Aren’t boycotting and protesting companies you don’t like a time-honored tradition representing the true spirit of Capitalism, America, and Apple Pie?
Well put. This is where I am at right now. Companies have their own code of conduct for their employees and that probably extends to their products and services as well, and they are within their rights to ban any person or content not aligned with their values, as long as that person or content is not from a protected class, as I understand.
The bakery would fall under the same rules, except that maybe gay people are a protected class and cannot be discriminated against, so I am not sure that is a good equivalent to Facebook ditching content it finds objectionable.
I think the idea of ‘private companies should be able to refuse service to anyone they want and let the market sort it out, including boycotts’ is more a libertarian idea - certainly not a liberal one.
Regards,
Shodan
Absolutely, and I enthusiastically support the idea of people who support Jones and Infowars boycotting Facebook, Amazon, the internet, public streets, and solid foods. However the idea that the government should step in on behalf of their irate feelings is an entirely separate matter.
That’s not a “culture.” But yes, a business has to weigh the potential of such events to hurt its revenue, along with factors like advertiser sensitivity and individuals simply deciding they don’t want to use a platform that carries content that sickens them. It has nothing to do with ideological purity and everything to do with free market capitalism.
I agree. But others seem to think that boycotting a company you don’t like is some sort of travesty that should be outlawed or something.
IANAL but IIRC yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is not protected free speech; in fact it is illegal if there is no fire. Is there any moral difference between Jones’ obnoxious lies and yelling “Fire”? My question is whether Jones should be charged with felony or misdemeanor. If YouTube et al had NOT taken him down, could they be charged with abetting a crime?
I’m not sure what “conservative” even means in post-rational America, but Jones is a top sidekick to, and encouraged publicist for, the GOP chief:
Getting back to the OP (and away from Infowars) … I wonder what these conservative friends would say if you substituted “the NFL” for “social media sites” in the above claim.
“That’s COMPLETELY different because of reasons!”
Heh. Yeah, I know exactly what they would say…‘that’s not the same thing!’. 
I have no idea why this NFL thingy has them so riled, but they are seriously riled about it. To the point several refuse to watch any professional sports again (or so they claim…I bet they will still come to my Superbowl party, which is all about the cigars, snacks and tequila and light on the game).
That’s the thing about a lot of this. It’s got a lot to do with who’s gore is being oxed. I don’t have a gore in the fight wrt Inforwars being banned…well, that’s probably not true. I think they SHOULD be banned, but I can see how some place like YouTube could be accused of bias since there are a lot of nutty woo type CT channels out there, and there are also a lot of right wing-centric channels that I often have friends sending me videos from (there are a lot of left wing-centric ones that other friends send me videos from as well).
If this was a one off banning, then I don’t think a case can be made that this is companies stifling a certain message (political or woo/CT), nor do I see any 1st Amendment implications. Basically, if you don’t like it, vote with your pocketbook is my take, i.e. allow market forces to decide if it’s a good decision by the leadership of those companies. I think the implication (made by some of my conservative friends and relatives) that this is politically motivated to influence the upcoming elections because the Dems are slipping is not facts based and gets more into the realm of Infowars CT stuff. But I still think that exploring the implications of companies being coerced by governments to stifle speech in a broader sense, or to spin history or events (and here I’m thinking of the CCP and their efforts to change the narrative of things like Tienanmen both inside and outside of China, or changing the narrative about Taiwan, etc etc) is important to think through. Personally, I don’t see this as a case for that happening, but I think it DOES happen.
Maybe, but I don’t understand why it matters. Are they NOT supposed to be biased? So what if they are? If YouTube had a press release that said “We are no longer posting any pro-Conservative videos. Only Pro-Liberal or Anti-Conservative videos will be allowed” Is that illegal?
Allowed is probably not a good word. Of course, they would be ‘allowed’ to do pretty much whatever they want, within the scope of the law. But if there was a perception they were persecuting some group or other for political reasons then it would probably hurt them in any number of ways I can think of off the top of my head, but the biggest one would be with subscriptions and advertisers, leading to a downturn in their stock prices. But ‘allowed’ from a government perspective…well, they would be allowed to do anything that didn’t violate the law. At least in the US. If they banned something that some other country or entity took exception too then it’s hard to say.
I know that some of the channels I subscribe to talk about subtle ways they have been…discouraged…from some types of content. Basically, the use of monetization seems to be the main one. It’s a subtle way for YouTube to censor content. I’m fairly sure other social media content providers do similar things, just with their own internal pressure points.
Under which law can Jones be charged with a crime? Please be specific.
I agree, and I depart from liberal convention in that I believe the NFL has every right to make players stand for the anthem and fine (or release) them if they don’t. The owners are in the entertainment business, and if their audience doesn’t like players kneeling, they need to tailor their product to the audience’s preferences.
Of course, I disagree with them, and believe they’re wasting a huge opportunity to highlight their players’ smarts and diversity. (The NBA has a much better policy, making protest part of a progressive and educational platform.) But I don’t own a team, just like I don’t own a social network.
Libel? Isn’t he the one who claimed that the Sandy Hook kids who were killed were fakes and that their parents were part of the plot or something? I suppose he COULD simply be wrong, but seems to me he should be able to be sued for defamation or libel or something. Though I’m no lawyer so no idea. As to an actual crime, just a crime against humanity for his whole 9/11 CT stuff…IMHO, he should be shot for that alone.
Did I say I was a lawyer? To the contrary, I asked a question. Are you using some non-standard font where the question mark does not display?
What I said was:
Morally, his rants are akin to, but worse than, yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
Do you disagree?
They’re not embracing him. They’re embracing freedom of speech. Let him be exposed by his own words, let his own words tell people how vile he is. Give people like him enough rope to hang themselves. And let people expose him through facts and argument, not censorship. After all, if we don’t know what these arseholes are saying, we can’t counter their lies, can we?
I agree with you and with your disagreement with the owners. Yeah, they should be able to fire their players (fat chance of that happening with the high value ones I expect), and they are stupid to be doing it in any case. If their fans don’t like the players doing stuff like that they can choose to either vent at the players or stop watching and vote with their pocketbooks and stop following the teams. The owners should either create a policy and contract stating that their players won’t participate in any sort of political protest or whatever it is they are doing, or that players are free to do what they like wrt protest. I know that Disney has a thing where the actors in Marvel movies have to sign a contract that makes them jump through a bunch of hoops wrt conduct (and even exercise and diet), so this would be similar to that.
On the macro scale, this whole NFL thingy is, IMHO, just stupid, but folks seem to be genuinely worked up about it.
Are you willing to let him come to your house and broadcast from there? Will you put his videos up on your Facebook page?
If you are not willing to do that, why should YouTube or Facebook have to do it?
I would be willing to listen to him. And if he paid me a suitable sum, I would indeed let him broadcast from here. Subject to my checking the legal, tax, and other situations first, of course. Got to get the paperwork right and HMRC happy. The same would apply to anyone else: I won’t discriminate; I will charge equally. Farage, Corbyn, Putin, bring them on! You do know I’m currently unemployed and looking for a new career, right?
The only person who broadcasts from here for free is me. 
That’s a good question but I don’t see the equivalence. I don’t have the global presence that Youtube and Facebook do. I’m also not a platform. Both Facebook and Youtube allow all sorts of people; why censor?
There’s another, more Jones-esque, track: it’s a trap. Youtube and Facebook are actually getting the Right to defend them. If they actively censor offensive material then they become responsible for the material which remains. So, faced with the opposition of the right, they throw their hands up, can fire lots of censors, and disclaim all responsibility. And, more importantly, thus claim Common Carrier status.