• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Facebook suspends Alex Jones for 30 days

Status
Not open for further replies.
RadioPatrol said:
http://www.gcnlive.com/JW1D/index.php/showinfo?showCode=1

The problem here is that GCN the owners of Alex Jones YouTube channel and radio shows are never hit with any backlash. You can ban Jones all you want but GCN will form a competing video feed to YouTube and Facebook and will still attract his audience there too.
Click to expand...
THE BEST way to deal with Alex Jones is to HIT THE COMPANY ITSELF !!

In this case, that's GCN

But UNTIL Facebook, Google, etc. figure out Alex Jones isn't just some NINKUMPOOP Lone Wolf (But is rather only a small part of a much larger network), they'll only go after Alex Jones while everyone else on GCN will be free to spew forth THE SAME KIND of crap on THOSE SAME platforms that Alex himself spews forth (Only HE will be stuck doing it WITHOUT the support of Facebook & Google)

Also going after GCN's affiliates (Most of whom are hobbyists using SHOUTcast (Or whatever it's called these days & Live365 to stream with anyway) & shortwave broadcasters (Who also stream online to appeal to those not into SWLing) won't hurt either
 
JeeperOne said:
THE BEST way to deal with Alex Jones is to HIT THE COMPANY ITSELF !!
Click to expand...

But that's why I say it's absolutely wrong to say "conservatives are being censored." If Alex Jones was simply preaching conservative politics, he'd still be on Facebook, just like Rush and all the other conservative talkers. The reason he isn't is because he's doing something else. The only reason he's being singled out is because he made himself very conspicuous. As I said earlier, lots of people break the speed limit or cheat the IRS. But when you flaunt it in their faces, it attracts attention. If that's a problem, you shouldn't have been so conspicuous about breaking the law.
 
He was on last night (his Sunday weekend show) saying he had 30 million followers across all his platforms. He also said the deep state globalists wanted to shut him and all conservative/libertarian voices down before the midterms. Finally, he said he has more stations now than he did three weeks ago. Hmmm.
 
kf4rca said:
He also said the deep state globalists wanted to shut him and all conservative/libertarian voices down before the midterms.
Click to expand...

He clearly doesn't understand what the "deep state" is. The FCC is an example of the "deep state." They aren't trying to shut him down. Last time I checked, Rand Paul was the most visible libertarian. Other than his next door neighbor, no one is trying to shut him down. Once again, Alex Jones isn't being targeted for being a conservative. If he was a socialist, an anarchist, or a Catholic missionary, he'd also be targeted. He's giving all conservatives and libertarians a bad name. For that, they should be upset.
 
JeeperOne said:
THE BEST way to deal with Alex Jones is to HIT THE COMPANY ITSELF !!

In this case, that's GCN

But UNTIL Facebook, Google, etc. figure out Alex Jones isn't just some NINKUMPOOP Lone Wolf (But is rather only a small part of a much larger network), they'll only go after Alex Jones while everyone else on GCN will be free to spew forth THE SAME KIND of crap on THOSE SAME platforms that Alex himself spews forth (Only HE will be stuck doing it WITHOUT the support of Facebook & Google)

Also going after GCN's affiliates (Most of whom are hobbyists using SHOUTcast (Or whatever it's called these days & Live365 to stream with anyway) & shortwave broadcasters (Who also stream online to appeal to those not into SWLing) won't hurt either
Click to expand...

The Problem here is that all of the Accusers (Harassment victims of Jones) from the Sandy Hook Families, to Chobani Leader to Comet Ping Pong leader never knew who GCN ever was. They only know that Jones is on Youtube, Alex Jones website, Twitter and other Apps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Df6s7L_IF4

Now you have competing Youtube Pundits going after Jones's other staff members for spreading similar stuff.
One of the staff members targeted in this rant is Millenial Millie.
 
TheBigA said:
He clearly doesn't understand what the "deep state" is. The FCC is an example of the "deep state." They aren't trying to shut him down. Last time I checked, Rand Paul was the most visible libertarian. Other than his next door neighbor, no one is trying to shut him down. Once again, Alex Jones isn't being targeted for being a conservative. If he was a socialist, an anarchist, or a Catholic missionary, he'd also be targeted. He's giving all conservatives and libertarians a bad name. For that, they should be upset.
Click to expand...

Yes and the article I seen recently was that Alex Jones was being sued over the handling of the Sandy Hook Rants and evidence.

Also companies like Facebook and Youtube were being pressured to make changes on the PR front and user front to improve their services and content guidelines or face a boycott. There was no censorship here like supposedly what Gab (Twitter competitor) was saying.

Gab was saying censorship all over the place. Yeah but if Gab was as big as Twitter then they would be on the same hot seat as Facebook, Youtube and twitter are facing.
 
Last edited:
This has become its own subset of the media, based perhaps on shows like Opie & Anthony or Don & Mike, who took Seinfeld's "show about nothing" to the extreme, and basically did very little during their time on the air except talk about themselves, their lives, and their ratings. And truthfully, it can be very innocuous until they either say or do something illegal, which often happens. Then they spend the rest of their lives talking about how persecuted they've become, and how it's all so unfair. Once again, it makes the time pass, which is perhaps all it's good for. No one should take any of it seriously or give it any credibility.
 
He was on Coast to Coast AM last night (this morning) apologizing for Sandy Hook. Probably an attempt to get the lawsuits dismissed.
I think a number of his staff signed on with him, desperate for a job, not knowing what he was all about. Getting a job in mainstream media these days is very difficult. The journalism schools are cranking them out faster than the broadcast industry can absorb them. Consequently, some have to take what they can get. After all, it is a paycheck.
 
Humbly submitted in support of my position:

Item: Dennis Prager says that YouTube has been censoring and removing videos from his Prager University online non-profit. Prager is a level-headed and scholarly guy. He is certainly no Alex Jones.

http://www.dennisprager.com/youtube-vs-conservative-speech/

Item: A Republican candidate for Congress claims that Facebook blocked and censored her online campaign ad, allegedly because it contained scenes of the Killing Fields in Cambodia. After this was extensively covered by Rush Limbaugh and others, Facebook relented and reversed the ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cting-parents-survival-cambodia-genocide.html

Item: The ACLU, no group of wild-eyed Right-Wingers certainly, has expressed concern about the censorship by social media that Alex Jones has encountered.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aclu-alex-jones-social-media-ban_us_5b7afce7e4b0a5b1febdc797
 
Three examples from millions of users and millions of posts every day. It doesn't mean anything.

These social media services are also under attack by foreign hackers. Where's the outrage there?
 
FreddyE1977 said:
Humbly submitted in support of my position:

Item: Dennis Prager says that YouTube has been censoring and removing videos from his Prager University online non-profit. Prager is a level-headed and scholarly guy. He is certainly no Alex Jones.
Click to expand...

Howard Stern had his radio show fined by the FCC. Why? Someone complained. That's really all that has to happen. One person complains, and you get fined for speaking your mind on the radio. How is that not censorship? Doesn't the first amendment say "Congress shall make no law?" Yet he was singled out for what he said and ultimately left commercial radio. Was that a good thing?

I've had my posts on this very board censored, removed, and edited. Why? Because someone complained. There's a little triangle on the bottom left of every post that says "Report Post." It's happened to me. Am I complaining? No. This is a private board, and I agreed to the board's terms of service. They have the right to do this. It's their company. You don't like it? Start your own. We'll see if you do better.
 
kf4rca said:
Stern uses four letter words. Specifically banned.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Not when he was on broadcast radio. Here's a rundown of the events as they happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_fines_of_The_Howard_Stern_Show

The issue really was offensive or obscene content. So the question is who gets to decide what's offensive or obscene. Ultimately, the Supreme Court felt the FCC's rules weren't very clear.

In this case, we're not talking about people simply talking about conservative politics. What's happening is they end up saying or showing something offensive to someone. That person complains, and the content is removed. If this was simply about removing conservative speech, they all would be removed. But clearly there are specific issues involved. In the meantime, they're trying to turn this into an issue.

FreddyE1977 said:
And the hits just keep on comin'...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/7067261/facebook-trust-rating-score-check/
Click to expand...

This really isn't a popularity thing. If people feel Facebook is discriminating, they're welcome to post somewhere else. Ultimately, the solution may be to shut down all controversial issues, they way it's being handled in broadcast.
 
What Facebook is doing with the "trust" rating is frighteningly similar to a program the Chinese
government uses to rate and monitor people on social media there. These Silicon Valley firms were
more than eager to help the Chinese Communist Party build and manage their "Great Firewall" so
they have developed and tested all of the technical facilities they need to do this.

The only difference is that in China this is a government program and here it's being done by a
private company. But your privacy has been invaded and your speech suppressed just as much.

Big A has articulated a principled position that since it's a private company the response should be
"hands off". Many of my fellow Conservatives share that position. I do not. I think that what these
firms are doing presents such a grave threat to the First Amendment that drastic action is called for.
Our Founding Fathers surely would not have allowed the pipelines of free speech to be controlled by
a handful of companies, who appear to be colluding in an operation to suppress speech, if they could
have foreseen that circumstance.

As I said, oppression is being outsourced.
People who agree with me and want to see action to force it to end
have adopted a slogan, straight from another issue that is fresh in today's headlines.

Make Them Bake the Cake!
 
FreddyE1977 said:
Our Founding Fathers surely would not have allowed the pipelines of free speech to be controlled by
a handful of companies, who appear to be colluding in an operation to suppress speech, if they could
have foreseen that circumstance.
Click to expand...

The number of companies isn't limited by anything. There aren't any ownership limits like there are in broadcasting. If there were, the Republicans would eliminate them. You can have an unlimited number of Facebooks or Twitters. If the conservatives feel they're being discriminated against (which they clearly aren't), they can build their own social media platform, and keep out anyone they don't like. As the First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law. Let the conservatives deal with some of the verbal threats and unlawful use of copyrighted material. Let's see how they handle lawsuits from offended or threatened people.

Drastic action? What do you suggest? The Republicans are the ones who eliminated net neutrality and shut down any FCC involvement in the internet. If you're talking about regulating social media, you're in the wrong party. That's a liberal Democrat idea. The Republicans don't want any regulations on big business. They want it to get bigger. That's why they want to eliminate ownership caps in broadcasting.
 
So now the President is involved, promoting the view that Google and Facebook are "rigged" against conservatives.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...oritizes-fake-news-searches/story?id=57444232

The problem here is it makes Americans the enemy, rather than Russian hackers, who are using social media with fake accounts to drive public opinion. So the social media companies are stuck in the middle: Do they protect the country from outside hackers who are attacking the country? Or just leave everything open and let the Russians and everyone else take over social media? We know the Russian government is doing this. It's a proven fact. But it's never mentioned by the president or conservative media when they attack the social media companies. Why?
 
TheBigA said:
So now the President is involved, promoting the view that Google and Facebook are "rigged" against conservatives.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...oritizes-fake-news-searches/story?id=57444232

The problem here is it makes Americans the enemy, rather than Russian hackers, who are using social media with fake accounts to drive public opinion. So the social media companies are stuck in the middle: Do they protect the country from outside hackers who are attacking the country? Or just leave everything open and let the Russians and everyone else take over social media? We know the Russian government is doing this. It's a proven fact. But it's never mentioned by the president or conservative media when they attack the social media companies. Why?
Click to expand...

What about Gab and Bitchute they are supposedly trying to be an alternative social media outlets outside the big ones like Linkedin, Twitter and facebook attracting yes the presidents audience. How is Google "engaged in Censorship" if theres outlets saying that "Pro-Trump" Audiences are investing in companies like Gab and Bitchute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom