Well it's kind of funny how all of a sudden everyone is realising that this guy who has been doing the same shit for so long is just now violating their guidelines.
Well it's kind of funny how all of a sudden everyone is realising that this guy who has been doing the same shit for so long is just now violating their guidelines.
I'm sure any sane person can guess why it took them so long - He was bringing in enough money and views that the trouble to them was worth it - until it wasn't.
Well it's kind of funny how all of a sudden everyone is realising that this guy who has been doing the same shit for so long is just now violating their guidelines.
I'm sure any sane person can guess why it took them so long - He was bringing in enough money and views that the trouble to them was worth it - until it wasn't.
Best comment on the thread. We can discuss principles ad nauseam, but the only thing that matters to this decisions is the public perception of the company and how that affects the revenue. The...
Best comment on the thread. We can discuss principles ad nauseam, but the only thing that matters to this decisions is the public perception of the company and how that affects the revenue. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
The fact that several companies have done this all at once without (as far as I'm aware) some kind of trigger event suggests coordination. I wonder if this will be the start of much more overt...
The fact that several companies have done this all at once without (as far as I'm aware) some kind of trigger event suggests coordination.
I wonder if this will be the start of much more overt attempts at controlling the popular narratives from Alphabet, Apple and Facebook.
I think the trigger may have been his fairly recent threat towards Robert Mueller. As far as I know that was the only line he hadn't previously crossed, although I may well be wrong about that.
I think the trigger may have been his fairly recent threat towards Robert Mueller. As far as I know that was the only line he hadn't previously crossed, although I may well be wrong about that.
In my mind it makes sense that other companies follow suit after onemakes the initial banning decision - so as not to be seen as proliferating Jones's hate (though they've all done this without...
In my mind it makes sense that other companies follow suit after onemakes the initial banning decision - so as not to be seen as proliferating Jones's hate (though they've all done this without question for years).
I think Google is trying to balance both extremes and make as much money as possible. People have been complaining for years about Jones, but the collective outrage just wasn't there until now....
I think Google is trying to balance both extremes and make as much money as possible. People have been complaining for years about Jones, but the collective outrage just wasn't there until now. It's always a dam breaking situation with YouTube; where an issue grows for years until it blows up in their face. They definitely deserve the criticism.
So I know nothing about him, I assume the decision is justified, but ignoring the reasoning for the termination; I don't feel like YouTube terminating his account because of what he was doing on...
So I know nothing about him, I assume the decision is justified, but ignoring the reasoning for the termination;
...Jones was prohibited from using his channel to conduct live broadcasts for 90 days. But he continued to live stream on other platforms, leading YouTube to terminate his account.
I don't feel like YouTube terminating his account because of what he was doing on other platforms is right. They have no right to police what he does in the rest of his life. What he does on their website should be the only thing that is taken into account when banning him.
EDIT: sorry, didnt mean for this to turn into a massive battle.
I do want to make it clear that I know nothing about Jones or the content he has created. I obviously am not supporting said content and not saying that he should not have been banned. Obviously his content is controversial and people have strong feelings about it.
I was just commenting on the fact that YouTube taking action against a user, any user, for content created on other websites that have nothing to do with YouTube seems wrong to me.
Well, let's start with the fact that he argued on his radio program that the parents of kids that were killed in a school shooting were paid "crisis actors", and had not really lost any children...
So I know nothing about him
Well, let's start with the fact that he argued on his radio program that the parents of kids that were killed in a school shooting were paid "crisis actors", and had not really lost any children in a school shooting. Guess how the people who listened to his program responded. Go on, guess. At least one threatened to kill one of the parents of a dead child.
Or, let's try "pizzagate". In short, Alex Jones and others repeated a line that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex trafficking ring in the basement of a Washington, DC pizzeria. That incidentally, had no basement. One of the people who listened to this drivel actually went to the pizzeria and shot it up. I think he killed people.
There is a similar claim that the government is running a child sex trafficking ring on Mars.
Mind you, when accused in court of some of this as part of his divorce proceeding, he claimed that it was all an act.
He conveniently never makes that distinction clear in his broadcasts.
Why do we allow people to pump out this drivel? It's as if we are egging on the less intelligent sectors of the population.
I don't feel like YouTube terminating his account because of what he was doing on other platforms is right. They have no right to police what he does in the rest of his life. What he does on their website should be the only thing that is taken into account when banning him.
I disagree. Alex Jones has made a common public persona, and any company or person should be able to look at that in its entirety, not just whatever slice of that persona he shares on a specific site.
Again, I know nothing about him and don't desire to actually learn anything about him. I do not care about the politics of the situation or his content. I am just looking at the precedent a...
Again, I know nothing about him and don't desire to actually learn anything about him. I do not care about the politics of the situation or his content. I am just looking at the precedent a decision like that sets. I am not trying to discuss his content.
Why do we allow people to pump out this drivel?
Because, the majority of people believe in free speech and (at least in the US) he has the right to pump out as much "drivel" as he wants. You have no right to tell him otherwise.
I do fundamentally disagree with YouTube extending its ToS to cover things that have nothing to do with them or their IP. They are not a government, they have no right to police. That was my main point and biggest concern with the situation.
I gave you the short bio of him. Also, other than a single mention of Hillary, which was germane to the story, as that was who they were directly accusing, I did not mention politics. I do care...
Again, I know nothing about him and don't care enough to actually learn anything about him. I do not care about the politics of the situation or his content.
I gave you the short bio of him.
Also, other than a single mention of Hillary, which was germane to the story, as that was who they were directly accusing, I did not mention politics.
I do care that his content is intentionally hateful.
You have no right to tell him otherwise.
As much as I support free speech, not only does it have defined limits (for example, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, cause a stampede that kills/injures people, and expect to get a free pass under the guise of "Free speech"), but I personally will not support the spread of hate in any form, under any cover.
I do fundamentally disagree with YouTube extending its ToS to cover things that have nothing to do with them or their IP. They are not a government, they have no right to police. That was my main point and biggest concern with the situation.
YouTube, Facebook, and Apple are all private companies and they can decide at any time to censor his content, as there is no law prohibiting it. The concept of free speech applies only to the government.
Please try not to bring personal attacks into it. The rest of the comment's totally reasonable, but things like this just make an argument start escalating.
The fact that you intentionally refused to read it shows me the kind of person you are.
Please try not to bring personal attacks into it. The rest of the comment's totally reasonable, but things like this just make an argument start escalating.
I apologize for my overreach, and to anyone that I offended. It was not my intention to personally attack anyone here, no matter how divisive the issue may be.
he fact that you intentionally refused to read it shows me the kind of person you are.
Please try not to bring personal attacks into it. The rest of the comment's totally reasonable, but things like this just make an argument start escalating.
I apologize for my overreach, and to anyone that I offended. It was not my intention to personally attack anyone here, no matter how divisive the issue may be.
I am the kind of person that can look at a situation from the outside and judge it on its merit without getting involved. You, clearly, are not. I made it clear I am not trying to discuss his...
I am the kind of person that can look at a situation from the outside and judge it on its merit without getting involved. You, clearly, are not. I made it clear I am not trying to discuss his content, because I don't know enough about it to formulate an opinion. I was talking about YouTube.
YouTube, Facebook, and Apple are all private companies and they can decide at any time to censor his content, as there is no law prohibiting it. The concept of free speech applies only to the government.
Just because they can legally, does not make it right. We are talking about websites that literally control the social interactions and spread of information for entire populations of people.
Please don't try to take the moral high ground because you have the ability to ignore context and not engage with an argument. You said from the beginning you don't care about the content of the...
Please don't try to take the moral high ground because you have the ability to ignore context and not engage with an argument. You said from the beginning you don't care about the content of the things and person being removed, @Bear is repeatedly saying "here's why you should care about it," but instead of responding to that, you're continuing to act as if @Bear simply didn't understand what you were trying to do.
That's the thing, I am not talking about Jones or his content. I am talking about the concept of YouTube deleting accounts based off of content that is unrelated to YouTube. @Bear doesn't...
That's the thing, I am not talking about Jones or his content. I am talking about the concept of YouTube deleting accounts based off of content that is unrelated to YouTube. @Bear doesn't understand that because he clearly has a bias against Jones. But, the content is irrelevant to the decision regardless of what that content represents or contains.
No, it is not. That's the point that @Bear has been trying to make this entire time. Alex Jones' actions are reprehensible. Anybody is well within their moral right to deny him specifically a...
the content is irrelevant to the decision regardless of what that content represents or contains.
No, it is not. That's the point that @Bear has been trying to make this entire time. Alex Jones' actions are reprehensible. Anybody is well within their moral right to deny him specifically a platform.
I think if youtube stayed that they banned Alex Jones for his reprehensible actions then @EscReality wouldn’t be arguing. The problem he sees is that YouTube banned Jones for his reprehensible...
I think if youtube stayed that they banned Alex Jones for his reprehensible actions then @EscReality wouldn’t be arguing.
The problem he sees is that YouTube banned Jones for his reprehensible actions, and then stated that they banned him for something totally different.
He’s not arguing against the ban he’s arguing that it’s troubling that youtube’s Stated reason is anything other than the way Jones acted.
That’s just the way I’m reading his argument, but people seem to be talking past each other here so I thought I’d try and contribute.
Im not @EscReality, but I gather that the answer would be a decisive 'no.' The argument, I think, is YouTubes' claim to have banned Jones for streaming on other sites, instead of ponying up. I...
Im not @EscReality, but I gather that the answer would be a decisive 'no.' The argument, I think, is YouTubes' claim to have banned Jones for streaming on other sites, instead of ponying up.
I think that YouTube PR (and legal) just want to avoid 'seeming biased' in the eyes of their viewership (and avoid a potential Jones lawsuit based on defemation, or, something idk I'm not a lawyer).
Does a company have the right to judge you based on data from third parties? One could argue it's a slippery slope. I don't really have a leg in this race, just jumping in to (hopefully) clarify.
Also, this isn't denying him a platform, not really. It's simply Youtube's way of saying, "Not on our platform." Jones is perfectly capable of setting up and running his own servers and website...
Also, this isn't denying him a platform, not really. It's simply Youtube's way of saying, "Not on our platform." Jones is perfectly capable of setting up and running his own servers and website using his own money.
Absolutely anyone is capable of setting up their own internet services. It's easier today to roll your own than it has ever been in history.
But, its not. Im looking at this from a broader view and looking at the precedent it sets. The content has nothing to do with it, clearly the two of you care to much about the content to see that.
But, its not. Im looking at this from a broader view and looking at the precedent it sets.
The content has nothing to do with it, clearly the two of you care to much about the content to see that.
The content is exactly the point. Nothing else matters but the actions that Alex Jones took, and he behaved like a horrible, hateful person. Tildes itself has a very similar policy on hate speech....
The content is exactly the point. Nothing else matters but the actions that Alex Jones took, and he behaved like a horrible, hateful person. Tildes itself has a very similar policy on hate speech. The precedent that YouTube is setting is that the kind of behavior exhibited by Alex Jones is not acceptable, and that precedent is absolutely a good thing.
I never once have said that they shouldn't have banned him. I am not defending his content and I am not sure why people are assuming that. I am saying that banning him from youtube for things he...
I never once have said that they shouldn't have banned him. I am not defending his content and I am not sure why people are assuming that.
I am saying that banning him from youtube for things he did on another website unrelated to youtube is wrong.
As a private company/platform, they are fully within their rights (and, perhaps even their shareholder's choices) to pick and choose who they give a voice to, at any time, and for any reason.
I am saying that banning him from youtube for things he did on another website unrelated to youtube is wrong.
As a private company/platform, they are fully within their rights (and, perhaps even their shareholder's choices) to pick and choose who they give a voice to, at any time, and for any reason.
It's also completely legal for them to do this as a private company, though. It is both morally right and legal for Google to ban Alex Jones from YouTube.
It's also completely legal for them to do this as a private company, though. It is both morally right and legal for Google to ban Alex Jones from YouTube.
I never said it wasn't legal. I also never said Alex Jones should not have been banned. What I am saying is that it is morally wrong for youtube to ban a user, any user, from their site solely...
I never said it wasn't legal. I also never said Alex Jones should not have been banned.
What I am saying is that it is morally wrong for youtube to ban a user, any user, from their site solely based off of content that user has on a completely unrelated website.
Okay, I'm actually down to discuss this outside the specific case of Alex Jones. I'll bite. Why is it morally wrong and are you implying it would be wrong in all cases?
Okay, I'm actually down to discuss this outside the specific case of Alex Jones. I'll bite. Why is it morally wrong and are you implying it would be wrong in all cases?
I think that it's morally wrong to let him keep his YouTube presence when Google knows how he behaves online. All of his online presence revolves around the type of behavior he was banned for, it...
I think that it's morally wrong to let him keep his YouTube presence when Google knows how he behaves online. All of his online presence revolves around the type of behavior he was banned for, it is obvious that he wouldn't stop. Past behavior is the most reliable indicator for someone's future behavior, and for situations like this trying to separate the person from their actions is pointless because they are one and the same. I don't think that this is going to set any sort of precedent where YouTube starts banning reasonable people from their platform.
If you want to argue that you should ignore the person and their content, argue that premise itself with @Bear or whoever else replies, taking into account what they're saying. We know that that's...
If you want to argue that you should ignore the person and their content, argue that premise itself with @Bear or whoever else replies, taking into account what they're saying. We know that that's where you started from, but that's exactly the problem that people are trying to argue with you about and that you aren't engaging with.
I know you wanted to take it in a certain direction and it's frustrating that people aren't playing along, but that's how these kinds of conversations work. They're trying to discuss with you about if the context matters or not, and you're just stating that because you said it first, your approach should go unexamined.
I guess you could see it that way. From my perspective I made a comment about YouTube and you guys are trying to make it about Jones. They are two completely different conversations.
I guess you could see it that way. From my perspective I made a comment about YouTube and you guys are trying to make it about Jones. They are two completely different conversations.
To me, they are not different conversations. We're not talking specifically about YouTube here, to the exclusion of any content they host - We're talking about content that YouTube and other...
I guess you could see it that way. From my perspective I made a comment about YouTube and you guys are trying to make it about Jones. They are two completely different conversations.
To me, they are not different conversations. We're not talking specifically about YouTube here, to the exclusion of any content they host - We're talking about content that YouTube and other platforms host.
Just for anyone passing through, I'm including the full text of the quote that you only pulled that snippet from. Content and context matter, no matter how much you try to redirect the conversation.
We're not talking specifically about YouTube here,
I was.
Just for anyone passing through, I'm including the full text of the quote that you only pulled that snippet from.
To me, they are not different conversations. We're not talking specifically about YouTube here, to the exclusion of any content they host - We're talking about content that YouTube and other platforms host.
Content and context matter, no matter how much you try to redirect the conversation.
Hey, stop it. I know how he means it. He doesn't talk about him, he talks about youtube! Yes, he does bad things - but that doesn't mean, YouTube can do anything to him (well, they can, but they...
I gave you the short bio of him. The fact that you intentionally refused to read it shows me the kind of person you are.
Hey, stop it.
I know how he means it. He doesn't talk about him, he talks about youtube! Yes, he does bad things - but that doesn't mean, YouTube can do anything to him (well, they can, but they shouldn't). He was saying, that youtube banning people because they streamed while they were suspended on youtube is no right - and I agree. And you should as well. We are not talking about him, that's not important.
But YouTube should ban him. I would expect him to be banned from Tildes if he came here and behaved the way he did on YouTube. Private companies like Facebook and YouTube are well within their...
But YouTube should ban him. I would expect him to be banned from Tildes if he came here and behaved the way he did on YouTube. Private companies like Facebook and YouTube are well within their rights to curate their platforms, and the slippery slope argument is fallacious. We are talking about Alex Jones because it's his actions that are important. He's threatened violence against Robert Mueller and spread hatred and lies on these platforms. The US government cannot and should not silence him, but this is the free market doing its work and saying that he doesn't deserve a place to spew his drivel.
I agree with banning him, but not with the reason he streamed something somewhere else. If he released a single new video on YouTube and it was at least a little bit against their rules, it would...
I agree with banning him, but not with the reason he streamed something somewhere else. If he released a single new video on YouTube and it was at least a little bit against their rules, it would be 100% OK to ban him. But I disagree with YouTube banning people because they misbehaved on another platforms. They have right to do it, but it just doesn't seem right to me.
I agree with you on principle there, to me it just sounds like they were sick of his shit and had to give some sort of reason to ban him when they did, considering how long he's been active on...
I disagree with YouTube banning people because they misbehaved on another platforms.
I agree with you on principle there, to me it just sounds like they were sick of his shit and had to give some sort of reason to ban him when they did, considering how long he's been active on YouTube. But I also understand that the way he behaves on other sites still reflects badly on YouTube if they let him stay there because he technically didn't break any of the rules on their site.
I just wanted to say that I disagree with youtube, when it deletes people channels based on their activity, that is not on youtube itself. And I think, that you agree with youtube on this just...
I just wanted to say that I disagree with youtube, when it deletes people channels based on their activity, that is not on youtube itself. And I think, that you agree with youtube on this just because you are heavily biased against Jones.
And your "The fact that you intentionally refused to read it shows me the kind of person you are." was really awful statement. Just because he is not biased against Jones doesn't approve you to offend him.
He says we should behave differently just because it's Jones - it is biased behaviour for me. If there is better word to express it, please, say it, as English is not my mother language and I'm...
He says we should behave differently just because it's Jones - it is biased behaviour for me. If there is better word to express it, please, say it, as English is not my mother language and I'm always glad to learn something new.
I think we should behave differently because it's Jones. His actions are intolerable, and I believe it is society's duty to make it known that his behavior is unacceptable anywhere.
I think we should behave differently because it's Jones. His actions are intolerable, and I believe it is society's duty to make it known that his behavior is unacceptable anywhere.
I agree with to make it known that his behaviour is unacceptable anywhere, but not with we should behave differently because it's Jones. When someones behave like him, yes, ban him, he deserves...
I agree with to make it known that his behaviour is unacceptable anywhere, but not with we should behave differently because it's Jones.
When someones behave like him, yes, ban him, he deserves it. But banning him just because it's him, is just bad for me. There is difference banning him because of his behaviour and banning him because it's him. And I think that's what YouTube did - banned him because it was him.
YouTube already suspended him because of his behaviour - and now, they punished him again, without him actually publishing anything on YouTube (I might be wrong with this). And that's what I don't like on YouTube actions.
If I publish some weird nazi content on Facebook, I'll be banned there. But it doesn't mean, I should be banned on Reddit and Tildes, without me actually posting the content there.
You conveniently left out the fact that he shared the same public persona across all platforms. It's not as if on one, he had his hateful conspiracy theory channel, and on another platform, he...
If I publish some weird nazi content on Facebook, I'll be banned there. But it doesn't mean, I should be banned on Reddit and Tildes, without me actually posting the content there.
You conveniently left out the fact that he shared the same public persona across all platforms. It's not as if on one, he had his hateful conspiracy theory channel, and on another platform, he posted pictures of kittens and rainbows.
It's very obvious who he is, and what he is about.
If you had hateful content somewhere, and I was admin of another site where you had an account, if I were made aware of it, at the very least, I would place your accounts on moderation, where all content had to be cleared. Of course, as a private platform, I would be within my rights to decide that you were no longer welcome.
Sure. I'm not saying YouTube doesn't have right to decide who they ban and who not. But I don't like their actions because he was already punished for the youtube content. And then, after posting...
as a private platform, I would be within my rights to decide that you were no longer welcome.
Sure. I'm not saying YouTube doesn't have right to decide who they ban and who not. But I don't like their actions because he was already punished for the youtube content. And then, after posting something somewhere else, he was punished again.
It's like when I murder someone and I'm punished. I sit in jail and I'm released. Then I go to another country and murder someone there. I can be jailed in the second country, but not in the country where I did only the first murder (and I was already punished for it).
I think that's a great analogy, and I think that you should be jailed in the first country for the second murder because murder is wrong, period. What Google did in banning Alex Jones from YouTube...
It's like when I murder someone and I'm punished. I sit in jail and I'm released. Then I go to another country and murder someone there. I can be jailed in the second country, but not in the country where I did only the first murder (and I was already punished for it).
I think that's a great analogy, and I think that you should be jailed in the first country for the second murder because murder is wrong, period. What Google did in banning Alex Jones from YouTube was the morally correct thing to do, even if they took longer than they should have to do it. Yes, the precedent set could be messy but I don't think that this actually sets any precedent at all, other than "We don't want assholes like him here."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Nicely done, @BoredomAddict!
It's like when I murder someone and I'm punished. I sit in jail and I'm released. Then I go to another country and murder someone there. I can be jailed in the second country, but not in the country where I did only the first murder (and I was already punished for it).
I think that's a great analogy, and I think that you should be jailed in the first country for the second murder because murder is wrong, period. What Google did in banning Alex Jones from YouTube was the morally correct thing to do, even if they took longer than they should have to do it. Yes, the precedent set could be messy but I don't think that this actually sets any precedent at all, other than "We don't want assholes like him here."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Nicely done, @BoredomAddict!
Yes, throwing someone into prison in first country because he murdered in second country is morally correct, but I think it's not fair. That's the issue. If they banned him right away instead of...
you should be jailed in the first country for the second murder because murder is wrong
What Google did (...) was the morally correct thing to do
Yes, throwing someone into prison in first country because he murdered in second country is morally correct, but I think it's not fair.
they took longer than they should have to do it
That's the issue. If they banned him right away instead of suspending him, I'd have no issue with it. But they banned him after he was actually punished - that's the problem. It's like if you murdered someone, went to jail for 10 years and half a year later someone said, that you should be arrested for longer - and added new punishment.
The thing with adding new punishment while he actually didn't add new content is the thing I think isn't correct, even if I agree it's morally correct thing to do.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was the distinction you were making. I think that ultimately, they are banning him because of his actions. All that matters in the end is the actions a person takes....
When someones behave like him, yes, ban him, he deserves it. But banning him just because it's him, is just bad for me.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was the distinction you were making. I think that ultimately, they are banning him because of his actions. All that matters in the end is the actions a person takes. In my mind, making a distinction between a person and their actions is generally pointless unless they express a sincere desire to change their behavior. Alex Jones continued behaving like he was previously on other streams, and I think it's obvious to anyone that at the end of the ban he wasn't going to suddenly change his ways and become a less terrible person.
If the laws are only enforced on the people the king doesn't don't like then you live in tyranny. I'm a firm believer that companies which are so large as to constitute a necessary service should...
If the laws are only enforced on the people the king doesn't don't like then you live in tyranny.
I'm a firm believer that companies which are so large as to constitute a necessary service should either be broken up or forced to publish their policies and then apply them fairly and uniformly.
Google should've banned Jones as part of a policy update which made his abhorrent behaviour a breach of terms of use.
I do agree that Google needs to be broken up, along with Amazon and many other giants. I'm very much against the government controlling media that strictly though, that just gets messy way too...
I'm a firm believer that companies which are so large as to constitute a necessary service should either be broken up or forced to publish their policies and then apply them fairly and uniformly.
I do agree that Google needs to be broken up, along with Amazon and many other giants. I'm very much against the government controlling media that strictly though, that just gets messy way too quickly. I believe that Google was well within their rights to ban Jones though, as would any other website, because the behavior he exhibited showed no sign of changing. We can only judge people by their actions, and Alex Jones' actions were disgusting. Plus, Alex Jones already has his own website that he can still post to. They aren't banning him from the internet, they're just banning him from their private property.
This is actually what gives them the right to police behavior on their platform, which includes using behavior outside of their platform to decide whether or not to take action. It's no different...
They are not a government, they have no right to police.
This is actually what gives them the right to police behavior on their platform, which includes using behavior outside of their platform to decide whether or not to take action. It's no different from refusing to employ someone for publicly viewable and unprofessional posts on social media. YouTube is a private website and thus can choose to allow or disallow any content they want, and if multiple large tech companies are choosing to distance themselves from a figure that is currently receiving a ton of backlash, it makes no business sense to continue providing a platform for that figure.
We are talking about websites that literally control the social interactions and spread of information for entire populations of people. Just because they are private organizations doesn't mean...
We are talking about websites that literally control the social interactions and spread of information for entire populations of people.
Just because they are private organizations doesn't mean they have the right to censor and manipulate "public" content.
Maybe the laws governing websites like these need to change?
Absolutely not. If you don't want to follow YouTubes rules, you stay off YouTube. That's the free market. I do just fine getting my news outside of Facebook and YouTube. If any law were to change...
Maybe the laws governing websites like these need to change?
Absolutely not. If you don't want to follow YouTubes rules, you stay off YouTube. That's the free market. I do just fine getting my news outside of Facebook and YouTube.
If any law were to change it should be to silence fake news creators/propaganda creators, fine them, and fine any content hoster who hosts their content.
If I had a blog, and a user kept posting abhorrent stuff that I ban them for, it's perfectly within my right to look at their twitter or whatever and ban them permanently if I view them as something I don't want on my site.
Fox News isn't required to host various view points and neither is CNN. YouTube and Facebook have the same right.
I think you are missing the point. Let's continue your example. If you had a blog and a user was posting abhorrent stuff to your blog it would be well within your right to ban them for said...
I think you are missing the point.
Let's continue your example. If you had a blog and a user was posting abhorrent stuff to your blog it would be well within your right to ban them for said content. You have no right to ban them for content posted elsewhere, only the content on the blog you control.
In this case youtube said "no streaming" so they temporarily disabled his youtube stream and he temporarily stopped using youtube. But of course he continued his existing streams on other platforms. Because of this (according to the article) youtube banned his account.
Even though technically he was following their ruling and was not streaming on their website. It would be one thing if he had made an alt account to continue streaming or something, but that's not what happened. He just continued using other websites that he was already using. Youtube has no right to say he cannot stream on other platforms.
Its like telling a kid they cannot throw a ball in the living room, and then grounding them for throwing the ball in the backyard.
Actually, it is within my right. My site, my rules. YouTube is not a government agency, they are a private business and can act however they like and however they need, as long as it's within the...
Actually, it is within my right. My site, my rules. YouTube is not a government agency, they are a private business and can act however they like and however they need, as long as it's within the boundaries of the law. They can ban him because he used racial slurs and they can ban him for preferring spaghetti-o's over lasagna.
If he feels he has been wronged in some way, take YouTube to court. They can then change their TOS and ban him again if they want.
I would not support a law that said websites could not choose who gets to post content on their site.
You can say it's wrong, that's a perfectly valid point. But it's also a perfectly valid point to agree with the sentiment that a private business, whose means of creating profit are dependent on the image that their content creators project, gets a say in who comprises their content creators and hosting them.
If you are wanting to make an argument for a moral standpoint and use this scenario as a case, you are going to be on the wrong side of the moral argument, especially because you are willingly...
If you are wanting to make an argument for a moral standpoint and use this scenario as a case, you are going to be on the wrong side of the moral argument, especially because you are willingly choosing to ignore the context of how this situation came about.
You would come off as insinuating the right for a hate-mongering lunatic to maintain his platform takes precedent over the right for an individual (owner of a company) to remove them from that platform.
It's really frustrating how you guys are incapable of separating the content of the user form the discussion. I am done, this is just going in circles.
It's really frustrating how you guys are incapable of separating the content of the user form the discussion.
@EscReality @Bear @NubWizard @BoredomAddict, I am not sure if this applies to the argument, but it seems that Verge may have gotten the situation wrong. CNBC reported that YouTube banned from...
@EscReality@Bear@NubWizard@BoredomAddict, I am not sure if this applies to the argument, but it seems that Verge may have gotten the situation wrong. CNBC reported that YouTube banned from circumventing livestreams by using other YouTube channels, not other platforms. Source here
Yes it 100% applies, the entire basis of my concern hinges on them banning him for things that have happened on another site. If it's true YouTube did ban him for circumventing livestreams by...
Yes it 100% applies, the entire basis of my concern hinges on them banning him for things that have happened on another site.
If it's true YouTube did ban him for circumventing livestreams by using an alternate YouTube channel than I have no issue.
You can't remove the context of a situation and attempt to apply a strict black and white moral code. For example, it's wrong to physically hurt someone. It's not wrong to physically hurt someone...
You can't remove the context of a situation and attempt to apply a strict black and white moral code.
For example, it's wrong to physically hurt someone. It's not wrong to physically hurt someone if they are trying to hurt you.
Your moral right to protect your well-being has a higher standing in a moral hierarchy than does the standalone moral to not hurt someone.
You are saying what YouTube is doing is wrong but others feel the moral hierarchy dictates that YouTube is right, because they are viewing the situation with a broader context.
A black and white hard fast view of morals doesn't inspire anything besides ignorance and close mindedness. You have to take in all facts and that is what people here are doing.
Newspapers function in a similar manner, but we don't require them to publish an opinion (say) from the likes of Alex Jones. They were of course free to, if they so chose. Do you think it is a...
We are talking about websites that literally control the social interactions and spread of information for entire populations of people.
Newspapers function in a similar manner, but we don't require them to publish an opinion (say) from the likes of Alex Jones. They were of course free to, if they so chose.
Maybe the laws governing websites like these need to change?
Do you think it is a good idea to start passing laws about what can and can't be printed / shared / disseminated on an internet platform, in this era of "Fake News"? This seems just as rife for abuse as the problem you wish to solve.
I see. You're mad that they're using their powers of "My home, my rules". Well, that's how it's going to be. This is America, not China. If someone told me that I had to allow my private platform...
We are talking about websites that literally control the social interactions and spread of information for entire populations of people.
Just because they are private organizations doesn't mean they have the right to censor and manipulate "public" content.
Maybe the laws governing websites like these need to change?
I see. You're mad that they're using their powers of "My home, my rules".
Well, that's how it's going to be. This is America, not China.
If someone told me that I had to allow my private platform to be used to give content that I personally disagreed with a voice, I would tell them to go fuck themselves.
I am not mad at all btw. I do however think it is fundamentally wrong to be punished for something that has nothing to do with the punisher. Youtube has every right to punish him for the content...
I am not mad at all btw.
I do however think it is fundamentally wrong to be punished for something that has nothing to do with the punisher.
Youtube has every right to punish him for the content hosted on their website, I am sure its horrible and doesn't belong on the platform.
They have no right to ban users based off of content that they are streaming on other platforms not owned by youtube.
YouTube is acting in a legal way. They are fully allowed to use any content anywhere to make decisions about content on their platform. If a friend of mine was a racist and homophobic person...
YouTube is acting in a legal way.
They are fully allowed to use any content anywhere to make decisions about content on their platform.
If a friend of mine was a racist and homophobic person somewhere, but not with me, and I found out about it, I would uninvite him from my home.
The law isn't always moral as any brief read of history will show you no matter what morals you hold. /u/EscReality is also arguing that Alphabet, Facebook & Apple are such important entities that...
The law isn't always moral as any brief read of history will show you no matter what morals you hold.
/u/EscReality is also arguing that Alphabet, Facebook & Apple are such important entities that they should have a higher bar and more rigorous process than you use in selecting house guests.
I understand your argument, however, I fundamentally disagree with it. Just because they hold power over some people's content choices (perhaps that's a poor choice of words, as the people can...
/u/EscReality is also arguing that Alphabet, Facebook & Apple are such important entities that they should have a higher bar and more rigorous process than you use in selecting house guests.
I understand your argument, however, I fundamentally disagree with it. Just because they hold power over some people's content choices (perhaps that's a poor choice of words, as the people can freely choose not to let them control the content they consume) does not mean that they should lose the ability to choose who gets to use their platforms, for any reason they choose. It's still all theirs.
If you want to change it, start your own, like Deimos started Tildes.
If Comcast's terms of service say that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone they choose for any reason they choose, sure. Standard Oil is not relevant.
Same for comcast and standard oil I suppose?
If Comcast's terms of service say that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone they choose for any reason they choose, sure.
I'm used to having to debunk this on Reddit but kinda hoped Tildes would have moved past it. The 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies. Free speech means that if Alex Jones wants to...
he has the right to pump out as much "drivel" as he wants. You have no right to tell him otherwise.
I'm used to having to debunk this on Reddit but kinda hoped Tildes would have moved past it.
The 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies.
Free speech means that if Alex Jones wants to start up ConspiracyTube, the federal government (and the state governments, because of Supreme Court decisions that extend 1st Amendment protections to the states) can't shut down ConspiracyTube.
Free speech and the 1st Amendment does not apply, in any way shape or form, to actions taken by YouTube to "censor" him. They're a private company and can remove him from their website for any reason. You might not like the reason. You might not like the rationale they give. They're not even required to provide a rationale.
It's their platform, they have the right to police the content if they want. "My house, my rules". Now, even though I have a negative opinion about what he says and does, I don't think he should...
It's their platform, they have the right to police the content if they want. "My house, my rules".
Now, even though I have a negative opinion about what he says and does, I don't think he should "ban" him from producing his crappy content. He can do it, on his own website, just not on platforms that don't want users accusing the CIA from turning frogs gay or saying that some politician is running a child abuse ring from a pizzaria basement in DC.
I don't think that < insert any internet website here >, including Tildes, should be forced to host this kind of crap.
No of course not. It just seems that in this instance it would have been more appropriate to wait until he started up on their website again, actually violating their rules. The way they did it...
No of course not. It just seems that in this instance it would have been more appropriate to wait until he started up on their website again, actually violating their rules.
The way they did it just feels like a company firing an employee for tweets he made years before he was at the company. It makes the choice seem like it has less credibility than it (most likely) does.
I'm curious as to why it strikes you as wrong that a person could be banned from participation on one website based on actions on another. This seems like very common behaviour - certainly, there...
I'm curious as to why it strikes you as wrong that a person could be banned from participation on one website based on actions on another. This seems like very common behaviour - certainly, there are plenty of forums where people have been pre-emptively banned based on their history in other, related forums. Systems such as Valve's Anti-Cheat rely on this sort of principle as well - if you're discovered cheating in one game you can also be pre-emptively banned from others.
Similarly, this principle is common across other media. There have been numerous instances where a celebrity (let's say, a movie star) makes some comment outside of the medium of film that is deemed so offensive or inappropriate that their career prospects are dashed. The same goes for television, film, and even print. As such, I do not understand where you are deriving this principle from.
In particular, there has been a marked trend of people terminated from employment, including employment in media, based on remarks they have posted (sometimes years in the past) on social media. It's well-established that social media posts can be a basis for losing one's employment or harming one's business. Why, then, would the reverse principle not apply, that one's employment might serve as a basis of being banned from social media?
Most likely. From a PR perspective, there is often a chain reaction where different outlets feel safe in taking a more critical stance once someone else moves first. As an example, look at...
Most likely. From a PR perspective, there is often a chain reaction where different outlets feel safe in taking a more critical stance once someone else moves first. As an example, look at coverage of the Peoples Temple in the early and mid-1970s. Another comparison would be how markets turn on previously favored companies.
That said, it would not be a surprise if one or more of these firms had separate algorithms for handling "major influencers" that also factor in the subject's status on other social media networks so that once the fall starts, the subject starts getting treated more and more like a normal user.
It's also not necessarily that they're more comfortable taking the same action, but there's also an aspect of "well now if we leave him on our site, we'll look bad". These companies generally only...
It's also not necessarily that they're more comfortable taking the same action, but there's also an aspect of "well now if we leave him on our site, we'll look bad". These companies generally only react to public (or legal) pressure, and the fact that other sites took action gives people more of a basis to use when complaining to the ones that haven't.
meh, this will just give him more fuel and publicity when he inevitably complains about being silenced. They should have just allowed him to have his little corner and whine to what people will...
meh, this will just give him more fuel and publicity when he inevitably complains about being silenced. They should have just allowed him to have his little corner and whine to what people will listen, now he can claim he's been attacked. Every time these conspiracy dudes get silenced their BS seems validated to them and their supporters, and the number of sympathizers spike.
But hey, at least it's a tiny bit more desirable for advertisers
However, when there is censorship on these platforms, there is always an alternative. I don't think many of these people (including Alex Jones) expect sustainability when they choose to serve...
However, when there is censorship on these platforms, there is always an alternative. I don't think many of these people (including Alex Jones) expect sustainability when they choose to serve their controversial content over services like Twitter, because the service still has to maintain a positive public image. Eventually, and especially for conspiracy theorists, they migrate to echo chambers once they're banned from enough social media platforms. Once they move to smaller social media platforms, that's when they usually become less significant.
I think that's exactly the point. Society in general - The parts of it that have input into the sites that banned him - Has decided that content like his should become as insignificant as is...
Eventually, and especially for conspiracy theorists, they migrate to echo chamber once they're banned from enough social media platforms. Once they move to smaller social media platforms, that's when they usually become less significant.
I think that's exactly the point.
Society in general - The parts of it that have input into the sites that banned him - Has decided that content like his should become as insignificant as is generally possible.
Societies have rules, and breaking those rules has consequences.
Well it's kind of funny how all of a sudden everyone is realising that this guy who has been doing the same shit for so long is just now violating their guidelines.
I'm sure any sane person can guess why it took them so long - He was bringing in enough money and views that the trouble to them was worth it - until it wasn't.
Best comment on the thread. We can discuss principles ad nauseam, but the only thing that matters to this decisions is the public perception of the company and how that affects the revenue. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
The fact that several companies have done this all at once without (as far as I'm aware) some kind of trigger event suggests coordination.
I wonder if this will be the start of much more overt attempts at controlling the popular narratives from Alphabet, Apple and Facebook.
I think the trigger may have been his fairly recent threat towards Robert Mueller. As far as I know that was the only line he hadn't previously crossed, although I may well be wrong about that.
In my mind it makes sense that other companies follow suit after onemakes the initial banning decision - so as not to be seen as proliferating Jones's hate (though they've all done this without question for years).
All too true.
I think Google is trying to balance both extremes and make as much money as possible. People have been complaining for years about Jones, but the collective outrage just wasn't there until now. It's always a dam breaking situation with YouTube; where an issue grows for years until it blows up in their face. They definitely deserve the criticism.
So I know nothing about him, I assume the decision is justified, but ignoring the reasoning for the termination;
I don't feel like YouTube terminating his account because of what he was doing on other platforms is right. They have no right to police what he does in the rest of his life. What he does on their website should be the only thing that is taken into account when banning him.
EDIT: sorry, didnt mean for this to turn into a massive battle.
I do want to make it clear that I know nothing about Jones or the content he has created. I obviously am not supporting said content and not saying that he should not have been banned. Obviously his content is controversial and people have strong feelings about it.
I was just commenting on the fact that YouTube taking action against a user, any user, for content created on other websites that have nothing to do with YouTube seems wrong to me.
Well, let's start with the fact that he argued on his radio program that the parents of kids that were killed in a school shooting were paid "crisis actors", and had not really lost any children in a school shooting. Guess how the people who listened to his program responded. Go on, guess. At least one threatened to kill one of the parents of a dead child.
Or, let's try "pizzagate". In short, Alex Jones and others repeated a line that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex trafficking ring in the basement of a Washington, DC pizzeria. That incidentally, had no basement. One of the people who listened to this drivel actually went to the pizzeria and shot it up. I think he killed people.
There is a similar claim that the government is running a child sex trafficking ring on Mars.
Mind you, when accused in court of some of this as part of his divorce proceeding, he claimed that it was all an act.
He conveniently never makes that distinction clear in his broadcasts.
Why do we allow people to pump out this drivel? It's as if we are egging on the less intelligent sectors of the population.
I disagree. Alex Jones has made a common public persona, and any company or person should be able to look at that in its entirety, not just whatever slice of that persona he shares on a specific site.
Again, I know nothing about him and don't desire to actually learn anything about him. I do not care about the politics of the situation or his content. I am just looking at the precedent a decision like that sets. I am not trying to discuss his content.
Because, the majority of people believe in free speech and (at least in the US) he has the right to pump out as much "drivel" as he wants. You have no right to tell him otherwise.
I do fundamentally disagree with YouTube extending its ToS to cover things that have nothing to do with them or their IP. They are not a government, they have no right to police. That was my main point and biggest concern with the situation.
I gave you the short bio of him.
Also, other than a single mention of Hillary, which was germane to the story, as that was who they were directly accusing, I did not mention politics.
I do care that his content is intentionally hateful.
As much as I support free speech, not only does it have defined limits (for example, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, cause a stampede that kills/injures people, and expect to get a free pass under the guise of "Free speech"), but I personally will not support the spread of hate in any form, under any cover.
YouTube, Facebook, and Apple are all private companies and they can decide at any time to censor his content, as there is no law prohibiting it. The concept of free speech applies only to the government.
Please try not to bring personal attacks into it. The rest of the comment's totally reasonable, but things like this just make an argument start escalating.
I apologize for my overreach, and to anyone that I offended. It was not my intention to personally attack anyone here, no matter how divisive the issue may be.
I am the kind of person that can look at a situation from the outside and judge it on its merit without getting involved. You, clearly, are not. I made it clear I am not trying to discuss his content, because I don't know enough about it to formulate an opinion. I was talking about YouTube.
Just because they can legally, does not make it right. We are talking about websites that literally control the social interactions and spread of information for entire populations of people.
Please don't try to take the moral high ground because you have the ability to ignore context and not engage with an argument. You said from the beginning you don't care about the content of the things and person being removed, @Bear is repeatedly saying "here's why you should care about it," but instead of responding to that, you're continuing to act as if @Bear simply didn't understand what you were trying to do.
That's the thing, I am not talking about Jones or his content. I am talking about the concept of YouTube deleting accounts based off of content that is unrelated to YouTube. @Bear doesn't understand that because he clearly has a bias against Jones. But, the content is irrelevant to the decision regardless of what that content represents or contains.
No, it is not. That's the point that @Bear has been trying to make this entire time. Alex Jones' actions are reprehensible. Anybody is well within their moral right to deny him specifically a platform.
I think if youtube stayed that they banned Alex Jones for his reprehensible actions then @EscReality wouldn’t be arguing.
The problem he sees is that YouTube banned Jones for his reprehensible actions, and then stated that they banned him for something totally different.
He’s not arguing against the ban he’s arguing that it’s troubling that youtube’s Stated reason is anything other than the way Jones acted.
That’s just the way I’m reading his argument, but people seem to be talking past each other here so I thought I’d try and contribute.
Exactly. If they had said that they banned him for the content he had on the site, or for his actions in general I would have no problem.
Im not @EscReality, but I gather that the answer would be a decisive 'no.' The argument, I think, is YouTubes' claim to have banned Jones for streaming on other sites, instead of ponying up.
I think that YouTube PR (and legal) just want to avoid 'seeming biased' in the eyes of their viewership (and avoid a potential Jones lawsuit based on defemation, or, something idk I'm not a lawyer).
Does a company have the right to judge you based on data from third parties? One could argue it's a slippery slope. I don't really have a leg in this race, just jumping in to (hopefully) clarify.
Also, this isn't denying him a platform, not really. It's simply Youtube's way of saying, "Not on our platform." Jones is perfectly capable of setting up and running his own servers and website using his own money.
Absolutely anyone is capable of setting up their own internet services. It's easier today to roll your own than it has ever been in history.
Thank you.
But, its not. Im looking at this from a broader view and looking at the precedent it sets.
The content has nothing to do with it, clearly the two of you care to much about the content to see that.
The content is exactly the point. Nothing else matters but the actions that Alex Jones took, and he behaved like a horrible, hateful person. Tildes itself has a very similar policy on hate speech. The precedent that YouTube is setting is that the kind of behavior exhibited by Alex Jones is not acceptable, and that precedent is absolutely a good thing.
I never once have said that they shouldn't have banned him. I am not defending his content and I am not sure why people are assuming that.
I am saying that banning him from youtube for things he did on another website unrelated to youtube is wrong.
As a private company/platform, they are fully within their rights (and, perhaps even their shareholder's choices) to pick and choose who they give a voice to, at any time, and for any reason.
Something being morally wrong and something being legal is not the same thing.
It's also completely legal for them to do this as a private company, though. It is both morally right and legal for Google to ban Alex Jones from YouTube.
I never said it wasn't legal. I also never said Alex Jones should not have been banned.
What I am saying is that it is morally wrong for youtube to ban a user, any user, from their site solely based off of content that user has on a completely unrelated website.
Okay, I'm actually down to discuss this outside the specific case of Alex Jones. I'll bite. Why is it morally wrong and are you implying it would be wrong in all cases?
I think that it's morally wrong to let him keep his YouTube presence when Google knows how he behaves online. All of his online presence revolves around the type of behavior he was banned for, it is obvious that he wouldn't stop. Past behavior is the most reliable indicator for someone's future behavior, and for situations like this trying to separate the person from their actions is pointless because they are one and the same. I don't think that this is going to set any sort of precedent where YouTube starts banning reasonable people from their platform.
If you want to argue that you should ignore the person and their content, argue that premise itself with @Bear or whoever else replies, taking into account what they're saying. We know that that's where you started from, but that's exactly the problem that people are trying to argue with you about and that you aren't engaging with.
I know you wanted to take it in a certain direction and it's frustrating that people aren't playing along, but that's how these kinds of conversations work. They're trying to discuss with you about if the context matters or not, and you're just stating that because you said it first, your approach should go unexamined.
I guess you could see it that way. From my perspective I made a comment about YouTube and you guys are trying to make it about Jones. They are two completely different conversations.
To me, they are not different conversations. We're not talking specifically about YouTube here, to the exclusion of any content they host - We're talking about content that YouTube and other platforms host.
I was.
Just for anyone passing through, I'm including the full text of the quote that you only pulled that snippet from.
Content and context matter, no matter how much you try to redirect the conversation.
Hey, stop it.
I know how he means it. He doesn't talk about him, he talks about youtube! Yes, he does bad things - but that doesn't mean, YouTube can do anything to him (well, they can, but they shouldn't). He was saying, that youtube banning people because they streamed while they were suspended on youtube is no right - and I agree. And you should as well. We are not talking about him, that's not important.
You are biased against Jones.
But YouTube should ban him. I would expect him to be banned from Tildes if he came here and behaved the way he did on YouTube. Private companies like Facebook and YouTube are well within their rights to curate their platforms, and the slippery slope argument is fallacious. We are talking about Alex Jones because it's his actions that are important. He's threatened violence against Robert Mueller and spread hatred and lies on these platforms. The US government cannot and should not silence him, but this is the free market doing its work and saying that he doesn't deserve a place to spew his drivel.
I agree with banning him, but not with the reason he streamed something somewhere else. If he released a single new video on YouTube and it was at least a little bit against their rules, it would be 100% OK to ban him. But I disagree with YouTube banning people because they misbehaved on another platforms. They have right to do it, but it just doesn't seem right to me.
I agree with you on principle there, to me it just sounds like they were sick of his shit and had to give some sort of reason to ban him when they did, considering how long he's been active on YouTube. But I also understand that the way he behaves on other sites still reflects badly on YouTube if they let him stay there because he technically didn't break any of the rules on their site.
I am. And?
As a private citizen, I'm allowed to be biased against anyone I want to be.
I will always be biased against hate and intentional ignorance.
I just wanted to say that I disagree with youtube, when it deletes people channels based on their activity, that is not on youtube itself. And I think, that you agree with youtube on this just because you are heavily biased against Jones.
And your "The fact that you intentionally refused to read it shows me the kind of person you are." was really awful statement. Just because he is not biased against Jones doesn't approve you to offend him.
He says we should behave differently just because it's Jones - it is biased behaviour for me. If there is better word to express it, please, say it, as English is not my mother language and I'm always glad to learn something new.
I think we should behave differently because it's Jones. His actions are intolerable, and I believe it is society's duty to make it known that his behavior is unacceptable anywhere.
I agree with to make it known that his behaviour is unacceptable anywhere, but not with we should behave differently because it's Jones.
When someones behave like him, yes, ban him, he deserves it. But banning him just because it's him, is just bad for me. There is difference banning him because of his behaviour and banning him because it's him. And I think that's what YouTube did - banned him because it was him.
YouTube already suspended him because of his behaviour - and now, they punished him again, without him actually publishing anything on YouTube (I might be wrong with this). And that's what I don't like on YouTube actions.
If I publish some weird nazi content on Facebook, I'll be banned there. But it doesn't mean, I should be banned on Reddit and Tildes, without me actually posting the content there.
You conveniently left out the fact that he shared the same public persona across all platforms. It's not as if on one, he had his hateful conspiracy theory channel, and on another platform, he posted pictures of kittens and rainbows.
It's very obvious who he is, and what he is about.
If you had hateful content somewhere, and I was admin of another site where you had an account, if I were made aware of it, at the very least, I would place your accounts on moderation, where all content had to be cleared. Of course, as a private platform, I would be within my rights to decide that you were no longer welcome.
Sure. I'm not saying YouTube doesn't have right to decide who they ban and who not. But I don't like their actions because he was already punished for the youtube content. And then, after posting something somewhere else, he was punished again.
It's like when I murder someone and I'm punished. I sit in jail and I'm released. Then I go to another country and murder someone there. I can be jailed in the second country, but not in the country where I did only the first murder (and I was already punished for it).
I think that's a great analogy, and I think that you should be jailed in the first country for the second murder because murder is wrong, period. What Google did in banning Alex Jones from YouTube was the morally correct thing to do, even if they took longer than they should have to do it. Yes, the precedent set could be messy but I don't think that this actually sets any precedent at all, other than "We don't want assholes like him here."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Nicely done, @BoredomAddict!
Yes, throwing someone into prison in first country because he murdered in second country is morally correct, but I think it's not fair.
That's the issue. If they banned him right away instead of suspending him, I'd have no issue with it. But they banned him after he was actually punished - that's the problem. It's like if you murdered someone, went to jail for 10 years and half a year later someone said, that you should be arrested for longer - and added new punishment.
The thing with adding new punishment while he actually didn't add new content is the thing I think isn't correct, even if I agree it's morally correct thing to do.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was the distinction you were making. I think that ultimately, they are banning him because of his actions. All that matters in the end is the actions a person takes. In my mind, making a distinction between a person and their actions is generally pointless unless they express a sincere desire to change their behavior. Alex Jones continued behaving like he was previously on other streams, and I think it's obvious to anyone that at the end of the ban he wasn't going to suddenly change his ways and become a less terrible person.
If the laws are only enforced on the people the king doesn't don't like then you live in tyranny.
I'm a firm believer that companies which are so large as to constitute a necessary service should either be broken up or forced to publish their policies and then apply them fairly and uniformly.
Google should've banned Jones as part of a policy update which made his abhorrent behaviour a breach of terms of use.
I do agree that Google needs to be broken up, along with Amazon and many other giants. I'm very much against the government controlling media that strictly though, that just gets messy way too quickly. I believe that Google was well within their rights to ban Jones though, as would any other website, because the behavior he exhibited showed no sign of changing. We can only judge people by their actions, and Alex Jones' actions were disgusting. Plus, Alex Jones already has his own website that he can still post to. They aren't banning him from the internet, they're just banning him from their private property.
Thank you for explaining this more eloquently than I could. I am glad someone understood what I was attempting to say.
This is actually what gives them the right to police behavior on their platform, which includes using behavior outside of their platform to decide whether or not to take action. It's no different from refusing to employ someone for publicly viewable and unprofessional posts on social media. YouTube is a private website and thus can choose to allow or disallow any content they want, and if multiple large tech companies are choosing to distance themselves from a figure that is currently receiving a ton of backlash, it makes no business sense to continue providing a platform for that figure.
In short, this is a free market decision.
We are talking about websites that literally control the social interactions and spread of information for entire populations of people.
Just because they are private organizations doesn't mean they have the right to censor and manipulate "public" content.
Maybe the laws governing websites like these need to change?
Absolutely not. If you don't want to follow YouTubes rules, you stay off YouTube. That's the free market. I do just fine getting my news outside of Facebook and YouTube.
If any law were to change it should be to silence fake news creators/propaganda creators, fine them, and fine any content hoster who hosts their content.
If I had a blog, and a user kept posting abhorrent stuff that I ban them for, it's perfectly within my right to look at their twitter or whatever and ban them permanently if I view them as something I don't want on my site.
Fox News isn't required to host various view points and neither is CNN. YouTube and Facebook have the same right.
I think you are missing the point.
Let's continue your example. If you had a blog and a user was posting abhorrent stuff to your blog it would be well within your right to ban them for said content. You have no right to ban them for content posted elsewhere, only the content on the blog you control.
In this case youtube said "no streaming" so they temporarily disabled his youtube stream and he temporarily stopped using youtube. But of course he continued his existing streams on other platforms. Because of this (according to the article) youtube banned his account.
Even though technically he was following their ruling and was not streaming on their website. It would be one thing if he had made an alt account to continue streaming or something, but that's not what happened. He just continued using other websites that he was already using. Youtube has no right to say he cannot stream on other platforms.
Its like telling a kid they cannot throw a ball in the living room, and then grounding them for throwing the ball in the backyard.
Actually, it is within my right. My site, my rules. YouTube is not a government agency, they are a private business and can act however they like and however they need, as long as it's within the boundaries of the law. They can ban him because he used racial slurs and they can ban him for preferring spaghetti-o's over lasagna.
If he feels he has been wronged in some way, take YouTube to court. They can then change their TOS and ban him again if they want.
I would not support a law that said websites could not choose who gets to post content on their site.
You can say it's wrong, that's a perfectly valid point. But it's also a perfectly valid point to agree with the sentiment that a private business, whose means of creating profit are dependent on the image that their content creators project, gets a say in who comprises their content creators and hosting them.
Something being legal, or the right decision for a business to make, does not somehow make it morally right.
If you are wanting to make an argument for a moral standpoint and use this scenario as a case, you are going to be on the wrong side of the moral argument, especially because you are willingly choosing to ignore the context of how this situation came about.
You would come off as insinuating the right for a hate-mongering lunatic to maintain his platform takes precedent over the right for an individual (owner of a company) to remove them from that platform.
It's really frustrating how you guys are incapable of separating the content of the user form the discussion.
I am done, this is just going in circles.
@EscReality @Bear @NubWizard @BoredomAddict, I am not sure if this applies to the argument, but it seems that Verge may have gotten the situation wrong. CNBC reported that YouTube banned from circumventing livestreams by using other YouTube channels, not other platforms. Source here
Yes it 100% applies, the entire basis of my concern hinges on them banning him for things that have happened on another site.
If it's true YouTube did ban him for circumventing livestreams by using an alternate YouTube channel than I have no issue.
Awesome, thank you for sending that over!
👍
You can't remove the context of a situation and attempt to apply a strict black and white moral code.
For example, it's wrong to physically hurt someone. It's not wrong to physically hurt someone if they are trying to hurt you.
Your moral right to protect your well-being has a higher standing in a moral hierarchy than does the standalone moral to not hurt someone.
You are saying what YouTube is doing is wrong but others feel the moral hierarchy dictates that YouTube is right, because they are viewing the situation with a broader context.
A black and white hard fast view of morals doesn't inspire anything besides ignorance and close mindedness. You have to take in all facts and that is what people here are doing.
Newspapers function in a similar manner, but we don't require them to publish an opinion (say) from the likes of Alex Jones. They were of course free to, if they so chose.
Do you think it is a good idea to start passing laws about what can and can't be printed / shared / disseminated on an internet platform, in this era of "Fake News"? This seems just as rife for abuse as the problem you wish to solve.
We have kinda gotten away from the point I was making.
I see. You're mad that they're using their powers of "My home, my rules".
Well, that's how it's going to be. This is America, not China.
If someone told me that I had to allow my private platform to be used to give content that I personally disagreed with a voice, I would tell them to go fuck themselves.
I am not mad at all btw.
I do however think it is fundamentally wrong to be punished for something that has nothing to do with the punisher.
Youtube has every right to punish him for the content hosted on their website, I am sure its horrible and doesn't belong on the platform.
They have no right to ban users based off of content that they are streaming on other platforms not owned by youtube.
YouTube is acting in a legal way.
They are fully allowed to use any content anywhere to make decisions about content on their platform.
If a friend of mine was a racist and homophobic person somewhere, but not with me, and I found out about it, I would uninvite him from my home.
The law isn't always moral as any brief read of history will show you no matter what morals you hold.
/u/EscReality is also arguing that Alphabet, Facebook & Apple are such important entities that they should have a higher bar and more rigorous process than you use in selecting house guests.
I don't think there is any world in which not banning Alex Jones after all of the vitriol he has spread is more moral than banning him.
I understand your argument, however, I fundamentally disagree with it. Just because they hold power over some people's content choices (perhaps that's a poor choice of words, as the people can freely choose not to let them control the content they consume) does not mean that they should lose the ability to choose who gets to use their platforms, for any reason they choose. It's still all theirs.
If you want to change it, start your own, like Deimos started Tildes.
Same for comcast and standard oil I suppose?
If Comcast's terms of service say that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone they choose for any reason they choose, sure.
Standard Oil is not relevant.
I'm used to having to debunk this on Reddit but kinda hoped Tildes would have moved past it.
The 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies.
Free speech means that if Alex Jones wants to start up ConspiracyTube, the federal government (and the state governments, because of Supreme Court decisions that extend 1st Amendment protections to the states) can't shut down ConspiracyTube.
Free speech and the 1st Amendment does not apply, in any way shape or form, to actions taken by YouTube to "censor" him. They're a private company and can remove him from their website for any reason. You might not like the reason. You might not like the rationale they give. They're not even required to provide a rationale.
It's their platform, they have the right to police the content if they want. "My house, my rules".
Now, even though I have a negative opinion about what he says and does, I don't think he should "ban" him from producing his crappy content. He can do it, on his own website, just not on platforms that don't want users accusing the CIA from turning frogs gay or saying that some politician is running a child abuse ring from a pizzaria basement in DC.
I don't think that < insert any internet website here >, including Tildes, should be forced to host this kind of crap.
Good point but can you really defend hate speech and conspiracy theories if your bottom line depends on users?
No of course not. It just seems that in this instance it would have been more appropriate to wait until he started up on their website again, actually violating their rules.
The way they did it just feels like a company firing an employee for tweets he made years before he was at the company. It makes the choice seem like it has less credibility than it (most likely) does.
This is not the first time he’s been kicked off or has had videos deleted. He’s a habitual terms of service breaker
I'm curious as to why it strikes you as wrong that a person could be banned from participation on one website based on actions on another. This seems like very common behaviour - certainly, there are plenty of forums where people have been pre-emptively banned based on their history in other, related forums. Systems such as Valve's Anti-Cheat rely on this sort of principle as well - if you're discovered cheating in one game you can also be pre-emptively banned from others.
Similarly, this principle is common across other media. There have been numerous instances where a celebrity (let's say, a movie star) makes some comment outside of the medium of film that is deemed so offensive or inappropriate that their career prospects are dashed. The same goes for television, film, and even print. As such, I do not understand where you are deriving this principle from.
In particular, there has been a marked trend of people terminated from employment, including employment in media, based on remarks they have posted (sometimes years in the past) on social media. It's well-established that social media posts can be a basis for losing one's employment or harming one's business. Why, then, would the reverse principle not apply, that one's employment might serve as a basis of being banned from social media?
Yea, someone else has pointed that out as well. Assuming that is the case, I obviously have no issue with them banning him.
I wonder if this was a chain reaction among apple, facebook, and YouTube/Google.
Most likely. From a PR perspective, there is often a chain reaction where different outlets feel safe in taking a more critical stance once someone else moves first. As an example, look at coverage of the Peoples Temple in the early and mid-1970s. Another comparison would be how markets turn on previously favored companies.
That said, it would not be a surprise if one or more of these firms had separate algorithms for handling "major influencers" that also factor in the subject's status on other social media networks so that once the fall starts, the subject starts getting treated more and more like a normal user.
It's also not necessarily that they're more comfortable taking the same action, but there's also an aspect of "well now if we leave him on our site, we'll look bad". These companies generally only react to public (or legal) pressure, and the fact that other sites took action gives people more of a basis to use when complaining to the ones that haven't.
meh, this will just give him more fuel and publicity when he inevitably complains about being silenced. They should have just allowed him to have his little corner and whine to what people will listen, now he can claim he's been attacked. Every time these conspiracy dudes get silenced their BS seems validated to them and their supporters, and the number of sympathizers spike.
But hey, at least it's a tiny bit more desirable for advertisers
However, when there is censorship on these platforms, there is always an alternative. I don't think many of these people (including Alex Jones) expect sustainability when they choose to serve their controversial content over services like Twitter, because the service still has to maintain a positive public image. Eventually, and especially for conspiracy theorists, they migrate to echo chambers once they're banned from enough social media platforms. Once they move to smaller social media platforms, that's when they usually become less significant.
I think that's exactly the point.
Society in general - The parts of it that have input into the sites that banned him - Has decided that content like his should become as insignificant as is generally possible.
Societies have rules, and breaking those rules has consequences.