4 ms·

You're arguing this as if the censorship you're talking about has actually happened to anyone ever. We're literally talking about Alex Jones because he's the mo

You're arguing this as if the censorship you're talking about has actually happened to anyone ever. We're literally talking about Alex Jones because he's the most extreme example, but actually the opposite is true. We have Alex Jones as a great demonstration of the most objectionable person on the internet. Is he censored? I don't know, I suggest you ask him here: www.infowars.com or listen to one of his 6 podcasts a week, or subscribe to his newsletter, or buy his Tubo Force tablets in his shop, or download his app, or his soundcloud, or his reddit account, or his Gab account, or his Telegram account, or on liveleak. The fact of the matter is that Alex Jones has more ability to braodcast his speech to people around the world than any single individual who was living before 1980.

leereeves 6y ago
> You're arguing this as if the censorship you're talking about has actually happened to anyone ever. It has happened. When Gab tried to compete with Twitter, Apple and Google banned their app. Payment processors have banned controversial sites like Wikileaks too.
- Traster 6y ago
  You can download the Gab android app here: https://apps.gab.com/application/5d3f982c9dd49a5b1d9fc881 https://apps.gab.com/application/5d3f982c9dd49a5b1d9fc881 Or visit gab.ai on your Chrome browser. Wikileaks explains the 5 different ways you can donate to them here: https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate Including about 75 different cryptocurrencies
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 6y ago
    It's still censorship if a school library bans a book even if you can still buy it from Amazon. The existence of alternatives doesn't mean censorship hasn't happened.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Of course it is censorship to remove someone because of the content they create. Plain and simple. And no, he isn't the only one by far. He was just the notorious one to sell people the practice of content controls on platforms. Since then many content creators have either been removed or demonetized. Nothing controversial will ever find a home on Youtube as a consequence. You will just get the most benign shit you will get on TV if trends fortify themselves.
- Traster 6y ago
  It's censorship to stop someone saying something, not to stop them saying something on your property. The New York Times isn't censoring me by choosing not to publish my incoherent ramblings on their front page.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    It is still censorship if you do it on your property. It is your right to do so, not the point here but still censorship. The NYT is a publisher and we did a lot of work separating the two. Currently there are ambitions to moderate platforms because those have more listeners. As I said, there are enough creators demonetized because they are just controversial. Advertisers don't like that. So what are you arguing here for exactly?
    - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
      If all publishers, persons and organizations are censoring everyone who is not allowed to use their platform/property to express whatever they want... then it seems to dilute the meaning of censorship into nothingness.
- CathedralBorrow 6y ago
  Where are you drawing that line, I'm really curious. Can you put me live on Zoom in your house so I can talk about things I like? If not, are you participating in censorship?
unishark 6y ago
> We have Alex Jones as a great demonstration of the most objectionable person on the internet. Is he censored? Oh come on there must be far more objectionable characters on the internet. Genuine terrorists and pedophiles and whatever. Or at least they would be, but they are so toxic they actually are censored by most every platform.

leereeves 6y ago

> You're arguing this as if the censorship you're talking about has actually happened to anyone ever. It has happened. When Gab tried to compete with Twitter, Apple and Google banned their app. Payment processors have banned controversial sites like Wikileaks too.

Traster 6y ago
You can download the Gab android app here: https://apps.gab.com/application/5d3f982c9dd49a5b1d9fc881 https://apps.gab.com/application/5d3f982c9dd49a5b1d9fc881 Or visit gab.ai on your Chrome browser. Wikileaks explains the 5 different ways you can donate to them here: https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate Including about 75 different cryptocurrencies
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- leereeves 6y ago
  It's still censorship if a school library bans a book even if you can still buy it from Amazon. The existence of alternatives doesn't mean censorship hasn't happened.

raxxorrax 6y ago

Of course it is censorship to remove someone because of the content they create. Plain and simple. And no, he isn't the only one by far. He was just the notorious one to sell people the practice of content controls on platforms. Since then many content creators have either been removed or demonetized. Nothing controversial will ever find a home on Youtube as a consequence. You will just get the most benign shit you will get on TV if trends fortify themselves.

Traster 6y ago
It's censorship to stop someone saying something, not to stop them saying something on your property. The New York Times isn't censoring me by choosing not to publish my incoherent ramblings on their front page.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  It is still censorship if you do it on your property. It is your right to do so, not the point here but still censorship. The NYT is a publisher and we did a lot of work separating the two. Currently there are ambitions to moderate platforms because those have more listeners. As I said, there are enough creators demonetized because they are just controversial. Advertisers don't like that. So what are you arguing here for exactly?
  - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
    If all publishers, persons and organizations are censoring everyone who is not allowed to use their platform/property to express whatever they want... then it seems to dilute the meaning of censorship into nothingness.
CathedralBorrow 6y ago
Where are you drawing that line, I'm really curious. Can you put me live on Zoom in your house so I can talk about things I like? If not, are you participating in censorship?

unishark 6y ago

> We have Alex Jones as a great demonstration of the most objectionable person on the internet. Is he censored? Oh come on there must be far more objectionable characters on the internet. Genuine terrorists and pedophiles and whatever. Or at least they would be, but they are so toxic they actually are censored by most every platform.