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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 4, 2004
12,463
463
146
#51
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.
No what @UglyCasanova is saying shouldn’t the religious under the guise of freedom of religion be able to renege on any requirements in a contract they sign without penalty that violates the teachings of the Bible, or what someone said is in the Bible or what they might feel is in the Bible.

That’s why a Christian cake maker has the right to sign a contract with the government and receive a public accommodation license but then not meet the requirements they legally agreed to.

Sort of like mortgage interest. I’m sure UC agrees that the Bible has a dim view of usury. So Christians should have every right to sign a mortgage and then have the government protect them from having to make interest payments that violate their freedom of religion.

Right?
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#52
Lol good luck with that :D

Answer would be why did you sign the Note?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#53
That, too, but the SCOTUS ruled for the religious freedom of the bakers.

It's standard duh-version from UC.
Not really. What SCOTUS ruled was that Colorado treated Masterpiece disparately because of their religion. More of a rebuke of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the case than anything else.

Duh-version for sure though, because that ruling doesn't support Ugly's position here, as much of it revolved around a private business' right to refuse to express speech they disagree with. So while Ugly agrees that a baker has the right to refuse to publish Charlie and David's speech on a cake, he's outraged that social media companies are refusing to publish Alex Jones' speech on their web pages.
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#55
To make money, that doesn’t mean they have to abandon their regions principles though. There’s tons of regulation on this as you’re aware of and mortgages have become a standardized commodity. There’s no religious symbolism involved in closing on a house. If somebody wants to dispute that and bring to court go for it, but a mortgage isn’t the same thing as a wedding cake and an honest poster would realize that.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#56
Maybe. If they truly do have religious objections to it so be it. I’ve never met an LO that turned down money though.
Except that it's not so be it. If an LO did what Masterpiece did, they would likely lose their NMLSR, and possibly face legal consequences. Fair lending doesn't have an exemption for the lender's religious beliefs.
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#57
You’re right, but they could take itvtoncourt and fight it. I doubt they’d win because a mortgage is a standardized product and a wedding cake is the creation of a very specific symbol and who the one tasked with creating felt crossed his religious freedoms.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#58
To make money, that doesn’t mean they have to abandon their regions principles though. There’s tons of regulation on this as you’re aware of and mortgages have become a standardized commodity. There’s no religious symbolism involved in closing on a house. If somebody wants to dispute that and bring to court go for it, but a mortgage isn’t the same thing as a wedding cake and an honest poster would realize that.
I am being honest. By bringing your diversion back on topic. The wedding cake is different because it usually requires the baker, a private business owner, to convey their customer's speech on their product. And the baker can decline to make a cake with speech they disagree with. Just like Facebook can decline to publish a webpage with speech they find objectionable, or in violation of their policies.
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#59
You’re right, they can. Never said they couldn’t. I said there’s a modern conundrum on how do we handle this. Jack Doresy gets it. There’s not an obvious answer that I’m aware of because as a society we are having to tackle all of these ethical issues regarding the internet and we are definitely still digesting. The size and penetration of these companies raises different ethical questions. When you’re providing a standardized product to essentially all of us what are you and should other precautions be taken? Yes there’s other options, but given the penetration of those companies he was essentially wiped from the internet for most Americans.

Not sure of the answer but I think it requires much more thought than we are giving it.
 
Oct 18, 2005
14,156
489
136
#60
You’re right, they can. Never said they couldn’t. I said there’s a modern conundrum on how do we handle this. Jack Doresy gets it. There’s not an obvious answer that I’m aware of because as a society we are having to tackle all of these ethical issues regarding the internet and we are definitely still digesting. The size and penetration of these companies raises different ethical questions. When you’re providing a standardized product to essentially all of us what are you and should other precautions be taken? Yes there’s other options, but given the penetration of those companies he was essentially wiped from the internet for most Americans.

Not sure of the answer but I think it requires much more thought than we are giving it.
Do you have a right to force a newspaper to publish any story you want them to?
 
Nov 4, 2004
23,236
509
126
#61
You’re right, they can. Never said they couldn’t. I said there’s a modern conundrum on how do we handle this. Jack Doresy gets it. There’s not an obvious answer that I’m aware of because as a society we are having to tackle all of these ethical issues regarding the internet and we are definitely still digesting. The size and penetration of these companies raises different ethical questions. When you’re providing a standardized product to essentially all of us what are you and should other precautions be taken? Yes there’s other options, but given the penetration of those companies he was essentially wiped from the internet for most Americans.

Not sure of the answer but I think it requires much more thought than we are giving it.
So your stance is that Facebook is the internet ? LOL, ok grandpa.

Was the Infowars website taken down?

When will the free market conservatives exercise their freedom to start their own social media platform?
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2004
17,758
280
126
#62
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.
I reiterate the post of mine you quoted. This has been explained to you over and over. You refuse to learn basic facts of what Freedom of Speech actually means in this country. That is on you and does not make people hypocrites for actually understanding it. Opinion has nothing to do with this. Your agenda is to be willfully ignorant.

His Freedom of Speech does not mean other private entities, be they individuals or companies, should be forced to have to convey his speech. That is not a right that he has, so you are wrong that he has that right, and you need to actually understand what that means.
 
Jul 15, 2003
71,293
556
126
#63
I think a much bigger issue is the number of Americans getting their "news" from Facebook, as opposed to specifically whats on Facebook.
 
Nov 4, 2004
23,236
509
126
#64
I think a much bigger issue is the number of Americans getting their "news" from Facebook, as opposed to specifically whats on Facebook.
Yea, this is a much bigger issue. American's need to remember that there is actual fake news out there, and it's easily disseminated via social media, with very little filtering. Facebook has overall not adhered to their own TOS and booting accounts violating it. So now, when they finally do, concern trolls come out to play.
 
Oct 18, 2005
14,156
489
136
#65
I reiterate the post of mine you quoted. This has been explained to you over and over. You refuse to learn basic facts of what Freedom of Speech actually means in this country. That is on you and does not make people hypocrites for actually understanding it. Opinion has nothing to do with this. Your agenda is to be willfully ignorant.

His Freedom of Speech does not mean other private entities, be they individuals or companies, should be forced to have to convey his speech. That is not a right that he has, so you are wrong that he has that right, and you need to actually understand what that means.
Its funny these same people are not arguing for TV stations, radio stations, or newspapers to be required to carry anyone's content. The internet is merely the mass communication medium of our day, it doesn't magically cause property rights to be thrown out.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,758
280
126
#66
Its funny these same people are not arguing for TV stations, radio stations, or newspapers to be required to carry anyone's content. The internet is merely the mass communication medium of our day, it doesn't magically cause property rights to be thrown out.
Many of them have been arguing for that, its why Fox News was created (to cater to them, or rather make money from them being useful idiots), and they've been bitching about liberal media for decades. And its why they've been trying to force "teach the controversy" type of shit, they want an equal number of climate deniers as climate scientists involved in any discussion, they want kids to learn about the Bible along with Evolution, etc.
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,001
639
126
#67
Its funny these same people are not arguing for TV stations, radio stations, or newspapers to be required to carry anyone's content. The internet is merely the mass communication medium of our day, it doesn't magically cause property rights to be thrown out.

What if ATT, Sprint, etc all got together to collectively ban person X from using their networks? As a society would we want that to happen? Social media on the internet has its own unique questions and challenges that we haven’t figured out yet. In a quest to be right some of you are oversimplying a complex question.
 
Nov 4, 2004
23,236
509
126
#68
What if ATT, Sprint, etc all got together to collectively ban person X from using their networks? As a society would we want that to happen? Social media on the internet has its own unique questions and challenges that we haven’t figured out yet. In a quest to be right some of you are oversimplying a complex question.
Facebook is not an ISP. This is a favorite what if diversion based on gross misunderstanding of how the technologies work.

In a quest to divert, you regularly use what ifs that conflate issues.

But, here's my take. ISP's should not be able to ban people for exercising free speech. I vote for that, I email my reps for that. The thing is, you didn't. Hope you like your burn it down FCC.
 
Oct 18, 2005
14,156
489
136
#69
Social media on the internet has its own unique questions and challenges that we haven’t figured out yet. In a quest to be right some of you are oversimplying a complex question.
I believe common carrier status applies to the companies you mentioned.

Social media has nothing unique, its merely another form of mass communication owned by private companies. Just as no TV station, radio station, or news paper is required to provided you with a platform to share your views privately owned social media companies are the same. These issues were addressed literally centuries ago in a way that the underlying technology does not matter. I you want to put your views into a given communications medium you always have the option of starting your own radio station, TV station (see fox news), or newspaper.

You're basically trying to make the same dumb argument that patent trolls have done for the last 15 years take a basic long standing idea and throw + internet or + social media on it and declare it as something completely new.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,907
1,250
136
#70
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.
I think these questions are being answered for you in real time. Of course, I suspect the answers will long be here and you'll still be standing on the sidelines demanding that we keep asking these questions. :D
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,907
1,250
136
#71
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?
I think of Alex Jones as Charles Manson. His brainless followers are little Jones Family bots, and they've been marching in legion tormenting the Sandy Hook families only because of what Alex Jones has commanded them to do. How is any of this freedom of speech, and was Manson unjustly prosecuted if Alex Jones is free to do what he does?
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,463
463
146
#72
What if ATT, Sprint, etc all got together to collectively ban person X from using their networks? As a society would we want that to happen? Social media on the internet has its own unique questions and challenges that we haven’t figured out yet. In a quest to be right some of you are oversimplying a complex question.
Well when Net Neutrality was in effect that would have been illegal. But Ajit Pai and the other republicans on the FCC board have classified ISPs as information services

Definition:
The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information viatelecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of atelecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0104/FCC-17-166A1.pdf

If they had remained as telecommunications services then the ISPs would have been considered common carriers and would have to carry information from any source.

Now you maybe asking yourself if an information service is carried via telecommunications and ISPs are NOT telecommunications services how are they transmitting their information service to you and other users?

Well the republicans have determined this ruling is in the best interests of corporate freedom for the ISPs to determine what may be transmitted over the internet, who may do so and how much you will pay. So there’s no reason to concern yourself over it.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
#73
I think of Alex Jones as Charles Manson. His brainless followers are little Jones Family bots, and they've been marching in legion tormenting the Sandy Hook families only because of what Alex Jones has commanded them to do. How is any of this freedom of speech, and was Manson unjustly prosecuted if Alex Jones is free to do what he does?
This is not an unfair comparison. The Sandy Hook killer was an infowarrior. The Umpqua killer was an infowarrior. The Suntrust bank killer just last month was an infowarrior. And there's more.
Jones pumps his impressionable viewers full of hate and lies, chemtrails and 'liberals want a civil war,' and then when one of them snaps from his irresponsible propaganda, then it's 'crisis actors' and so forth.

And now we have 'conservatives' demanding a 'right' to use others' private property to broadcast their 'free speech.' The same 'conservatives,' as was demonstrated earlier in thread, who feel that a baker shouldn't have to bake a cake because he's doesn't agree with a cake that says 'Adam and Steve.' But if you're a webpage that doesn't want to publish inciteful speech that has led to mass murders, that has defamed the victims of those murders, then those 'conservatives' believe their 'free speech' means you have no rights at all.
 
Last edited:
May 13, 2009
11,686
4
91
#74
Wut? So listening to his show makes people serial killers? I've listened to his show some and mostly just found it funny. It's obviously a bit. If those people were infowars listeners then it was a coincidence not the reason they became murderers.
 
Nov 4, 2004
23,236
509
126
#75
Wut? So listening to his show makes people serial killers? I've listened to his show some and mostly just found it funny. It's obviously a bit. If those people were infowars listeners then it was a coincidence not the reason they became murderers.
So should Facebook even have a TOS in your opinion?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS