Facebook removes 22 more pages connected to conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and InfoWars

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#26
Man, maybe I will set it up. There's gotta be some serious money to bilk these people out of...
God, Yes. There's a whole industry spinning out & reinforcing Right Wing conspiracy theory. Jones is one of the masters of the trade.

"There's a sucker born every minute" is at least 150 years old. I suspect it's a lot more often than that now given the population increase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_sucker_born_every_minute

Mass media & social media just let the cons be bigger.
 
Mar 1, 2000
26,844
201
126
#27
God, Yes. There's a whole industry spinning out & reinforcing Right Wing conspiracy theory. Jones is one of the masters of the trade.

"There's a sucker born every minute" is at least 150 years old. I suspect it's a lot more often than that now given the population increase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_sucker_born_every_minute

Mass media & social media just let the cons be bigger.
I'd feel bad helping support/spread their hate/stupidity. But the piles of money sure would help. Maybe I can just redirect all profits to Planned Parenthood or something :)
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
52,076
554
126
#28
I feel this needs to be posted again.


Listen up: Being denied the platform of a private company is NOT a violation of your free speech. Your freedom of speech ends at other people's private property rights.

That a so-called conservative must be reminded of this only shows you just how far conservatism has strayed from the ideals of private property and individual freedom.

free_speech.png
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#30
I think Jack Dorsey gets it and didn’t want to ban Jones and wants twitter to be a "town square" but ultimately succumbed to the pressure. Jones is a vile person but this is one of those brave new world issues we need to tackle. He was blacklisted by all of the major tech companies at the same time, that should make anyone take pause. Are they private companies and can do what they want? Yes. But there’s a much larger question of what is free speech in the digital age. What are social media companies and what are their boundaries.
 
May 13, 2009
11,686
4
91
#31
There's no point to trying to explain it to them. They already know, and are just incapable of understanding. Plus, like is this a publicly traded company? That means its public, therefore its government infringement of his Freedom of Speech!!!
You guys are hypocrites. You're all for equal rights and freedom of speech as long as it fits your agenda. Bunch of bs. Alex Jones is full of shit. Probably just an act with some truth sprinkled in here or there. He has a right to say what he wishes. It is up to the listener to decide if they want to. Blocking or not even going to his page is a simple fix.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#33
You guys are hypocrites. You're all for equal rights and freedom of speech as long as it fits your agenda. Bunch of bs. Alex Jones is full of shit. Probably just an act with some truth sprinkled in here or there. He has a right to say what he wishes. It is up to the listener to decide if they want to. Blocking or not even going to his page is a simple fix.
Please. Free speech ends where freedom of association begins. If Facebook doesn't want to give Jones a platform it's their prerogative. Well, unless small gubmint free speech conservatives think Big Gubmint should force them to give him one.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#34
The thing is no they’re not..
Yeh, let's hear it for hate speech, it's the best kind of free speech. If you're mostly interested in burning it all down, anyway.
 
Oct 18, 2005
14,156
489
136
#35
You guys are hypocrites. You're all for equal rights and freedom of speech as long as it fits your agenda. Bunch of bs. Alex Jones is full of shit. Probably just an act with some truth sprinkled in here or there. He has a right to say what he wishes. It is up to the listener to decide if they want to. Blocking or not even going to his page is a simple fix.
No one is arguing against his right to say what he wants. However no one has an obligation to give him a platform either.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#37
The thing is no they’re not..
Nonsense. Equal rights means that your rights end where the rights of others begin. In this case, one person's free speech rights are not superior to another person's private property rights. While freedom does not mean freedom from the consequences of your actions and speech.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#40
I think Jack Dorsey gets it and didn’t want to ban Jones and wants twitter to be a "town square" but ultimately succumbed to the pressure. Jones is a vile person but this is one of those brave new world issues we need to tackle. He was blacklisted by all of the major tech companies at the same time, that should make anyone take pause. Are they private companies and can do what they want? Yes. But there’s a much larger question of what is free speech in the digital age. What are social media companies and what are their boundaries.
That "at the same time" was when it became apparent that Jones had committed intentional and harmful defamation of non-public persons as the law is currently interpreted. Those persons he defamed have a suit against him which is likely to be successful.
These are private companies, and this was strictly a business decision.

Funny thing about all this is that Facebook and Twitter both greatly expanded free speech over what it what was like before. You're crazy if you think otherwise. Or too young to know better. And what Jones did is their boundary. And given that it involved viciously defaming the parents of murdered children (for years) and inciting violence to millions of people, I'd say it's way way out there.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#42
That's an issue of religious freedom, not free speech.
No, it's a matter of public accommodation. If you open a licensed business to the public, you have a legal requirement to serve the public without disparate treatment.
 
Sep 5, 2000
24,911
321
126
#43
You guys are hypocrites. You're all for equal rights and freedom of speech as long as it fits your agenda. Bunch of bs. Alex Jones is full of shit. Probably just an act with some truth sprinkled in here or there. He has a right to say what he wishes. It is up to the listener to decide if they want to. Blocking or not even going to his page is a simple fix.
he has a right to harrase people who lost a child? Remember he is making a lot of money off of infowars. Should he be able to cook up any conspiracy and damage people without any recourse? Freedumb of speech?
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#44
That's an issue of religious freedom, not free speech.
It’s one persons rights interfering with another persons rights.


How do you feel about mortgage lenders who refuse to make 'gay wedding' loans?
I don’t think making that loan interferes with any of the lenders rights that I’m aware of.
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#45
No, it's a matter of public accommodation. If you open a licensed business to the public, you have a legal requirement to serve the public without disparate treatment.

But if it interferes with your constitutional rights, no you don’t.
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#46
he has a right to harrase people who lost a child? Remember he is making a lot of money off of infowars. Should he be able to cook up any conspiracy and damage people without any recourse? Freedumb of speech?

We have slander laws and the victims are more than welcome to settle through the legal system.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#47
I don’t think making that loan interferes with any of the lenders rights that I’m aware of.
Really? So you're saying that there aren't lenders who might have a religious objection to helping a gay couple buy a house? Where that gay couple will live together and maybe even raise a gay family?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#48
We have slander laws and the victims are more than welcome to settle through the legal system.
And they're doing that. Meanwhile, the social media companies have taken appropriate steps to avoid being a part of that pending settlement.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,817
1,319
126
#49
No, it's a matter of public accommodation. If you open a licensed business to the public, you have a legal requirement to serve the public without disparate treatment.
That, too, but the SCOTUS ruled for the religious freedom of the bakers.

It's standard duh-version from UC.
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#50
Really? So you're saying that there aren't lenders who might have a religious objection to helping a gay couple buy a house? Where that gay couple will live together and maybe even raise a gay family?

Maybe. If they truly do have religious objections to it so be it. I’ve never met an LO that turned down money though.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS