Alex Jones just got deleted ( Fahrenheit 451 for reelz)

Iepcxir.png


Remember kids there is a difference between "hate" and "freedom fighting"
 
CjBurden said:
they aren't trying to erase him from the internet. They're tos'ing him. He is violating their TOS and they're exercising their right to take action. He can continue trolling on the internet in any number of ways, just not by using their services. Seems pretty simple.
Click to expand...

He's a supplement selling conspiracy theorist who got axed from pretty much every monopolistic tech giant simultaneously. That's one hell of a coincidence, and certainly not going to increase the guy's brand. Whether you like him or not, the method in which this transpired should make everyone uncomfortable.
 
It was obviously coordinated and I am a little more than uncomfortable about it. These companies all reap huge government benefits as well.
 
I think it is a good thing. I have never watched him.. ever. Shit like this makes people itchy though. I encourage that itch of course. Acting on that itch refreshes the tree of liberty.


Soon
 
whats great is everyone calling for his ban has never watched him either

just repeat what you're fed sheeps

alex jones top real news man and water filter salesman in the country
 
Fool said:
He's a supplement selling conspiracy theorist who got axed from pretty much every monopolistic tech giant simultaneously. That's one hell of a coincidence, and certainly not going to increase the guy's brand. Whether you like him or not, the method in which this transpired should make everyone uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Why does the timing matter? They have the right to do whatever they want its in their TOS of course they all probably axed him at the same time thats normally how it goes down in the business world. If someone takes a bath you all do at once.

Your totally not argueing the point, thats not uncomfortable thats business and capitalism. If he wants hosting he shouldn't be in court, selling snake oil, or spreading lies.

Lots of reeeee against private rights I swear you guys flip flop on this stuff.

Your uncomfortable because you dont apply private rights universally not their fault you flip flop.
 
Last edited:
KittyCat said:
Why does the timing matter? They have the right to do whatever they want its in their TOS of course they all peobably axed him at the same time thats normally how it goes down in the business world. If someone takes a bath you all do at once.

Your totally not argueing the point, thats not uncomfortable thats business and capitalism. If he wants hosting he shouldn't be in court, selling snake oil, or spreading lies.

Lots of reeeee against private rights I swear you guys flip flop on this stuff.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. I'm saying it's not plausible that so many independent competitive sites with independently written ToS's all suddenly came to the same conclusion at the exact same moment without a specific inciting incident that set it off. It comes across as either ideologically motivated, or that they stand to make more money without him on their platforms than with him, or that they were strong-armed into doing it by another party(ies). It's hard to believe that corporations who want money would willingly turn down the amount of money Alex Jones probably generates for them.
 
Fool said:
Sure they do. I'm saying it's not plausible that so many independent competitive sites with independently written ToS's all suddenly came to the same conclusion at the exact same moment without a specific inciting incident that set it off. It comes across as either ideologically motivated, or that they stand to make more money without him on their platforms than with him, or that they were strong-armed into doing it by another party(ies). It's hard to believe that corporations who want money would willingly turn down the amount of money Alex Jones probably generates for them.
Click to expand...


Alex jones doesnt generate money for google if you think that your an idiot. Plus he probably increases liability and shareholder risk and he violates TOS constantly. Stop making a conspiracy out of this. Its capitalism functioning how it should.

Most youtube sites operate at a big loss and no one wants their ads associated with him. Even if he did generate revenue its trivial to google for the pr hit. Once google boots him the rest do same to avoid liability. Market efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Fool said:
Sure they do. I'm saying it's not plausible that so many independent competitive sites with independently written ToS's all suddenly came to the same conclusion at the exact same moment without a specific inciting incident that set it off. It comes across as either ideologically motivated, or that they stand to make more money without him on their platforms than with him, or that they were strong-armed into doing it by another party(ies). It's hard to believe that corporations who want money would willingly turn down the amount of money Alex Jones probably generates for them.
Click to expand...

The amount of money by making this decision will be> his generated ad revenue. They did the cost benefit analysis but even if it isn’t greater the organization needs to stay true to their mission and at times will not coincide with short term profits. Listen to the fb earnings call re privacy as an example

Nothing is stopping Alex jones from creating his own website.
 
itt: fool, a forum admin who presumably has banned someone from tribalwar, argues that other websites should not be allowed to do the same.
 
triple said:
itt: fool, a forum admin who presumably has banned someone from tribalwar, argues that other websites should not be allowed to do the same.
Click to expand...

I've never banned someone because Something Awful did. Don't be fucking stupid.
 
Fool said:
I've never banned someone because Something Awful did. Don't be fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

Is there some rule that you couldn't?

You banned me for spoiling game of thrones - not saying I didn't deserve it - but youtube can't ban someone for harassing sandy hook families? The fuck?
 
Fool said:
Did I say they couldn't?
Click to expand...

No, but I don't understand why you'd go to lengths to allege it's a coordinated effort without some sort of internal reasoning as to why that's actually wrong.

Who alleges a perfectly legal conspiracy? Cmon man.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top