5 ms·

Let's take your argument that these corporations are monopoly as truth for a moment, there are still rules. In the USA, just because we have the first amendmen

Let's take your argument that these corporations are monopoly as truth for a moment, there are still rules. In the USA, just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you're not responsible for your words. Fighting words is a thing (it's actually a term), verbal harassment is a thing, etc... Alex Jones from InfoWar sic his followers to harass the Sandy Hook victims' parents. He was free to say what he wants and then he got ban for inciting unsavory actions. To be real fair here, I'm pretty dang sure in Facebook's ToS, they have something like no porn allow. Nobody blink an eye on that because that make sense and it's probably some where in the ToS (terms of service). Yet here we got a guy that's advocating his listeners to harass people and a vocal minority of Americans are all up in arm about it. He most likely violated some rules in the ToS.

stOneskull 7y ago
that was ages ago. he has apologised for questioning sandy hook and talked about it many times, including the recent joe rogan talk. can people not make mistakes? once we're wrong, are we always wrong?
- anthony_doan 7y ago
  > can people not make mistakes? I'm sure everyone make mistakes. I'm not entirely sure if people have made mistake where they stated the the death of children were just a plot to take away guns, that those where child actors and then before I continue I would like to briefly talk about my InforWar products. Buy this rape whistle to support InfoWar. Oh where was I? Right, making money off of the dead kids. And you're saying this as if this is the only outrageous incidents he have done. I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions.
  - tortasaur 7y ago
    > I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. > Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions. Of course they wouldn't, but I don't see why this is a point you would like to make. They would face the potential for real-life backlash if any of many mobs prowling the internet noticed their comment. You can post safely because you're voicing a majority-held opinion. I'm not seeing the link between "there are people actively seeking to ruin the lives of those holding thoughts like yours" and "what you're saying is incorrect". The mob is always right?
    - anthony_doan 7y ago
      I like to think the link is that if people truly think that their discussion and what they've presented than they have nothing to fear. Nor are they willing to sacrifice their integrity for it. The best possible way of doing this would be if the person is basing this argument from the basis of good intention and good will and that they know the subject is of good. But if you can't do that perhaps deep down in side you know there is something wrong with your position. If you still believe in it you ought to have a solid argument. Not this every people make mistakes as if all mistakes are the same argument. A distracted mother caused a car accident that kill someone. A drunken driver killed someone in a car accident. Both are mistakes but they're not equal, if they were then one of them wouldn't be likely to have a harsher punishment. Having a real name forces at person to be honest, civil and actually put real effort into the discussion. I like to think the people who hides behind these fake names are more like those Klanmen hiding behind those white hooded costumes. I'm not alluding to racism but it is either because deep down inside they know they're wrong or they're not brave enough to stand on their own feet or unwilling to put effort into making a solid argument.
      - MockObject 7y ago
        > But if you can't do that perhaps deep down in side you know there is something wrong with your position. If you still believe in it you ought to have a solid argument. Or you believe you have a solid argument, but realize it's an unpopular one, and have seen others with unpopular arguments be harassed and fired for them. (How ironic that you raise this argument in a thread literally about people suffering for their unpopular arguments!) > Having a real name forces at person to be honest People can only be truly honest when anonymous, and assured safety from consequences.
  - TKWasRight 7y ago
    > I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. You seem to think that it is courageous to echo the dominant opinion that a majority of talking heads and blue checkmarks on Twitter agree with...try doing something radical like criticizing the U.S. war machine, or Israel, or endless neoliberal regime change and see how that works out for you...you'll find out you can criticize these things using your real name, but they'll be concrete consequences
    - anthony_doan 7y ago
      My criticism is that the real reason why these people aren't going to use their real name is because their opinion is rooted in hatred. That's why it's unpopular. Other thread have pointed out unpopular opinions will have get mob that's why they hide. Well let see three unpopular opinions. 1. The earth is flat. 2. A religious person going to a university with signs saying, "Gays are going to hell." 3. Bunch of people with Tiki torches chanting, "Jews will not replace us." Which one do you think will get a mob? All 3 of them. Which one is more likely to get into confrontations? The 3rd one and it's because it's coming from hate. It's the degree of hatred in the unpopular opinion that will get a rowdy mob. What exactly do these people that take these hateful stances expect? > try doing something radical like criticizing the U.S. war machine, or Israel, or endless neoliberal regime change and see how that works out for you... I have no idea what you're definition of these subjects are. But okay I'll go for it. I don't support USA being involve with the current conflict in Yemen. I know I'm a begger that's choosing, but I've recently have tried my best to not apply to companies that are directly involved in war. Israel occupation of the West Bank is wrong. UN have recognized it and it hinder the process of peace between Israel and Palestine. I have no idea what this neoliberal regime is. But it seems like you're trying to get me to spit out some radical unpopular opinion. If these things I've stated aren't unpopular to you. Then perhaps the reason unpopular opinions being unpopular is because, well, the majority of the people don't support it or hold radical views.
  - turk73 7y ago
    You think you're somehow in the right just because you use your real name on the Internet? You must be pretty young because here's what I know: It doesn't matter how your politics swing, eventually the other side comes to power and seeks to punish it's opposite. So your candor, while refreshing, won't protect you. The only protection is anonymity, as much as you can get. We live in an unprecedented era of technology destroying the very fabric of civilization. I don't know that we're going to survive this. We aren't going to survive it with any semblance of "freedom" in the Western legal sense of the word where law rules, where oligarchs don't get away with crimes while the "little people" suffer, and where there is room for individuals apart from the state. From my perspective, technology is quickly enabling despotism and it is happening faster in some places than others. The worst part is, you won't know that you were judged by something you said online ten years ago when you were a goofball college student. You won't know because they won't tell you that. They just won't hire you for the job or whatever the situation happens to be. Right now, the left is trying to blackball conservatives in the US mainly because their arguments are weak and they know the things they want to do are dastardly if they can get away with them. Like all communist revolutions, the perpetrators will stoop to murder and mayhem if they can get away with it. They have already left reasonableness and open debate far in the past and now they are seeking to consolidate power by force as necessary. This is all being done with the cooperation of big tech--Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple. These companies have all been taken over by the far left, it seems. No clue how that all happened because last I looked, SV was a bunch of anarcho-capitalists trying to upset the status quo of the world. Next time I turn around, there's a bunch of typical commies in there cozying up to China! That can't end well. I'm no fan of Alex Jones, btw. Alex Jones is controlled opposition. He is exists to get people to "look over here" to the safe distraction while the real evil plays out somewhere else.
- freewilly1040 7y ago
  It wasn’t a mistake, he did what he did quite deliberately. And yeah, not everyone deserves a second chance.
  - stOneskull 7y ago
    how do you know he questioned sandy hook deliberately? he questions a lot. and he has the right. we have the right to question. and we have the right to be wrong. you sound like a dictator - "he doesn't deserve a second chance!". he's his own boss, you're not his.
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      What is there to question? If Sandy Hook was a real shooting or not? It was. There’s nothing to question.
      - humantiy 7y ago
        There is always plenty to question. Motives being one, response being another, heck even timing. I can think of plenty of things you can question when situations like this happen. Doesn't mean they get answered or aren't the most obvious answer.
- libraryatnight 7y ago
  Alex Jones knows he's wrong from the start and does it anyway until he gets to a point where he has to either apologize or make excuses. "Can people not make mistakes?" is such a horseshit question when you're talking about Alex Jones or any of his ilk.
  - stOneskull 7y ago
    it doesn't matter. just about every media is like that. many are much worse.
    - xzel 7y ago
      I’m pretty sure in terms of larger media followings most don’t sink to the “Sandyhook was a false flag” level.
    - pas 7y ago
      could you point to a worse medium (and show some examples of its badness)?
      - turk73 7y ago
        The New York Times? Read about how the Spanish American War got started and what role the media played in it. Read about Puerto Rico. None of this is new. What is new is how far the media elite have tried to take it this time. They dropped all semblance of objectivity out of fear that Trump would become some kind of despot. Or was the real fear that unconscionable crimes would be exposed? What would the people do if they found out their elites enjoyed having sex with children, for example?
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        I suspect the "point to a worse medium" request was for a medium today, not the 1890s.
        turk73 7y ago
- speedplane 7y ago
  > he has apologised for questioning sandy hook and talked about it many times ... can people not make mistakes? Of course people make mistakes, and as adults, they should know that there are consequences to making mistakes. A stock trader that bets on the wrong stock has to deal with the consequences of losing money. A murderer who shows remorse must still serve their sentence. Similarly, a conspiracy theory peddler who popularizes false accusations needs to own up to the harm they caused. Alex Jones has harmed a lot of people in very serious ways. "I'm sorry" is not enough.
  - kgraves 7y ago
    Then what is enough then? Death?
    - maeln 7y ago
      Hyperbole don't bring anything to the discussion. The consequences was that he was ban from several services. There is also a defamation lawsuit against him. That is how it work in a lawful society. And whatever happen, yes mistake happen, and yes you can apologies. But nobody is obligated to forgive you.
      - raarts 7y ago
        If you are sent to prison at least you get out after a while. But online banning has no such provision.
      - MockObject 7y ago
        > The consequences was that he was ban from several services. He made the claims in September 2014. He's being banned in May 2019. Such a gaping delay means this doesn't really qualify as a consequence.
TheOperator 7y ago
>Alex Jones from InfoWar sic his followers to harass the Sandy Hook victims' parents. Thats a skewed depiction of what happened. What happened was the biggest conspiracy theorist on the internet ran a few articles about the hottest conspiracies on the internet (crisis actors, etc) just asking questions. Alex Jones notably believes just about everything is a conspiracy. This naturally led to people deciding to "find the truth theirselves". Alex Jones really hurt those families but I don't believe he had intent. I think he just didn't quite realise what the consequences of his actions would be. Ironically the people criticizing Jones for spreading this conspiracy have popularized the conspiracy more than Jones himself. while critizing Jones for spreading this conspiracy. Media coverage is thought to be one of the primary drivers of schhol shootings. I just don't see a great deal of consistency in the excommunication of Jones. Which isn't to say he shouldn't be banned. He's the epitome of fake news. Yet I notice how facebook itself gets away with providing a service that helps mass murder go Viral. Jones at least doesn't have blood on his hands like Facebook does.
belorn 7y ago
Harassment is illegal as is conspiracy to commit harassment. Since we all view harassment to be illegal, a case where there is evidence that a person "sic their followers" to commit harassment should be sent to the legal system, or if that fails we should make a law so that future cases will be addressed through the legal system. I think the reason we don't is simply because we want to allow speech that result in "bad" people getting harassed but not "good" people, and since different political sides define good and bad differently, what we get is platforms making the decision for us. Personally I would prefer a law instead.
ErotemeObelus 7y ago
> In the USA, just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you're not responsible for your words. Translating into English: "your words incur a great debt that you will pay dearly for." Being responsible for the consequences is just a euphemism for debt collection.

stOneskull 7y ago

that was ages ago. he has apologised for questioning sandy hook and talked about it many times, including the recent joe rogan talk. can people not make mistakes? once we're wrong, are we always wrong?

anthony_doan 7y ago
> can people not make mistakes? I'm sure everyone make mistakes. I'm not entirely sure if people have made mistake where they stated the the death of children were just a plot to take away guns, that those where child actors and then before I continue I would like to briefly talk about my InforWar products. Buy this rape whistle to support InfoWar. Oh where was I? Right, making money off of the dead kids. And you're saying this as if this is the only outrageous incidents he have done. I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions.
- tortasaur 7y ago
  > I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. > Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions. Of course they wouldn't, but I don't see why this is a point you would like to make. They would face the potential for real-life backlash if any of many mobs prowling the internet noticed their comment. You can post safely because you're voicing a majority-held opinion. I'm not seeing the link between "there are people actively seeking to ruin the lives of those holding thoughts like yours" and "what you're saying is incorrect". The mob is always right?
  - anthony_doan 7y ago
    I like to think the link is that if people truly think that their discussion and what they've presented than they have nothing to fear. Nor are they willing to sacrifice their integrity for it. The best possible way of doing this would be if the person is basing this argument from the basis of good intention and good will and that they know the subject is of good. But if you can't do that perhaps deep down in side you know there is something wrong with your position. If you still believe in it you ought to have a solid argument. Not this every people make mistakes as if all mistakes are the same argument. A distracted mother caused a car accident that kill someone. A drunken driver killed someone in a car accident. Both are mistakes but they're not equal, if they were then one of them wouldn't be likely to have a harsher punishment. Having a real name forces at person to be honest, civil and actually put real effort into the discussion. I like to think the people who hides behind these fake names are more like those Klanmen hiding behind those white hooded costumes. I'm not alluding to racism but it is either because deep down inside they know they're wrong or they're not brave enough to stand on their own feet or unwilling to put effort into making a solid argument.
    - MockObject 7y ago
      > But if you can't do that perhaps deep down in side you know there is something wrong with your position. If you still believe in it you ought to have a solid argument. Or you believe you have a solid argument, but realize it's an unpopular one, and have seen others with unpopular arguments be harassed and fired for them. (How ironic that you raise this argument in a thread literally about people suffering for their unpopular arguments!) > Having a real name forces at person to be honest People can only be truly honest when anonymous, and assured safety from consequences.
- TKWasRight 7y ago
  > I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. You seem to think that it is courageous to echo the dominant opinion that a majority of talking heads and blue checkmarks on Twitter agree with...try doing something radical like criticizing the U.S. war machine, or Israel, or endless neoliberal regime change and see how that works out for you...you'll find out you can criticize these things using your real name, but they'll be concrete consequences
  - anthony_doan 7y ago
    My criticism is that the real reason why these people aren't going to use their real name is because their opinion is rooted in hatred. That's why it's unpopular. Other thread have pointed out unpopular opinions will have get mob that's why they hide. Well let see three unpopular opinions. 1. The earth is flat. 2. A religious person going to a university with signs saying, "Gays are going to hell." 3. Bunch of people with Tiki torches chanting, "Jews will not replace us." Which one do you think will get a mob? All 3 of them. Which one is more likely to get into confrontations? The 3rd one and it's because it's coming from hate. It's the degree of hatred in the unpopular opinion that will get a rowdy mob. What exactly do these people that take these hateful stances expect? > try doing something radical like criticizing the U.S. war machine, or Israel, or endless neoliberal regime change and see how that works out for you... I have no idea what you're definition of these subjects are. But okay I'll go for it. I don't support USA being involve with the current conflict in Yemen. I know I'm a begger that's choosing, but I've recently have tried my best to not apply to companies that are directly involved in war. Israel occupation of the West Bank is wrong. UN have recognized it and it hinder the process of peace between Israel and Palestine. I have no idea what this neoliberal regime is. But it seems like you're trying to get me to spit out some radical unpopular opinion. If these things I've stated aren't unpopular to you. Then perhaps the reason unpopular opinions being unpopular is because, well, the majority of the people don't support it or hold radical views.
- turk73 7y ago
  You think you're somehow in the right just because you use your real name on the Internet? You must be pretty young because here's what I know: It doesn't matter how your politics swing, eventually the other side comes to power and seeks to punish it's opposite. So your candor, while refreshing, won't protect you. The only protection is anonymity, as much as you can get. We live in an unprecedented era of technology destroying the very fabric of civilization. I don't know that we're going to survive this. We aren't going to survive it with any semblance of "freedom" in the Western legal sense of the word where law rules, where oligarchs don't get away with crimes while the "little people" suffer, and where there is room for individuals apart from the state. From my perspective, technology is quickly enabling despotism and it is happening faster in some places than others. The worst part is, you won't know that you were judged by something you said online ten years ago when you were a goofball college student. You won't know because they won't tell you that. They just won't hire you for the job or whatever the situation happens to be. Right now, the left is trying to blackball conservatives in the US mainly because their arguments are weak and they know the things they want to do are dastardly if they can get away with them. Like all communist revolutions, the perpetrators will stoop to murder and mayhem if they can get away with it. They have already left reasonableness and open debate far in the past and now they are seeking to consolidate power by force as necessary. This is all being done with the cooperation of big tech--Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple. These companies have all been taken over by the far left, it seems. No clue how that all happened because last I looked, SV was a bunch of anarcho-capitalists trying to upset the status quo of the world. Next time I turn around, there's a bunch of typical commies in there cozying up to China! That can't end well. I'm no fan of Alex Jones, btw. Alex Jones is controlled opposition. He is exists to get people to "look over here" to the safe distraction while the real evil plays out somewhere else.
freewilly1040 7y ago
It wasn’t a mistake, he did what he did quite deliberately. And yeah, not everyone deserves a second chance.
- stOneskull 7y ago
  how do you know he questioned sandy hook deliberately? he questions a lot. and he has the right. we have the right to question. and we have the right to be wrong. you sound like a dictator - "he doesn't deserve a second chance!". he's his own boss, you're not his.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    What is there to question? If Sandy Hook was a real shooting or not? It was. There’s nothing to question.
    - humantiy 7y ago
      There is always plenty to question. Motives being one, response being another, heck even timing. I can think of plenty of things you can question when situations like this happen. Doesn't mean they get answered or aren't the most obvious answer.
libraryatnight 7y ago
Alex Jones knows he's wrong from the start and does it anyway until he gets to a point where he has to either apologize or make excuses. "Can people not make mistakes?" is such a horseshit question when you're talking about Alex Jones or any of his ilk.
- stOneskull 7y ago
  it doesn't matter. just about every media is like that. many are much worse.
  - xzel 7y ago
    I’m pretty sure in terms of larger media followings most don’t sink to the “Sandyhook was a false flag” level.
  - pas 7y ago
    could you point to a worse medium (and show some examples of its badness)?
    - turk73 7y ago
      The New York Times? Read about how the Spanish American War got started and what role the media played in it. Read about Puerto Rico. None of this is new. What is new is how far the media elite have tried to take it this time. They dropped all semblance of objectivity out of fear that Trump would become some kind of despot. Or was the real fear that unconscionable crimes would be exposed? What would the people do if they found out their elites enjoyed having sex with children, for example?
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        I suspect the "point to a worse medium" request was for a medium today, not the 1890s.
        turk73 7y ago
speedplane 7y ago
> he has apologised for questioning sandy hook and talked about it many times ... can people not make mistakes? Of course people make mistakes, and as adults, they should know that there are consequences to making mistakes. A stock trader that bets on the wrong stock has to deal with the consequences of losing money. A murderer who shows remorse must still serve their sentence. Similarly, a conspiracy theory peddler who popularizes false accusations needs to own up to the harm they caused. Alex Jones has harmed a lot of people in very serious ways. "I'm sorry" is not enough.
- kgraves 7y ago
  Then what is enough then? Death?
  - maeln 7y ago
    Hyperbole don't bring anything to the discussion. The consequences was that he was ban from several services. There is also a defamation lawsuit against him. That is how it work in a lawful society. And whatever happen, yes mistake happen, and yes you can apologies. But nobody is obligated to forgive you.
    - raarts 7y ago
      If you are sent to prison at least you get out after a while. But online banning has no such provision.
    - MockObject 7y ago
      > The consequences was that he was ban from several services. He made the claims in September 2014. He's being banned in May 2019. Such a gaping delay means this doesn't really qualify as a consequence.

TheOperator 7y ago

>Alex Jones from InfoWar sic his followers to harass the Sandy Hook victims' parents. Thats a skewed depiction of what happened. What happened was the biggest conspiracy theorist on the internet ran a few articles about the hottest conspiracies on the internet (crisis actors, etc) just asking questions. Alex Jones notably believes just about everything is a conspiracy. This naturally led to people deciding to "find the truth theirselves". Alex Jones really hurt those families but I don't believe he had intent. I think he just didn't quite realise what the consequences of his actions would be. Ironically the people criticizing Jones for spreading this conspiracy have popularized the conspiracy more than Jones himself. while critizing Jones for spreading this conspiracy. Media coverage is thought to be one of the primary drivers of schhol shootings. I just don't see a great deal of consistency in the excommunication of Jones. Which isn't to say he shouldn't be banned. He's the epitome of fake news. Yet I notice how facebook itself gets away with providing a service that helps mass murder go Viral. Jones at least doesn't have blood on his hands like Facebook does.

belorn 7y ago

Harassment is illegal as is conspiracy to commit harassment. Since we all view harassment to be illegal, a case where there is evidence that a person "sic their followers" to commit harassment should be sent to the legal system, or if that fails we should make a law so that future cases will be addressed through the legal system. I think the reason we don't is simply because we want to allow speech that result in "bad" people getting harassed but not "good" people, and since different political sides define good and bad differently, what we get is platforms making the decision for us. Personally I would prefer a law instead.

ErotemeObelus 7y ago

> In the USA, just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you're not responsible for your words. Translating into English: "your words incur a great debt that you will pay dearly for." Being responsible for the consequences is just a euphemism for debt collection.