Alex-Jones radio station off the air gets shut down by FCC?

I am more than happy, and fully capable of discussing your 'audience'. Hmm. Plenty of time too.

 

but if you suppress it in one place and not others you're still suppressing it.

And so because YouTube Twitter and Facebook edit content they are publishers meaning you they are responsible for the content placed on the website.

But when we see something like Isis videos or the pedophile advocacy groups they're all the sudden the platform and aren't responsible for a content.

They can't have their cake and eat it too.

 

No you're not. You admitted to wanting to play the gotcha game.

You wanted to play with me so so bad.

That isn't a discussion. I would suggest it's part of a psychological issue.

 

Do you have examples of ISIS videos on YouTube which they refuse to take down?

 

It doesn't matter if they took it down or not they are responsible for it because they are a publisher.

Oh wait they just morphed into a publisher for a few seconds to bump Alex Jones and then switched right back to a platform right?

 

It's only 'a gotcha game' if you're presenting a poor argument. Surely you'd also like to show that I'm wrong, correct? You just happen to be wrong this time.

 

Did they take it down?

Did they enforce their terms and conditions to take down ISIS' content?

Did they enforce their terms and conditions to take down Jones' content?

 

you don't even know what an argument is. You asked a question and I answered it in one word and you kept referring to that answer to your question as an argument.

I don't share your inflated ego I have no need to prove people wrong about anything.

And I don't believe I'm wrong you don't even understand my argument you keep ranting about one word answers to your questions being arguments I don't think you know what an argument is.

 

what a ridiculous post. as if there is no way to communicate without youtube.

 

Gotcha!

 

It doesn't matter the point is the are a platform not a publisher. So when they edited Alex Jones's content they were acting as a publisher not a platform.

Being that there's a platform and it's illegal to host such content as well as incitements to violence or child pronography they have to remove it.

But you don't remove somebody because you don't like them that makes you a publisher not a platform so they are responsible for every second of video on the entire platform.

 

Again its a claim you make : 'YouTube is either a platform or a publisher it can't swap back and forth'

I don't believe this claim. Support it or I will dismiss it .

Youtube offers a platform to share video, as long as that video doesnt threatens anyone or any other user agreement violation.

Jones broke the rules by threatening people and as a result his account got closed down

You are simply trying to change the subject to a sort of existential question about what youtube is in a poor attempt to somehow make this meaningfull.

Reality of course is that this is a simple matter and this is used as an excuse to attack youtube because you dont like them.

 

stupid opinions are noted.

I didn't say they were suppressing all speech. They are suppressing some. And they absolutely are.

Now tell me on fling poo or that I'm not speaking in English as is your standard M.O.

 

Okay...

And they did?

Sounds kind of like apples and oranges then.

Is it possible that they learned a lesson from having to take ISIS content down, and put in their terms & conditions that content inciting violence will result in expulsion, and then enforced it on Jones?

 

so you want evidence that YouTube is a video sharing platform?

You doubt my claim that YouTube it's a video sharing platform?

What the f*** do you think it is have you been living under a rock for the past 10 years?

except if you're Alex Jones.

first off if you published threats on a public platform you are criminally liable. Being that there are no charges against him for a terroristic threat it's likely there wasn't any threatening happening.

It is a criminal offence to issue threats.

Further if they felt the video Alex Jones made was an issuance of threats he could have removed the video but no they had to remove a person.

so prosecute him if you can't then it isn't a threat it's just a way to justify unjustifiable actions.

and you are just saying this because you can't argue the point I made.

well YouTube is discriminating I would attack anybody who is discriminating. I think it's repugnant Behavior.

 

Taking down ISIS content child pronography or anything like that is necessary they cannot host it.

Alex Jones is not illegal content otherwise he would be in jail.

 

Then why is it relevant?

The YouTube terms & conditions are not limited to illegal activity. If they want to ban content short of illegal activity, that is their prerogative.

 

who said it was relevant?

That makes them a publisher not a platform therefore they are liable and responsible for everything posted on their website except the Shirk that responsibility when it's convenient.

 

Then why are we talking about it?

Well they are certainly an electronic platform. Legally speaking, is there a reason they cannot also be a publisher? Publishing law is rather disparate and encompassing. Is there a reason they can't be both? If they are a publisher, is it not up to their discretion what they will or will not publish as long as it is legal?

 

says who?

except for with regard to Alex Jones's content then they are publisher.

So are you seeing the problem yet?

They are either responsible for the content or they are not. They can't be both its a paradox.

 

Says who what?

No.

They are not.

'4.3 You agree that you will be solely responsible (to YouTube, and to others) for all activity that occurs under your YouTube account.'

Also this:


'7.5 You agree that your conduct on the site will comply with (and you agree that the content of all of your Content shall comply with) the YouTube Community Guidelines, found at https://www.youtube.co.uk/t/community_guidelines, as updated from time to time.'


'7.8 On becoming aware of any potential violation of these Terms, YouTube reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to decide whether Content complies with the content requirements set out in these Terms and may remove such Content and/or terminate a User's access for uploading Content which is in violation of these Terms at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion.'

 

No I want evidence that the claim you made is somehow important for this matter.

This is a user content violation where youtube reserves the right to act in such cases.
Either you can show that this somehow violates Jones' rights and youtube is wrong to revoke anyones acces to youtube or you dont/cant and then youtube has this right.

There was a clear threath, nowhere does youtube state you need to be criminally liable .

And thats just one of many violations same episode he"s harrasing people claiming they are pedophiles , raping children .

He already had several warnings, again since beginning this year.

This is how youtube works: few warnings and then a ban. Jones is the only responsible for this, youtube simply followed its own rules Jones agreed to when he signed up with them.

This is the problem, you dont seem to know what happened here nor how youtube works. They did remove video's, banned adds and suspended his channel for 2 weeks.

https://thenextweb.com/insider/2018...-jones-offers-dire-warning-for-future-videos/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alex-jones-youtube-ban-infowars_us_5a95d064e4b09c872baea27b

https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/04/y...nel-says-it-has-no-plans-to-freeze-or-ban-it/

Its clear youtube did everything according to its rules, its also clear it was jones that kept breaking them and eventually got banned.

Youtube isnt the police they act responible on their site where Jones broke the rules multiple times.

They arent they ban plenty of people every day.

 

Okay. What about the rest of the post? Does it answer your question?

 

im in shock.

 

you said “if we let Silicon Valley dictate what can be said then they are granted the right to suppress free speech.”

you did not qualify that statement, as you are now trying to do after the fact.

you are not “on fling poo” at the moment.

but i noticed you were successful in suppressing *my* free speech...