service, you have to agree to let us sell your information commercially piece by piece, and your firstborn son whole hog. And eventually if you are extremely fortunate, we will process you into soylent green paste and you will be served to the sex trade minors we keep in our basement, and our robots will more than replace you in the engineered titanium/frictionless TFPE coated "hearts" of our Masters of the Universe AI machine owners. It's a brave new world, and you can thank @Siro for fixing everything.

So anyway, you signed the agreement, and whatever, it's fun to have a page on fb and an Amazon paypal account.

And if it ever seems, for a fleeting moment, all too hopeless, just remember.... Courts are really the Casinos of Record in our world, and anything can happen when anyone spins the wheel.

There will always be challengers to the King of Hill.

and I say, whether real or not, the Sky Daddy is our best hope.

 

[Jazzta]

It was the s word, and has always been censored here.

Sucker?

 

[DutchJazzer]

also remmeber trump is not allowed to block people on twitter! cus free speech. but twitter can block people(ok they did not block alex jones)
but blocked proud boys, gavin mcinnis, candice owens, milo, sargon of akkad and lots of other people.


also if twitter and fb and youtube get to do as they please, congress should repeal the protection these platforms got for the sake of freedom of speech.

 

[Gameface]

Sucker?

Shenanigans?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Shenanigans?

Siekaly, censored since 1998.

 

[Zombie]

This isn’t a left/right issue at least from my perspective. And it goes way beyond Alex Jones. As Apple, Google and Microsoft become ever more powerful we need to consider how this power will effect our lives, free speech included. In ten years all three will have 3 to 5 trillion dollar market valuations at a minimum. That’s heretofore unimaginable power and reach. (If you don’t already own stock in all three as well as a good AI ETF for the long haul you’re missing out on a fortune due to power of compounding returns). The largest corporations will dominate every sphere of public life. It’s crazy not to be concerned.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but to me it seems like the issues of outsized power and influence companies Iike Google and Facebook have would be better handled as an antitrust issue rather than forcing these massive platforms to host all manner of speech whether they agree with it or not.

If a company is so thoroughly dominant that they essentially are the only avenue for public speech, that tells me they've grown too large.

 

[Jonah]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but to me it seems like the issues of outsized power and influence companies Iike Google and Facebook have would be better handled as an antitrust issue rather than forcing these massive platforms to host all manner of speech whether they agree with it or not.

If a company is so thoroughly dominant that they essentially are the only avenue for public speech, that tells me they've grown too large.

This sounds good to me, unfortunately we’re not exactly living in a strong antitrust era. The last major antitrust case to break up an existing corporation was almost twenty years ago against Microsoft and the government ended up settling the case. Close to zero chance Trump’s Justice Department files any antitrust action against Apple, Google or Microsoft.

Bernie Sanders was the last major candidate who, if elected, would have railed against corporate power, pushed for stronger antitrust legislation, and appointed Supreme Court nominees sympathetic to the breakup of corporate behemoths. Even if Trump is not reelected, his 2 to 3 Supreme Court appointees will ensure a corporate friendly court for a generation to come.

Moreover, even if the judicial climate and political will existed, under current law you can't really argue antitrust when Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook are all competing against each other in the same sphere. One would have to break out and dominate and start gobbling up the others. Problem is, the AI pie will be mind-bogglingly enormous in the coming decades with more than enough for all to become multi-trillion dollar companies. The era of super gigantic corporations is coming and with it all kinds of privacy and free speech issues due to their reach and power. So far we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg.