This Alex Jones Ban

a reply to: purplemer

Making blanket statements like that does nothing to address the problems of the US government. The government isn't perfect and corporations do currently have more power than they should, but to call the country a corporate dictatorship is just 100% cynicism.

a reply to: redletter

I am abhorred by censorship of both Alex Jones and Jehova Witnesses in modern society.

2 things you have said make me a scratch my head.

". And have banned the Bible."

To clarify, is it not the Jehova Witness translation of the Bible that is banned in Russia? I guess it is a bit different than most Bibles or perhaps contrary to Russian Orthodox mainstream beliefs? I also seem to remember certain Bibles being forbidden by my ex gf's Kingdom Hall (JW church), which I found interesting.


"Every cent donated to the organization goes to building buildings and making videos, feeding volunteers, housing them, and publishing literature. 100%

"ETA: Also to disaster relief efforts around the world"

When I lived with my ex-gf I watched videos from the Watch Tower Society for its members on what it does. It seemed to very clearly state that all disaster relief efforts were purely for other Jehova Witnesses around the world and not for others outside of its organization (showed clips saying "all the volunteers and those being helped were fellow JWs.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I remember no one in the family having an answer on why the watch tower society does not help others on the outside for disaster relief the same way every other religion or even large company does.

I find it odd you would mention your church contributes to disaster relief efforts world wide but not mention the efforts are only for members of your organization.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: purplemer

Making blanket statements like that does nothing to address the problems of the US government. The government isn't perfect and corporations do currently have more power than they should, but to call the country a corporate dictatorship is just 100% cynicism.

Red pill or Blue pill its your choice.


You started loosing control of the US when the federal reserve was made a private company. The same followed suit across most of the 'free world'

The truth remains the truth whatever you choose. When companies are given more power than government thn you have a real problem.

When politicians express the will of their corporate donors over the will of the electoral then you have a real problem .

You now live in a nation where wars are run by private companies.

Yes its a corporate dictatorship.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

But no one is controlling information. It is impossible to control information today except if you live in North Korea. There are plenty of YouTubers who sphew far worse crap than AJ and who haven't nor will be banned. You can still get your daily fix of alt-right fan fiction both on YouTube and Facebook. AJ can still sell hot air on infowars etc. etc.

Yes infromation is fully controled. I have watched subject wiped from the internet. What do you think your countries firewall does.

I will give you an example and leave the rest upto you. When the big oil spill occured in the golf of mexico. Back in 2010. Search results where bought up by companines and controlled by government to allow only certain aspects and news of the spill to be shared.

Who controls the algorithms that fund your information. Why out of all the total infromation is most of it hidden away so deep down you will never find it.

Those that control the infromation portals control the opinion of the masses. Its the same thing that was done with the news papers and the television. When the internet first came out there was an element of freedom. That is now gone.

There is no such thing as a "country firewall". Don't be foolish. It's technically impossible to control information today. Everyone has a phone with a camera that can connect to the internet. There will be almost 50 billion devices connected to the internet before 2020. Who can control what information 50 billion devices share among themselves?
Those companies you accuse of controling information are the very same companies that invest billions of dollars every year to make our connection faster and so more people can connect to the internet.

a reply to: purplemer

Lol "red pill or blue pill". This isn't the Matrix. You aren't enlightened to some hidden truth. You are merely exaggerating some bad situations in the country that do need to be addressed and fixed as well as letting paranoia be evidence of nefariousness.

originally posted by: SummerRain

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: redletter

These companies literally get billions of dollars of government subsidies. If they want to practice politics and ban American citizens from their platform for wrong think, they shouldn't receive a dime of taxpayer money.

Again, according to someone in a previous thread, "facebook pay the f****** bills, it's their house, they can kick whoever they want out..." And I was left wondering, how are they paying all the bills when we are the thing being sold to advertisers?

I find it troubling that people can't see the bigger picture of it. Facebook corners the market then Twitter then linked in, then pretty soon they start banning people with different opinions and after that's in effect they all start working together buy up whatever they can till one day comes when no one can say what they want because, those guys own it after all. No where left for free speech to go, then in 10 years it starts looking like China and Saudi Arabia and Iran. See what happens when Conglomerates take over?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: purplemer

Lol "red pill or blue pill". This isn't the Matrix. You aren't enlightened to some hidden truth. You are merely exaggerating some bad situations in the country that do need to be addressed and fixed as well as letting paranoia be evidence of nefariousness.

No its not the martix. I am not here to change your mind I am simply providing you with a choice and you choice is evident.

a reply to: purplemer

Actually you are carrying the thread off topic with text book conspiracy theory paranoia that I've heard on this website since I joined in 2012.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

There is no such thing as a "country firewall". Don't be foolish. It's technically impossible to control information today. Everyone has a phone with a camera that can connect to the internet. There will be almost 50 billion devices connected to the internet before 2020. Who can control what information 50 billion devices share among themselves? Those companies you accuse of controling information are the very same companies that invest billions of dollars every year to make our connection faster and so more people can connect to the internet

Countries do use firewalls. The USA tends to work differently be removing and taking down websites are servers. I i remember correct it is also the only country in the world to check peoples hard drives who enter the country. There are ways to control the flow of information and the best ways are simply to be in bed with the big search engines and social medias and that my friend is exactly where they are.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: purplemer

Lol "red pill or blue pill". This isn't the Matrix. You aren't enlightened to some hidden truth. You are merely exaggerating some bad situations in the country that do need to be addressed and fixed as well as letting paranoia be evidence of nefariousness.

I am spot on topic this is an example of corporate dictatorship. Now you do not like that term you have made that clear. You seem to have nothing more to add so why are you still tapping.= like a stuck record.

a reply to: PillarOfFire

I find it troubling that people can't see the bigger picture of it. Facebook corners the market then Twitter then linked in, then pretty soon they start banning people with different opinions and after that's in effect they all start working together buy up whatever they can till one day comes when no one can say what they want because, those guys own it after all. No where left for free speech to go, then in 10 years it starts looking like China and Saudi Arabia and Iran. See what happens when Conglomerates take over?

Yes and that is where we are already. Google is controlled along with the other big social medias and search engines. Anytopic can by scrubbed from the clearnet at will.

As I have said above this is the corporate dictatorship in which we live.

a reply to: purplemer

But it isn't "corporate dictatorship" and calling it that doesn't magically make it so.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Blarneystoner

I have made no assumptions... and you still haven't answered the question.... "what would you suggest?" Becasue YOU"RE the one harping on about censorship, Ad nauseam. So, PLEEEEAASE tell us what you think should be done.... please...

Please read back through my replies and note that I am not suggesting anything. I am simply calling it out for what it is. It is happening in lots of countries in different ways. Its the control of Internet information by the Powers that Be.

What you choose to do about that is entirely you own decision.

It's not control of the internet by the PTB..... it's capitalism. There is nothing stopping AJ from posting on his own site..

Let me put it this way.... would you want the Fed Gov to dictate to you how you run your business? Especially if the way you were being forced to do business was harmful to your bottom line?

You seem to have a lot to say about the subject so I'm curious what you think needs to be done? So far... crickets...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: purplemer

But it isn't "corporate dictatorship" and calling it that doesn't magically make it so.

OK we have Companies that are in bed with government choosing what information is or is not allowed to made available to the public on mass in a way of circumnavigating free speech.

If that your idea of democracy.. then your a funny.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DexterRiley

In the end it is the corporation's right to decide to host the content or not. Making the corporation host the content just opens up a whole can of worms that starts walking down the constitutionality path. So even if you don't like this decision you should still respect it at the end of the day.

I completely agree that these corporations have the right to decide what content they want to host. And, yes I respect their decision. Based on their values, goals, and business practices, they made a decision that they felt was right for their shareholders. That's part of the free market enterprise that I support.

Also, this is no different than a website like ATS or reddit banning you for breaking their T&Cs

I believe that every company has the right to exercise their legal rights as they see fit. However, small businesses, like ATS, have less impact on global information sharing than de facto monopolies like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

When ATS bans discussions of Nazis or Sandy Hook, that decision does not greatly affect how those conspiracies are discussed on the greater Internet. Even though ATS is a major player as a website that discusses alternative and conspiracy theories on the Internet, it does not have the monopolistic power of the big social networking sites.

So, when the social media giants take steps to limit conspiracy and alternative theory channels, a much wider audience is affected. A variety of alternative theories, some of which may even have some validity, fall beneath the radar of the general user. In essence, perhaps unwillingly, the monopolies have helped to shape the narrative and enhanced promotion of the accepted official point-of-view.

I absolutely do not believe that the government should have any part in forcing these companies to be associated with any material that violates their business practices. Trying to legally enforce "free speech" principles in the free market is fraught with danger, and likely unconstitutional.

It's up to these giant corporations to recognize their place as global information and opinion distribution services. I think they need to take that fact into consideration, as well as their business practices, when they decide to terminate their relationships with content creators.

-dex

a reply to: purplemer

Prove that Apple did this because the (Trump led) government told them to.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

t's not control of the internet by the PTB..... it's capitalism. There is nothing stopping AJ from posting on his own site..

Now thats an odd thing too. How long befre AJ falls lower and lower in the google search results. How long before the trends are manipulated from twitter (thats already here) How long before countries choice to protect there citizens from that information behind a firewall (again the case in many nations) How long before its considered and labelled domestic terrorism and the server is taken down or confiscated (thats a USA thing)

We are on that road.

The Nazis burned book the corporate dictatorship simply eradictes infromation.

a reply to: DexterRiley

But remember it shouldn't be Apple's responsibility to ensure that Alex Jones has exposure as an outlet for news. That is AJ's job. He has to market his own brand. If he doesn't do a good job and no one visits his website, it isn't Apple's fault he goes under when they discontinue his podcasts. If you as a consumer of media content value Jones' product then support him on his website. It's really that simple.

I don't value his media product and think it is full of lies and divisive rhetoric. So I don't go to his website and try not to even give him click revenue.

Posted by mistake.

second line

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: purplemer

Prove that Apple did this because the (Trump led) government told them to.

Why are you asking me to prove something that is not the case. It has nothing to do with Trump. Look at the system that remains in place regardless of what president takes the helm.

Really I am not interested in talking to you. You are not very well informed which is fine by itself. We all are in different ways. But you are not interested in looking or learning.

If you want to look at your cognitive dissonance that again is your choice.

Take care