Culture Facebook, Apple and Spotify ban Infowars' Alex Jones -

Steve Mayers

Nazi Punks Fuck Off
kiwifarms.net
We all know that Facebook didn't really ban Alex Jones, and that he deleted the page himself. It's a false flag attack, Alex is just a crisis actor.
It's all a plan so everyone has to go on his shitty website wait 5 minutes for the video to load and be bombarded with ads for water filters and supplements that contain lead.
 
Reactions: AnOminous

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
The internet is this dangerous place where what I, personally, consider to be a vital public utility (access to the inernet) is being treated too much as a service that can be cut off to it's paying customers for TOS violations that any analysis of has to admit are clearly being unevenly and heavy-handedly applied against targeted groups in a way that wouldn't last 3 seconds if the same logic was used to yank my car insurance because "You might be driving to a KKK rally and we at Progressive cannot support that, and it clearly says in our TOS "no hate speech"
No one took away Alex Jones' internet access. But keep hoping for that brave new world where Kiwifarms can be fined by the government for banning some autist.
 
Reactions: polonium and Marvin

wellthathappened

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
kiwifarms.net
We should ban everyone that agrees with censoring Alex Jones over his opinions.

I mean, clearly they're okay with the idea of getting banned for bad opinions, right?
Censorship at the hands of the state is wrong. Being removed from a privately owned platform is another matter entirely.

Is it a first amendment violation to be banned from KF? Not even the ACLU would take that case.
 

Secret Asshole

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The problem is more complex than 'private corporations can do what they want'. When you get banned from every major platform for nebulous reasons or poor reasons at all, it begs the question if you can get your message out. To people. There are no current notable competitors to YouTube, Apple and Facebook. Or sound cloud and spotify. There was also an agreement that they would never allow what happened with 2018 to happen again, which means purging voices from their platforms.

It also calls into question whether these are platforms or publishers. If they're a platform, they're not responsible for user content. If they're a publisher, then they are legally liable. Can you even speak if all major platforms for it bar you from it? How will you build an audience?

There were also videos that called into question the nature of 'private'. Many of these companies were started with public money and tax breaks, as well as technology developed by the US military (GPS and the internet itself). So can they really be private?

Also this was a business decision as well as political. Alex fucking Jones was kicking the ever loving shit out of CNN and MSNBC. When a man that is mostly treated as a joke is beating your friends, it is very embarrassing. Especially to YouTube, whose dumb cunt CEO thinks they can replace TV. So they booted him. The question is will they continue to purge right wing voices or not? Especially if it benefits your business.

Also, will they just stop there? What about payment processors? What about web hosts or essential services like Cloudflare? Most, if not all, these businesses are leftist owned, far leftist. All are private companies and can defacto ban you from the net entirely. Is that ok justification for banning you for your opinion?

'Private companies' is a poor excuse, especially those with clear monopolies on speech.

Also laws are meant to protect us not just from the government, but each other as well. And when just a handful of companies can effectively silence you, the private business argument falls flat.
 

heathercho

あかんで !
kiwifarms.net
I hope Alex Jones runs for president next, on a platform of Alexa Pure filters in every home, mandatory Freedom blend coffee for every office and Bonebroth for every school lunch.
He'll be voted in for the lulz and the chimpouts and there will be not be anything sweet crisis acting, CNN tear crying @CatParty and friends will be able to do about it.

That's the future America deserves.
 

Marvin

Christorical Figure
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
If you're okay with censorship as long as it's legal, to each their own. A lot of people aren't and that number is increasing steadily.
You need to establish standards for what censorship is. The literal, strict sense can apply to literally anything. If I get a big fan and blow some pamphleteer's papers all over the place, that's literally censorship on some level. But he could also just hold on tighter to his pamphlets. The next step would be to beat him up and steal his papers. That's a more serious form of censorship. And enlisting the government to help beat him up is an even more serious form of censorship.

You have to draw the line somewhere. I'm pretty comfortable with the legal standard for censorship, with the proviso that competition is feasible.
I am very much of the same mind on this issue as others in this thread that regulating these companies is shitty (and god fucking forbid making them legally the same as public utilities), but this is a fucking problem that isn't going away and I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it's also one that is going to have something done about it one way or the other. The very least people can do is accept the fact that this is, indeed, a problem and talk about what can be done to solve it, instead of sweeping it under the rug with statements such as "oh well they didn't do anything wrong legally so why should we care?".
As a programmer, I really dislike when people argue that competition with facebook is infeasible, because to me, it's tantamount to throwing in the towel and christening facebook as the standard. I think people are dazzled by facebook's sheer numbers and they're not really critically examining the situation. I think people should think outside the box.

For example, consider the big splash that 4chan made culturally. Hell, consider the splash that kiwifarms made, as small as we are. I don't even think facebook is the cool place anymore anyway. You shouldn't confuse money with influence. They're related, but they're not the same thing. Facebook has a lot of cash in its coffers, but there's way more influential sites out there, on a pound-for-pound basis. A great example is medium.com. Medium.com is like 6 years old, has 85 employees, and yet has an alexa rank of 264 (basically it's the 264th most visited website worldwide).

That should reassure anyone of the viability of competing with a big juggernaut.

If we're going to look to a past standard, I'd say broadcast licenses. I'm willing to consider some regulation over content for broadcast licensees (like the fairness doctrine), if only because the radio spectrum is limited.

And the internet doesn't have that restriction. (And when such restrictions pop up, I'm very much against them. Like I'm disturbed at how many web hosts have dropped kiwifarms. There should be more hosts like null's or nearlyfreespeech. This is also why network neutrality is essential. Also DNS fuckery is shitty.)

To me, regulating facebook would be on par with regulating 4chan. It's vastly preferable to encourage people to hustle their own sites rather than have the government set the disturbing precedent with deciding how facebook internally operates.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
We should ban everyone that agrees with censoring Alex Jones over his opinions.

I mean, clearly they're okay with the idea of getting banned for bad opinions, right?
You have the right to be an asshole with your own property, faggot. Doesn't mean I like you being an asshole by doing something like banning me for calling you a faggot furry, but that but doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to either.

Furfag.
 

Doctor Professor Timon

Horror Cow Professor
kiwifarms.net
Censorship at the hands of the state is wrong. Being removed from a privately owned platform is another matter entirely.

Is it a first amendment violation to be banned from KF? Not even the ACLU would take that case.
They're publicly-traded companies. Heck, I might be wrong, but I'll ask someone who knows more about laws. @AnOminous

Aren't publicly traded companies held to different laws and standards than private ones?
 

AnOminous

do you see what happens
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
They're publicly-traded companies. Heck, I might be wrong, but I'll ask someone who knows more about laws. @AnOminous

Aren't publicly traded companies held to different laws and standards than private ones?
Other than having to answer to shareholders (in theory but in practice barely at all), not really. Majority shareholders control the corporation. Minority shareholders can file a derivative lawsuit based on their ownership of stock, but more or less this is limited to their economic interests, not that they morally disapprove of what the company is doing.
 

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
Is it a first amendment violation to be banned from KF? Not even the ACLU would take that case.
The ACLU started out as the legal defense arm of the CPUSA and not a hell of a lot has changed. Hell, they got so much flack from defending the Charlottesville protest that they basically said they weren't going to take right-wing free speech cases anymore. So "the ACLU won't do it" isn't particularly indicative here.

The problem is more complex than 'private corporations can do what they want'. When you get banned from every major platform for nebulous reasons or poor reasons at all, it begs the question if you can get your message out. To people. There are no current notable competitors to YouTube, Apple and Facebook. Or sound cloud and spotify. There was also an agreement that they would never allow what happened with 2018 to happen again, which means purging voices from their platforms.
"Private corporations can do whatever they want" is not, and has never been a rule, except in the fevered minds of Twitter idiots opportunistically embracing Babby's First Ayn Rand Book. I know we don't need to review the absurd laundry list of "diversity" and "hostile work environment" laws that companies have to comply with, but here's a few more examples to get the noggin joggin': Mall of America- a private company- was forced to host BLM protesters by court order on the grounds that they are a "public space." The BAKE THE CAKE lawsuits are based on the logic that, once again, these privately owned companies are "public spaces" and can't be choosy about their clientele, even to the point of compelling speech. Hell, in Marsh vs. Alabama the Supreme Court ruled that privately-owned sidewalks enjoyed First Amendment protections, and that was back in 1946; access to the public square has been regarded as paramount for quite a long time.

So, yeah, we're supposed to believe that a family-owned bakery is a "public space" that can't pick and choose it's clientele, but that a Silicon Valley behemoth of a platform worth hundreds of billions of dollars that connects a good percentage of the globe is "private?" Yeah, pull the other one, it plays Judas Priest.

The thing that really grinds my gears, though, is how these companies seem to just get a free pass with regard to every antitrust and common law consumer protection rule. How is a TOS that's seventy pages of impenetrable legalese that one party can change at any time and enforce (or not) as arbitrarily as it likes conscionable? How does processing someone's payments for years not create promissory estoppel when you wake up and decide to kick them off your site because you don't like their politics? How is FAGS getting together and deciding to remove Alex Jones from the internet not an agreement in restraint of trade, which is explicitly forbidden by the Sherman act? It's frustrating to me because Jeff Sessions could be doing the Sherman Act's March to the Sea on Silicon Valley, and instead he's chasing after the devil weed marihuana.

As a programmer, I really dislike when people argue that competition with facebook is infeasible, because to me, it's tantamount to throwing in the towel and christening facebook as the standard. I think people are dazzled by facebook's sheer numbers and they're not really critically examining the situation. I think people should think outside the box.
The trouble is that feasible isn't the same as plausible. Yes, you can design better architecture and so on and so forth (given how shit I hear facebook is these days, you could probably do that by accident) but the value was never in Farmville and instant messaging. The value is in the people, and as long as Facebook remains "good enough," there's no reason for people to switch and risk losing the ubiquitous connectivity that is the actual draw of the platform. I think that Metcalfe's law dictates that these sorts of platforms trend towards natural monopoly (though I'm no programmer, so correct me if I'm wrong) and they should be treated like other natural monopolies as a result. Given that the internet grew out of telephony, it's insane to me that phone companies have to follow rules that these clowns get a free pass on.
 

Marvin

Christorical Figure
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The ACLU started out as the legal defense arm of the CPUSA and not a hell of a lot has changed. Hell, they got so much flack from defending the Charlottesville protest that they basically said they weren't going to take right-wing free speech cases anymore. So "the ACLU won't do it" isn't particularly indicative here.
Yeah, I remember that memo. They didn't say exactly that, but they vaguely said they'd "weigh its interest" or some shit. They've still been doing free speech cases, like they defended Milo's right to advertise in the DC subway.

But it's really worrying that they'd even waver. Like, if there was a Skokie today, would the ACLU get involved?
The trouble is that feasible isn't the same as plausible. Yes, you can design better architecture and so on and so forth (given how shit I hear facebook is these days, you could probably do that by accident) but the value was never in Farmville and instant messaging. The value is in the people, and as long as Facebook remains "good enough," there's no reason for people to switch and risk losing the ubiquitous connectivity that is the actual draw of the platform. I think that Metcalfe's law dictates that these sorts of platforms trend towards natural monopoly (though I'm no programmer, so correct me if I'm wrong) and they should be treated like other natural monopolies as a result. Given that the internet grew out of telephony, it's insane to me that phone companies have to follow rules that these clowns get a free pass on.
My argument is that these sorts of sites wax and wane. I don't believe these platforms form natural monopolies because there's not one perfect mode of interaction. Interacting on an imageboard is vastly different from using a chat app, from using twitter, from using instagram, tumblr, etc.

A new mode of interaction can rise exceptionally quickly if it's appealing enough. Like my example of medium.com. In six years it reached alexa rank 253 (just checked, my old number is outdated). While it doesn't have facebook's #3 spot, that's still rocketing up out of nowhere. And it did it with 85 employees, compared with facebook's 30k employees.

Another mode of interaction that got super popular was chat. Funnily enough, that's one thing where I think facebook's power is relevant, because facebook bought whatsapp. They also bought instagram. Of course, there's a bunch of competitors in the chat world, like telegram.

Facebook's got money and eyeballs right now, but not all eyeballs are valued the same. I would imagine that value of the average medium.com reader is way higher than the average facebook user, depending on what you're trying to do. Someone's grandma who just wants to see pictures of little Timmy's baseball game is a very different marketing target than someone who reads political articles on medium.

I think there's always room to snag people away from competing services if you provide it in a novel way. Yeah, I agree it'll be hard to attack facebook on a straight social network approach. So I don't see VK gaining much ground in the US anytime soon, of course.

I'm reminded of how IBM was upended by small microcomputers. Same thing with microsoft and google. And myspace and facebook. None of these businesses ever went out of business, in fact, they're still quite powerful. But they aren't the scary goliaths they used to be. It'd be laughable to suggest they hold a monopoly on anything.

I think people might just tire of the traditional social network experience that facebook provides.
Mall of America- a private company- was forced to host BLM protesters by court order on the grounds that they are a "public space."
That's fucked. They should've appealed that to the Supreme Court.
The BAKE THE CAKE lawsuits are based on the logic that, once again, these privately owned companies are "public spaces" and can't be choosy about their clientele, even to the point of compelling speech.
Well, it's not that they're public spaces, but anti discrimination laws.

I'm ok with anti-discrimination laws, but only just barely. They should be trimmed to their bare minimum. Any time someone proposes adding a new category to the list of protected classes, it should be given lots and lots of thought.

For example, in California, political alignment is a protected class. I find that goofy. I certainly don't think it's a good idea to discriminate based on politics, but I think that's an option that a private entity should have.

Heh, and I'm amused that Cali's goofy laws like that might be what screws Google in the Damore lawsuit.
Hell, in Marsh vs. Alabama the Supreme Court ruled that privately-owned sidewalks enjoyed First Amendment protections, and that was back in 1946; access to the public square has been regarded as paramount for quite a long time.
That's dumb too, although company towns are also pretty fucked as well.
 
Reactions: Your Weird Fetish

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
But it's really worrying that they'd even waver. Like, if there was a Skokie today, would the ACLU get involved?
I'm somewhere between "no" and "oh hell no." I've seen a theory floated that they only did it to make sure their records were spotless when defending their fellow travelers. A bit conspiratorial, I'll grant you, but now that the left has given up on even pretending to care about hypocrisy, I expect the ACLU's lodestone for "civil rights" to be "what's good for the far left," even moreso than it has been in the past.

[Extremely well-reasoned argument about the rise and fall of dominant companies in the computing business.]
I think people might just tire of the traditional social network experience that facebook provides.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Your argument is substantially correct, in that no one holds a true monopoly and market forces, new technology, or changing tastes might eventually correct the stranglehold a handful of (colluding, as we now know) behemoths have on the market. Perhaps I'm impatient (or just a-logging) but it seems foolish to me to let them run roughshod over the public discourse while we wait for entropy to drop a solution into our laps. Antitrust is a thing, common carrier regulations are a thing, and common law contract protections are a thing, and I've yet to hear why exactly the these corporations possess the "get out of jail free" card they apparently do. I maintain that this is a fixable problem, if the political will to do so emerges- which means that Silicon Valley has the incentive to use all their social engineering shenanigans to stop it from happening.

I'm ok with anti-discrimination laws, but only just barely. They should be trimmed to their bare minimum. Any time someone proposes adding a new category to the list of protected classes, it should be given lots and lots of thought.
I disagree; I think that anti-discrimination laws should apply to everyone or no one- though it is a monument to how monumentally fucked jurisprudence is in this country that the Supreme Court can "interpret" "equal protection under the law" to mean "some groups can have more protections than others." The far right doesn't refer to them as the High Druid Council for nothing.

That's dumb too, although company towns are also pretty fucked as well.
Yeah, but they were the reality at the time, and short of trying to radically redesign reality from the bench (which I'm sure the Warren court would have taken a crack at, thank God they never got a similar case) guaranteeing access to the public square despite the infringement on private property that requires seems like the least-worst option. I think we're at a similar crossroads now, and have to decide if we're OK with a handful of oligarchs dictating who can and can't participate in the public square. The solutions aren't perfect, but (IMO) they're better than letting the San Francisco Bay area appoint itself Cato (and end every tweet with "the Red Tribe delenda est.")
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
The thing that really grinds my gears, though, is how these companies seem to just get a free pass with regard to every antitrust and common law consumer protection rule. How is a TOS that's seventy pages of impenetrable legalese that one party can change at any time and enforce (or not) as arbitrarily as it likes conscionable? How does processing someone's payments for years not create promissory estoppel when you wake up and decide to kick them off your site because you don't like their politics? How is FAGS getting together and deciding to remove Alex Jones from the internet not an agreement in restraint of trade, which is explicitly forbidden by the Sherman act? It's frustrating to me because Jeff Sessions could be doing the Sherman Act's March to the Sea on Silicon Valley, and instead he's chasing after the devil weed marihuana.
What if we wrote more laws to make up for all the laws not being enforced right now. Surely it will work this time.
 
Reactions: superscript
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino