Semi-OT: InfoWars accounts suspended across digital media

[Kevin M.]

Spotify, YouTube, Facebook, and iTunes... to name a few. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/technology/infowars-alex-jones-apple-facebook-spotify.html

Still allowed on Twitter, though. 

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Greg Diener]

Of course he's still allowed on Twitter that would imply that Jack Dorsey would have one ounce of courage inside his body. 

Greg

[Steve Timko]

Loved this Tweet.

https://twitter.com/joshgondelman/status/1026629178484051971?s=19

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steve Timko]

I tuned in to Alex Jones' stream for a few minutes this morning. He said Apple's Tim Cook is leading the attack on him. Is that a dog whistle way of saying the gays are against him?

He also said the Fox News owners owners won't let the Fox News hosts speak honestly about him getting yanked off YouTube and social media.

Not sent from an iPhone

[Kevin M.]

I’m amazed at seemingly intelligent writers claiming this is a free speech issue. It’s a business decision. It turns out having a guy in your establishment screaming threats and insults at children is bad for business. As others have said, if you ran a bookstore or managed an office and there was some lunatic shouting at the top of his lungs, you’d ask him to quiet down or leave. Facebook and YouTube didn’t deny him service, they suspended him after he abused the service. 

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Steve Timko]

If porn and stripping are free speech issues then Alex Jones is a free speech issue.

Not sent from an iPhone

[Tom Wolper]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:25 PM Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:

If porn and stripping are free speech issues then Alex Jones is a free speech issue.

Alex Jones still has his website where anybody can stream his videos. This is not a free speech issue.

[Kevin M.]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:25 PM Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:

If porn and stripping are free speech issues then Alex Jones is a free speech issue.

Certain businesses allow porn and stripping; other businesses do not. Both are legally allowed to make that choice. Pretty sure stripping is not allowed at Chuck E Cheese, but Mr Cheese refusing to let me play Donkey Kong with no pants is not a free speech issue; it is a business decision. 

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

Well, I think it pretty clearly is a free speech issue (though not, for the obvious reason, a First Amendment issue). Labeling it thus does not mean Facebook et al are in the wrong; free speech is not an absolute value, and we accept limitations on it all the time. I think there is a good argument to block Jones, but I think it does have to be placed within the free speech debate.

I am always worried when speech is limited (anywhere) in response to pressure from emotionally charged majorities. In a country that has historically placed the highest value on free speech, I think we have to be prepared to err on the side of too much rather than too little. Again, that does not mean it is wrong to ban Jones on FB - a good argument can be made that his poison nonsense is clearly over the line of what is acceptable.

The problem for me is that the line being used here is not clearly defined. I reject the notion that the line is whatever the loudest majority feels it to be at the current moment. I would prefer some set of concrete criteria be provided that users of social media could consider in advance. I would prefer that rather than banning Jones in toto, specific instances in which he has violated those criteria in the past are banned, and he (and everyone else) are given maybe 3 strikes in the future before they are permanently banned going forward.

What are the criteria? I am not sure - and that is what makes me nervous about this situation. Should we man all “hate speech”? I don’t even know what that is. I hate Donald Trump - having posted that on this corner of social media, should I now be banned? Use of the “N-Word” to express threat and devaluation is anathema to me, but no, I do not want to see Richard Pryor or rap music banned. Anti-semitism is appalling and disgusting, but, again, no, I do not want to see Shakespeare banned. 

Probably no set of criteria would ever be perfect - but any set would be better than a vague sense of “most of us really don’t like that shit.” Expression which is harmful or incites serious harm towards others is probably a good place to start, though that already is plenty ambiguous. Expression which is non-transparent (where the real source/funding is hidden or distorted) might also be part of useful criteria - although, for someone who signs his posts on this site as “PGage” that might seem a bit hypocritical - and at least underlines the difficulty.

Questions with easy answers:

1. Is Alex Jones reprehensible? (Yes)

2. Does Facebook have the right to ban Alex Jones? (Yes)

A question with more difficulty answers:

3. How do we protect not just the right of but the access to free expression of very unpopular people?

I think anytime anyone’s ability to express themselvs is limited (even when justified) we have to spend a lot of time thinking long and seriously about answers to question #3.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[Tom Wolper]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:50 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I think it pretty clearly is a free speech issue (though not, for the obvious reason, a First Amendment issue). Labeling it thus does not mean Facebook et al are in the wrong; free speech is not an absolute value, and we accept limitations on it all the time. I think there is a good argument to block Jones, but I think it does have to be placed within the free speech debate.

I am always worried when speech is limited (anywhere) in response to pressure from emotionally charged majorities. In a country that has historically placed the highest value on free speech, I think we have to be prepared to err on the side of too much rather than too little. Again, that does not mean it is wrong to ban Jones on FB - a good argument can be made that his poison nonsense is clearly over the line of what is acceptable.

The problem for me is that the line being used here is not clearly defined. I reject the notion that the line is whatever the loudest majority feels it to be at the current moment. I would prefer some set of concrete criteria be provided that users of social media could consider in advance. I would prefer that rather than banning Jones in toto, specific instances in which he has violated those criteria in the past are banned, and he (and everyone else) are given maybe 3 strikes in the future before they are permanently banned going forward.

What are the criteria? I am not sure - and that is what makes me nervous about this situation. Should we man all “hate speech”? I don’t even know what that is. I hate Donald Trump - having posted that on this corner of social media, should I now be banned? Use of the “N-Word” to express threat and devaluation is anathema to me, but no, I do not want to see Richard Pryor or rap music banned. Anti-semitism is appalling and disgusting, but, again, no, I do not want to see Shakespeare banned. 

Probably no set of criteria would ever be perfect - but any set would be better than a vague sense of “most of us really don’t like that shit.” Expression which is harmful or incites serious harm towards others is probably a good place to start, though that already is plenty ambiguous. Expression which is non-transparent (where the real source/funding is hidden or distorted) might also be part of useful criteria - although, for someone who signs his posts on this site as “PGage” that might seem a bit hypocritical - and at least underlines the difficulty.

Questions with easy answers:

1. Is Alex Jones reprehensible? (Yes)

2. Does Facebook have the right to ban Alex Jones? (Yes)

A question with more difficulty answers:

3. How do we protect not just the right of but the access to free expression of very unpopular people?

I think anytime anyone’s ability to express themselvs is limited (even when justified) we have to spend a lot of time thinking long and seriously about answers to question #3.

We have to recognize the differences here from mass media. Facebook and Google (including YouTube) have acquired incredible power in a short time. With all the capital and labor spent on the technical side, there has been virtually no effort to think of their roles on the policy side. Government has followed way behind as most elected officials are older and see those services as distractions for young people rather than the replacement for mass media and major drivers of the news. When these and other social media platforms were introduced everybody had rosy visions of what they could bring: connecting people by interest regardless of geographical location, sharing news in real time, getting around censorship in restrictive countries. Nobody in these companies thought about massive fraud through bots, bullying by bigots, encouragement of violence, etc. The companies set up terms of service and suspend/expel violators but that's always a gray area. Going forward these companies are going to have to come up with workable guidelines to preserve free speech principles while keeping users from being traumatized by what goes into their feeds.

The problem with Alex Jones on social media is different from what would happen on mass media. Social media is about clicks, likes, recommendations, and the role of algorithms. If we were dealing with mass media, then the Alex Jones story would be like ABC exiling Roseanne. But it's not like that. As I wrote before, anybody can Google Alex Jones or Infowars, go to his website and watch all the videos they can stomach.

What the social media platforms are doing are recommending Alex Jones based on keywords. A UNC professor named Zeynep Tufekci has been publishing, presenting at conferences, and tweeting about YouTube and polarization. If you do a YT search for a topic and find a video to watch, a list of recommendations will be in a column on the right of the video. That recommendation list is generated by algorithms. What she found is that YT's recommendations tend to be toward more radical videos.(LINK) Watch a video about the Holocaust and videos from Holocaust deniers will show up. Watch one for vegetarianism and videos for veganism will show up. Watch a news story about Sandy Hook and an Alex Jones denial video will show up. And if you have YT set to autoplay it just pops up and you watch.

So YT has to deal with this: a middle school student is given homework to do a report on Sandy Hook (or 9/11 or the moon landing). While doing research they go to YT and watch a couple of videos based on autoplay. Then they turn in a report saying we don't know if Sandy Hook actually happened. Who is responsible for the student's failure? We can look among ourselves and think the situation far fetched but we are all older, well educated, and discerning. We can't say that about tweens and teens.

[PGage]

Right - so this is a very cogent and helpful analysis showing why this is a high stakes discussion. I think  you do not emphasize enough the role of teaching consumers of this new media how to evaluate the quality and credibility of a source than I think is warranted. When I was a kid there was a lot of “fake news” in school books and encyclopedias about, say Thomas Jefferson and his relationship to slaves, or Andrew Jackson and his relationship to Indians. The solution was not to ban purveyors of that false information, but to teach people how to read more critically, and to fight the bad information with better information. Still, it is probably true that the internet makes information so easily available that a smaller percentage of those who read the information are motivated and competent enough to evaluate it.

But, even granting almost all of your point, that does not really address my point. I am not arguing for free speech absolutism after all. Given the extra power (and danger) of information on the internet, which makes regulating the most dangerous forms of information more important, we still have the problem of determining the characteristics that make certain kinds of information so dangerous that they should be prohibited (or, to recognize your point, less easily accessible)? As I say, I am very  prepared to conclude that Jones is in the Red Zone - but I also know that even if he were just in the Yellow Zone I disagree with him so much that I might be in danger of voting to ban him anyway. What I need to be more comfortable with banning (or at least discriminating against) a particular information source that I don’t like is some criteria that I am convinced can be used fairly with all potential sources of information - including those I agree with.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kevin M.]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:27 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

Right - so this is a very cogent and helpful analysis showing why this is a high stakes discussion. I think  you do not emphasize enough the role of teaching consumers of this new media how to evaluate the quality and credibility of a source than I think is warranted. When I was a kid there was a lot of “fake news” in school books and encyclopedias about, say Thomas Jefferson and his relationship to slaves, or Andrew Jackson and his relationship to Indians. The solution was not to ban purveyors of that false information, but to teach people how to read more critically, and to fight the bad information with better information. Still, it is probably true that the internet makes information so easily available that a smaller percentage of those who read the information are motivated and competent enough to evaluate it.

But, even granting almost all of your point, that does not really address my point. I am not arguing for free speech absolutism after all. Given the extra power (and danger) of information on the internet, which makes regulating the most dangerous forms of information more important, we still have the problem of determining the characteristics that make certain kinds of information so dangerous that they should be prohibited (or, to recognize your point, less easily accessible)? As I say, I am very  prepared to conclude that Jones is in the Red Zone - but I also know that even if he were just in the Yellow Zone I disagree with him so much that I might be in danger of voting to ban him anyway. What I need to be more comfortable with banning (or at least discriminating against) a particular information source that I don’t like is some criteria that I am convinced can be used fairly with all potential sources of information - including those I agree with.

I admit that I am overheated and my lungs are full of smoke and my head aches, but I still need you to explain to me how Jones’ free speech rights have been denied him? He still streams, he still has an app (why iTunes didn’t ban that, God only knows), he still has Twitter (posted today, Jack’s reasoning for that one lacks all logic), and even if you stripped him of all access to technology, he’d still be breathing scampi in somebody’s ear whether they wanted to listen to him or not. 

Free speech is an issue when somebody is denied the same access as everybody else. He wasn’t denied access; he was given it and abused it, violating the respective TOS of several media outlets who banned him. You can argue that suspensions due to TOS violations tend to be almost arbitrary if not capricious in nature, but Jones wasn’t banned for trivial reasons, and even if he was, if those reasons fell within the parameters of TOS violations, that’s that. It still doesn’t strip him of any rights. Jones does not have the right to a Facebook account; nobody does. Same with YouTube. And most people need to be dragged kicking and screaming to Pinterest, so his removal from that one doesn’t seem to be worthy of the ACLU stepping in. 

The question is one of access (both in who is allowed to post media and how many people could potentially view the media), but I don’t think there is a clause in the first amendment guaranteeing private businesses must grant access to all. Nevertheless, social media did grant Jones access, but they took it away. Again, did they do so due to mounting public pressure or merely as part of their much hyped sweep of “fake news”? Debate that all you want; I’m not seeing a slippery slope here. 

To Tom’s point, there is also nothing legally forcing digital media to coherently organize media or label it as BS or verified or whatever... it does seem as though that is what the public wants, so some sort of (I hesitate to use the phrase) ratings system will probably be utilized at some point, as well as modifications or restrictions to the algorithms determining “similar” media. But Alphabet and the others have to tread lightly, because once they are more directly in charge of the oversight of content posted on their digital media, issues of corporate liability are raised; such changes will occur slowly, and I suspect much of it will lack transparency. 

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

I too am hot and smoked out (literally coughing as I type this) from ongoing fire storms on my near horizon, but it seems you don’t need me to explain my point to you. You understand it, just disagree with it. As you say, the problem is the danger posed by how arbitrary these denial of access decisions could be. Again, I am not saying the decision to deny access in this case was wrong, only that it does (and should) raise important free speech issues. If a social media platform as influential as Facebook or Twitter was owned by a Trumper, and decided to deny access to a militant exponent of climate change on the grounds that it was associated with policies the outcome of which would weaken and threaten America’s national security, I would not be mollified by the claim that his speech was not really being limited because he could still post his ideas on a GoDaddy web page and email his friends about it.

Now, I have not read the terms of service for Facebook closely - perhaps they define “hate speech” (or whatever the reason being used to deny Jones access) adequately. All I am saying is, the judgement about the justification of denying him access has to rest on the adequacy of the criteria being used (and whether these were made clear prior to the presentation of the dangerous ideas in question). I am also saying that the strength of passion and size of the majority of those opposed to the ideas tells us nothing about whether banning (or discriminating against) the expression of those ideas is justified.

This is a free speech issue, whether or not denying him access to FB is justified. I would rather live in a world where people like Alex Jones can spread their filth than a world in which people with unpopular and even offensive ideas are not allowed free access in the common (even if not public) square. It would be nice if those were not the only two choices, and it were possible to only ban people as horrid as Jones without most other unpopular speakers - but I would like to see the case made that this is what has happened, and not just accept it because I happen to detest Jones.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:16 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

I admit that I am overheated and my lungs are full of smoke and my head aches, but I still need you to explain to me how Jones’ free speech rights have been denied him? He still streams, he still has an app (why iTunes didn’t ban that, God only knows), he still has Twitter (posted today, Jack’s reasoning for that one lacks all logic), and even if you stripped him of all access to technology, he’d still be breathing scampi in somebody’s ear whether they wanted to listen to him or not. 

Free speech is an issue when somebody is denied the same access as everybody else. He wasn’t denied access; he was given it and abused it, violating the respective TOS of several media outlets who banned him. You can argue that suspensions due to TOS violations tend to be almost arbitrary if not capricious in nature, but Jones wasn’t banned for trivial reasons, and even if he was, if those reasons fell within the parameters of TOS violations, that’s that. It still doesn’t strip him of any rights. Jones does not have the right to a Facebook account; nobody does. Same with YouTube. And most people need to be dragged kicking and screaming to Pinterest, so his removal from that one doesn’t seem to be worthy of the ACLU stepping in. 

The question is one of access (both in who is allowed to post media and how many people could potentially view the media), but I don’t think there is a clause in the first amendment guaranteeing private businesses must grant access to all. Nevertheless, social media did grant Jones access, but they took it away. Again, did they do so due to mounting public pressure or merely as part of their much hyped sweep of “fake news”? Debate that all you want; I’m not seeing a slippery slope here. 

To Tom’s point, there is also nothing legally forcing digital media to coherently organize media or label it as BS or verified or whatever... it does seem as though that is what the public wants, so some sort of (I hesitate to use the phrase) ratings system will probably be utilized at some point, as well as modifications or restrictions to the algorithms determining “similar” media. But Alphabet and the others have to tread lightly, because once they are more directly in charge of the oversight of content posted on their digital media, issues of corporate liability are raised; such changes will occur slowly, and I suspect much of it will lack transparency. 

[Doug Eastick]

I'm more aligned with Kevin on this topic and don't have much more to add than this article that summarizes my exposure to the cases of my past 30 years.

Https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.1036731

The grey sidebar summarizes my understanding.

Once you add a TOS, the company can do more restrictive things as long as they are willing to deal with the corporate reputation risk.

[Doug Fields]

Once *again*, for the people who cut 8th grade Civics too many times...the 1st Amendment grants you protection from the *government* prosecuting you for things you say.  *That* is the one and only definition of "free speech" protection granted by the Constitution.  Yes, you can say anything you damned well please.  No, you are most definitely *not* protected from the ramifications that will come as a response to what you say.  And no one else is required to help you spread your message on their property or via their platforms, as long as they're not discriminating against you for some explicitly prohibited reason.

Doug Fields

Tampa, FL

---

From: tvor...@googlegroups.com <tvor...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 6:25:03 PM
To: TV or Not TV
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Semi-OT: InfoWars accounts suspended across digital media

 

[Doug Fields]

Sorry...my mail reader broke this topic up into several different threads, and I missed the majority of well thought out back-and-forth that many of you have posted in the last 24 hours.  If I'd read those first, my response would've been a lot more reasoned and nuanced, and a lot less simplistic and flippant.

My bad.

Doug Fields

Tampa, FL

---

From: Doug Fields
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 8:11:13 AM

To: TV or Not TV

Subject: Re: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Semi-OT: InfoWars accounts suspended across digital media

 

[PGage]

No problem. But it does prompt me to repeat Some things more succinctly from my initial post that probably got lost in my long and boring elaborations:

1. This is not a First Amendment Issue 

2. It is a Free Speech issue (which goes beyond what is constitutional and legal, and goes to a broader culture of free expression, including such things as academic freedom and equal access to even private platforms). There is no fundamental legal right to “free speech” - to protection from non-governmental restriction, but the expectation that all parties will have equal access to expression in any particular forum (in the context of whatever limitations are placed on all parties equally) is an important part of a  larger free and democratic culture based on and essential for the proper implementation of the Constitutional freedom.

3. Facebook is allowed to ban Jones if it wants to (being an asshole is not a protected class)

4. The question is, ought Facebook to ban Jones? I think the answer is probably (hopefully) yes, but I think that depends on the quality and specificity of the the terms of service in place at the time. I fear the relevant terms are too vague, and lead to arbitrary and biased implementation that make room for the tyranny of the majority. The answer to the question does not (should not) depend on how many people don’t like Jones, or how passionately they dislike him.

5. It is hard (not impossible) to write specific criteria that would cover people like Jones but not people like Rush LImbaugh or Michael Moore. It is important though.

5. I don’t give a shit about Alex Jones. I do give a shit about lots of other potentially unpopular speakers.

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[Adam Bowie]

From this side of the Atlantic where free speech isn't enshrined into law the same way as it is on your side, a few other thoughts.

I'll start by saying that I think operators like Apple, YouTube and Facebook are entirely within their rights to get rid of him. I also think that he's a nasty individual that has somehow gained way too much attention (I first came across him in a Jon Ronson book and TV series many years ago, when Ronson came across him at the Bohemian Grove).

As pretty much everyone is saying, this isn't a free speech issue. It's probably being framed that way because to a certain generation, access to YouTube or Facebook is tantamount to how we communicate in 2018. 

But this is also an example of how the big tech companies are having to decide what they really are. For lots of reasons, they've been trying to take a position of not being responsible for anything. They would argue that they're just the platform and in the same way, the phone company isn't responsible if I plan a crime using the phone, they've wanted to stay out of the fray. How many times has Mark Zuckerberg tried to argue that his is a tech company and not a media company? See also why it's taken them an awful long time to come around to the idea that some of what they're doing might not be good for democracy and be misused by others.

That's harder to do now because they're such big advertising beasts. They are part of the media mix. And it turns out that big brands don't want their messaging associated with hate speech and the like. So they have to start making choices. Ideally they want to do everything algorithmically. There's too much being posted for anyone to monitor. We live in a world where Disney or Nickelodeon have many layers of checking before something makes it to one of their kids' channels. But YouTube doesn't even vet all the video that gets posted to the kid-friendly bit of YouTube.

The interesting things is that these companies tend to be quite at good at keeping some things off their sites - notably porn. Sure they also end up banning Renaissance paintings, iconic photographs from the Vietnam war, and mothers feeding their babies. But the algorithms seem reasonably good at identifying bare skin.

What they can't do is easily determine content beyond that, and more to the point, whether it crosses their virtual line in the sand about what's acceptable. Is a man behind a desk screaming dangerous or not?

In the end, I don't have a problem with any of this happening. YouTube and Facebook aren't basic services like electricity and water which we all have a right to. They get to make their own rules. If you don't agree with them, then set-up your own video hosting site. Just the same as when no publisher wants to publish your 'manifesto' you can go away and get it printed yourself. We live in an age when, for better or worse, it is easier than ever to get your message out there and find like minded individuals. There aren't half a dozen proprietors who control access to print, or four network presidents who in effect control access to public airwaves. 

Sure, it might impact on your real business of selling over-priced so-called food supplements, but that's a different problem. 

Adam

[PGage]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:22 AM Adam Bowie <ad...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote:

The interesting things is that these companies tend to be quite at good at keeping some things off their sites - notably porn. Sure they also end up banning Renaissance paintings, iconic photographs from the Vietnam war, and mothers feeding their babies. But the algorithms seem reasonably good at identifying bare skin.

So, I feel like this actually supports my side of the argument. When FB censors classic art, historically important photographs and images of breastfeeding mothers, I do feel like it is an unjustified limitation on free speech. If they want to ban porn fine, but put in the effort to make at least some distinction between that and the other important and non-pornographic representations of human nudity. And since these are fuzzy categories, be prepared to err on the side of allowing a little bit of porn so we don’t lose important aspects of humanity.

Again, I do insist this is about free speech, though it if helps you can read that as “culture of free speech” or “free speech values” if it helps distinghiush it from the First Amendment. The US Constitution guarantees speech free of government interference, but it does not have a monopoly on the values and culture of free expression, which is a fundamental characteristic of the American Idea. I know that is not true of our European cousins (I once had a long conversation with a British colleague who scolded me on the American insistence on making a fetish of free expression, which I took as a huge compliment).

I actually have not read any serious source who argues that banning Jones violates the First Amendment so I am not sure why we are hearing this being disputed so much.

[Doug Eastick]

side story.....

honest.... I stumbled across the story because I like music festivals and EDM (electronic dance music)......  I probably saw it on reddit /r/Coachella or something.

There is a DJ that got tired of youtube taking down his 60 minutes videos of his sets.  youtube (or someone) claimed copyright issues.  So he started uploading them to pornhub.com.   I didn't bookmark the video, and searching for it on pornhub is not giving me the result I am seeking to make my point, so I'll just go back to watching Big Brother now.

--

[Steve Timko]

Free speech pretty much requires an audience. It’s not really free speech if the only place you can say it is, say, in front of the Jehovah’s Witness Hall. So Alex Jones can proselytize as much as he wants from his website, but as Adam noted, “to a certain generation, access to YouTube or Facebook is tantamount to how we communicate in 2018.” Video is probably Alex Jones’ most effective way to communicate. I followed him daily for about three or four months about eight years ago and while he has crazy stuff written on his website, his absolutely most batcrap crazy stuff comes from his videos. YouTube has close to a monopoly on delivery of video, except for what Vimeo and the porn sites. So getting kicked off YouTube and trying to deliver a video message is almost like requiring someone build their own sidewalk to talk to the public.

The classic defense of free speech is Milton's Areopagitica, which argues that if truth and lies fight it out in public, truth will win. Sadly, Jones has shown that is not true. How people believe, for instance, that a school shooting was staged so someone could take away guns is incomprehensible.  But as with a lot of Trump supporters, facts don’t matter. Truth is not winning in a public forum. 

[Kevin M.]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:47 PM Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:

Free speech pretty much requires an audience.

Perhaps. But there is no legal guarantee which forces a company to provide such an audience 

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[David Bruggeman]

This reminded me that the Oscar-nominated "The Big Sick" was available on Pornhub for a time, according to co-writer/star Kumail Nanjiani.

https://www.newsweek.com/kumail-nanjiani-big-sick-pornhub-759264

This was late last year, so it may no longer be there.  (FWIW, Nanjiani said during a Conan interview that Pornhub asked if Nanjiani wanted it removed.  He declined to have it taken down, but others involved with the film may have stepped in)

David

[David Bruggeman]

So we have increased tension between the government's reluctance to meddle in what could reasonably construed as tech company monopolies and the political/cultural reluctance to set a firm line beyond which the consequences of exercising free speech are such that said speech should be restricted.  I'm not sure which option tech companies prefer least - government oversight for policing content, or market interference to allow for multiple venues for online broadcast.

Maybe a few years ago I would have supported using some framework comparable to the slander and libel laws (US, not UK) by which much of what Jones and other conspiracy theorists could say might be actionable.  Maybe it could still work for things like doxxing or swatting.  But given how postmodern we are about truth right now, it seems unlikely that appeals to the truth would do anything to address these challenges.

David

[Steve Timko]

They don't have to provide the audience. Merely a chance to reach them.

[Steve Timko]

Some Twitter content pulled after coverage by CNN.

LINK

[Steve Timko]

A funny Alex Jones update of where he is available on the internet.

Check out @JAdomian’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/JAdomian/status/1038324839856013312?s=09

[Bob Jersey]

David Bruggeman, to Doug Eastick et al, Thurs. (9/06):

This reminded me that the Oscar-nominated "The Big Sick" was available on Pornhub for a time, according to co-writer/star Kumail Nanjiani.

https://www.newsweek.com/kumail-nanjiani-big-sick-pornhub-759264

This was late last year, so it may no longer be there.  (FWIW, Nanjiani said during a Conan interview that Pornhub asked if Nanjiani wanted it removed.  He declined to have it taken down, but others involved with the film may have stepped in)

From what I've found, most of the reports about it are from February of this year, well after the pic was discovered there around Christmas Day.

A "private" search by my Facebook-using friend asked, "Did you mean 'big d*ck'?"

B

[Kevin M.]

Apple bans the Infowars app from the App Store

https://www.cnet.com/news/alex-jones-infowars-banned-from-apple-app-store-permanently/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Steve Timko]

PayPal is the latest platform to ditch Alex Jones, Infowars

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - You won't be able use PayPal anymore to buy fluoride-free toothpaste or a bottle of The Real Red Pill Plus from right-wing conspiracy promulgator Alex Jones.

The digital payments company is the latest platform to ditch Jones and his Infowars site, which along with conspiracy theories peddles "I Stand With Trump" T-shirts, Wake Up America coffee, dietary supplements and survival food.

PayPal said Friday that it cut ties with Infowars after a review found instances of it promoting "hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions."

Infowars said the move is a ploy aimed at sabotaging the site just weeks before the midterm elections.

Earlier this month, Twitter banned Jones and Infowars. Facebook has also banned Infowars, while other tech companies, including YouTube, Apple and Spotify, have limited Jones.

[Kevin M.]

A judge just ruled against Alex Jones and InfoWars. The Sandy Hook families suing them are to be given access to the financial records of the extremist organization. I’d like to see who is funding the sleezebag and look forward to seeing this trial progress. 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/families-sandy-hook-shooting-victims-win-legal-victory/story?id=60314174

[Steve Timko]

Alex Jones' depositions are online. He doesn't seem to know what he believes.

LINK

[Bob Jersey]

Steve Timko, to Kevin, March 30th:

Alex Jones' depositions are online. He doesn't seem to know what he believes.

LINK

Zuckerberg axes Jones, Louie Farrakhan, and other snots such as Milo Yiannoupoulos (didn't we report on him once?) from FB and IG.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech/facebook-ban-louis-farrakhan-infowars-alex-jones-milo-laura-loomer/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=23326906 (link)

B

[Steve Timko]

Alex Jones, Infowars ordered to pa Sandy Hook parents $100,000 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook-texas/index.html

[Steve Timko]

Some good news that got lost among all this dismal coronavirus news: Alex Jones got arrested for DUI.

LINK

[Kevin M.]

Judge rules Alex Jones is in default. Two Sandy Hook parents win their defamation case as Jones refused to comply with court instructions to turn over discovery and just generally follow basic trial rules. A jury will be empaneled to determine how much money the parents will be rewarded. 

https://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Sandy-Hook-parents-of-two-slain-children-win-16501949.php

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yzSRAeyAzWp4QXDk7SYr8AOQKKPNY1VjTGg86bLtOs3GQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Kevin M.]

After refusing to comply with multiple requests to produce discovery, Alex Jones and InfoWars were found guilty on all counts and the process has now proceeded to determining the dollar amounts to be paid to families of the Sandy Hook victims 

https://apnews.com/article/business-alex-jones-school-shootings-lawsuits-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting-154bd79946433d0b8db18dfb34906cf1

It took over a decade for this verdict. All the lawsuits pending against Trump, FoxNews, etc for the “big lie” will likely take longer. Statistically, due to his age if nothing else, Trump won’t live long enough to see any conviction. 

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Steve Timko]

Alex Jones' wife was arrested on domestic violence charge. Alex blames it on medication imbalance.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/alex-jones-wife-arrested-domestic-violence-charge-81941373

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4CQ3rDQHiHR%2B5JrzTkxGUOFQF_3%3DKRMFfaTCEHvYfQuoA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

Frankly, I ponder how anybody could live with Jones and NOT hit him, but I suppose tastes vary 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yyRse697mqhoQc4pXNN0wTjPZMxXct9EZMEtjZNBnZi1A%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Bob Jersey]

He'll go into bankruptcy first...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/30/business/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy.html (link)     B

Steve Timko, to moi, Jan 1st 2020:

[Kevin M.]

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 6:52 AM 'Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV <tvor...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

He'll go into bankruptcy first...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/30/business/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy.html (link)     B

He’s already morally bankrupt, so it would be fitting if his finances followed suit. 

Steve Timko, to moi, Jan 1st 2020:

Alex Jones, Infowars ordered to pa Sandy Hook parents $100,000 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/cfc56031-2d3b-42b1-a526-3129b08bdd45n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Bob Jersey]

After finally meeting with some of the parents, Jones has apparently dropped the hoax claim, but says that any judgment north of $2mil "will sink us"...

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/03/alex-jones-sandy-hook-attack-real-00049632 (link)     B

Kevin M, to moi, July 31st:

[Kevin M.]

Jones ordered to pay $4 million, on top of the over $1 million in fines he was ordered to pay during the trial… punitive damages still to be decided upon 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/04/media/alex-jones-trial-sandy-hook-decision/index.html

Apparently Jones is already claiming victory, that the jury sided with him since the plaintiffs originally asked for $150 million. To that I say: Wait for the punitive amount. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/cfd13c5b-7169-4220-8729-9a050fab32cfn%40googlegroups.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Kevin M.]

Jury decides Jones must pay another $45.2 million in punitive damages… of course Texas being Texas, he’ll likely only pay a fraction of that. 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/05/media/alex-jones-punitive-damages-sandy-hook/index.html

Hoping this is the start of a trend, and the voting machine companies can win the lawsuits against the right wingers who falsely claimed fraud, and any media who has suffered any threats or violence can sue Trump for calling them “the enemy of the people.” 

Also hoping the text messages the defense shared with opposing council concerning Jones’ potential involvement in the Jan 6 insurrection lead to criminal charges. 

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Kevin M.]

Nearly a billion dollars awarded to the families of the victims. 

https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-conspiracy-alex-jones-3f579380515fdd6eb59f5bf0e3e1c08f

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)