Info wars shut down good or bad?

[Lambchops]

“If a newspaper was publishing bomb-making and DIY suicide vest instructions they would be shut down.”

Not really, the supreme court has allowed instructions on how to make an atomic bomb and the Anarchist Cookbook is completely legal in the States for educational purposes.

IDK but I'm guessing this was a pre-9/11 decision..... go ahead - google "how to make a suicide vest" and a few other terrorist type things, follow the links, bookmark the pages, buy some bulk fertilizer and see what happens. I dare you

But all joking aside, if you compiled a list of instructions from those sites and tried to get it published, no publisher would touch it. They will self censor. The US courts may or may not uphold your right to freedom of speech if you paid to produce this book out of your own pocket, but I seriously doubt any commercial publisher would do it.

--> This is what has happened if you consider FB to be a publisher producing content from contributors. They are a private company and under no obligation to publish anything if they don't want to.

Regardless of freedom of speech rulings, these days if some publisher started openly producing terrorist material in the US I'm pretty sure they would get a patriot act enema in fairly short order.

nobody is allowed to speak out against the root cause which is Muslim Extremism.

LOL.... havn't really noticed a lack of people speaking about that, however freedom of religion is one of those rights in the US constitution.

Unfortunately there is virtually no definition of what a religion actually is or isn't. Hence you can have ludicrous garbage like scientology or whatever declaring itself as a religion and nobody can do anything about it.

In the US anybody can start their own church and declare themselves a religious organisation just by filling out a few forms.

-- edit --

The point here is that because religion is expressly protected there can't be any regulation on the content of religious 'belief'. This is a problematic loop-hole. The fix would be to ban illegal teachings in religious texts, but this would also require the bible to have any illegal suggestions edited out of it. Quite obviously the powers-that-be within the church would never allow this to happen.

--  --

Religious extremism is aweful. Dumbass crack-pots that use thousand year old war rhetoric to justify their murder need to be lined up and shot, regardless of which text it comes from. Also rich, power-hungry assholes who do the same thing and then blame it on religious crack-pots to cover their tracks need the same treatment.



.... and again, this:

The Nazis burned ALL books except for their own published version of the truth ........./......... If FB, or anyone else was shutting down ALL media from a given section of politics that would be a concern, but they will never do that.

   ... is why the book-burning analogy doesn't hold up.

[shesycompany]

In the US anybody can start their own church and declare themselves a religious organisation just by filling out a few forms.

seen this happen here ...hope they dont genital mutilate thier children.

[Lambchops]

You’re focusing on the most extreme example while ignoring the myriad of other examples.

Yes I am deliberately using an extreme example to illustrate the point. I agree that mostly things fall into grey areas where judgement calls must be made. The merits of any individual judjement call should be debated seperately to the overall concept of whether or not a media organization should self-censor extremist material, which is what I have been mostly addressing.

Youtube is already adding “fact checks” to videos that question climate change.

I don't know what the relevance of this to the current debate is. I'm guessing from the flavor of your writing that you don't think industrialization has had any effect on the atmosphere or environment. As this topic is a scientific one then "fact checking" is very appropriate.

The entire scientific method is about fact checking. That's how it works. You come up with a theory. Do scientific tests &/or observations to prove your theory and then publish you findings.

At that point and forever after the entire rest of the scientific world has the opportunity to test it out for themselves and fact check your work .... and they do. There is massive competition for competing theories and scientists are desperately trying to prove each other wrong to get better research money and continue their work.

If there was ANY actual real scientific basis for disproving climate change, someone would have published it and immediately got MEGA$$$ in research grants from all the oil companies etc. Their grandchildren would be set for life..... and BTW I personally would be very happy to see it, seriously what a relief.

There are a handfull of 'scientists' who are willing to pretend there is some basis for denial to do media PR work for oil companies, but that is about half a dozen nobodies vs the entire rest of the world.

Sorry but science is pretty much "fake news"-proof. Occasionally people do try to fudge their results to get research money, sometimes it works for a little while, but in the end they always get found out, because results don't lie.

So fact-check away. If you can find some actual scientific proof against climate change you can get $100M bucks in research grants tomorrow. Give it a crack!.... but I would reccommend not starting your research with 'infowars' material lol.

Rome had a similarly detached & cosmopolitan attitude before it’s fall.

Yes, the rise and fall of human civilizations is interesting, although this seems more to be a pro-regulation argument, no? Certianly the current civilization is by far the biggest in history and is quite possibly heading for the biggest fall yet. I have myself also considered the current trend towards hedonism and the mainstreaming of amoral behavior in relation to the path the Roman empire took .... ironically the Italian parliament is a good place to look for examples of this lol. Certainly there is enough anecdotal evidence to consider that we could possibly be heading down the same path.

The scary bit is that usually a civilization falls when it becomes weak and outside forces then smash it up and take away the spoils. What is "outside" our western civilization? "Muslim extremists!" they all cry... pfff... bunch of hill-billies. Guess again. Hint: It starts with a 'C'.

[Lambchops]

just make their message scarce and drown it out with amplified competing propaganda to tip an election. This has virtually the same effect of a book burning by keeping just enough of the population dumbed down with trivial issues

It is an interesting problem that now we all have so many "news" sources to choose from that we can all only listen to the news we choose to believe.

Many people (including myself) would consider the infowars thing to be the very definition of fabricated garbage designed to keep stupid people looking the wrong direction.

... and yet I meet people who seem to otherwise be of at least average intelligence who really believe that infowars is factual and that everyone else is telling a bunch of lies.

It is just more proof that people will believe what they want to believe and that it is easy to convince humans of almost anything if you use some simple behavioural science.

Have one or two really LOUD people repeating the message over and over, AND then (and this is very important) have a couple of other random and ostensibly independant 'sources' provide the same message. Like some guy on FB or some random twitter person, and your friend at work who follows the same people.

Humans are extremely social creatures. We are hard-wired to be sceptical of new ideas but also to believe things are true once we have heard them from a few independent sources... ( or what our brains categorize as independent and reliable sources anyway).

So this becomes very easy to manipulate. These days there are PR marketing companies working on all sides of any high-profile debate manufacturing enough of this stuff to convince many people of just about anything... so it comes down to what you chose to listen to..... and the massive availability of media means that anyone can only listen to the side of the debate they want to believe and never even hear the other side.

... perhaps too much diversity is almost as dangerous as a complete monopoly? It's an interesting issue as it has no real historical precedent.

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

Invalid Tweet ID

[~ToRa~]

In the US anybody can start their own church and declare themselves a religious organisation just by filling out a few forms.

Yo you just gave me the greatest idea for pranks on YouTube.

[van]

Yea like some dipshit that believes in Marx and a faggot with a gay seal picture really know what they are talking about in life.   Go suck a dick dumbass losers

[van]

Lambchops so because a bunch of news outlets like CNN, msnnbc etc... they all spout the same news narrative so that means that everything they are saying is true?   You're a special kind of dumb fuck if you think that those news outlets are telling you the truth, and something like info wars is just conspiracies.    You do know that websites like snopes etc lie as well.

[Certified MENSA Genius Brain (smart)]

cnn and msnbc obviously totally suck ass.  that's corporate news, at this moment programmed to talk about russia 24/7 because thats one issue that doesnt threaten any of the fatcats who own the network at all and can still galvanize idiot dems.  So just play that stuff round the clock, the democratic party likes it too because it doesnt turn off any potential donors.  and corporate news isnt ever gonna go too hard against what the state department or the rich peolpe want

doesnt mean alex jones isnt a total crackpot who makes up dangerous bullshit about false flags and fake pedo rings that a bunch of alienated dipshits actually believe.  and i mean pedo rings are out there sometimes, i mean just look at rich fuck jeffrey epstein and his lolita express (which bill clinton and trump flew on lol) or some shit thats going on in hollywood... doesnt mean you can just type ctrl-f and search the word "pizza" though and make up your own stories to fit your conspiracy into whatever you find.  That stuff is seriously dumb as shit and you get people believing it.

[Lambchops]

Lambchops so because a bunch of news outlets like CNN, msnnbc etc... they all spout the same news narrative so that means that everything they are saying is true?   You're a special kind of dumb fuck if you think that those news outlets are telling you the truth, and something like info wars is just conspiracies.    You do know that websites like snopes etc lie as well.

Excellent work Van, now you're getting right to the heart of the matter.

No. I don't assume that any media outlet is telling the truth, or even any person for that matter.

... and no I don't live in the same media sewage pond that you do (we have our own lol). I don't know who 'snopes' is. I see only occasional excerpts from the likes of CNN and NBC, and I only really know about 'infowars' because of this thread, although I had heard the name.

For mainstream media, I think most of them will report 'facts' most of the time, but they will also choose not to report some facts, while choosing to push others beyond their merits. That is how the people who own and control the media, control the mainstream narrative.

When I notice any source, be it a person or a media company, choosing to put a great deal of emphasis on one side of a story and barely even mentioning the other side, I ask myself why. If it's a topic that interests me I will actually do a bit of research to see what other information is out there. I am well aware that mainstream sources can be very misleading.

They will manipulate the focus and push their own agendas, as humans do, but for the most part, I don't think the mainstream media actually report things they know to be false, as facts. That sort of thing is too easy to check and the people working in that industry have to at least keep up an appearance of being reliable. Far more relevant is what they don't report.

The other side of the coin is the type of media that blatantly tells any story they want and doesn't even care if its true or not. Like the oldschool tabloid papers that would run headlines about alien abductions, haunted houses, bigfoot sightings, and whatever else they (or anyone else) could dream up.

Even if you personally believe in aliens &/or ghosts &/or bigfoot, most people would agree that these type of media don't really do a lot of fact-checking before they run a story. They just find one crazy old cat lady who says, "I woke up one night and the power was out and Mittens' eyes were glowing red and he hissed at me" then they run DEMONIC CAT TERRORIZES SMALL TOWN as a headline. Sometimes they even invent the entire story, cat-lady and all.

Nobody bothers fact-checking these types of stories, or pointing the finger at these types of publications and saying "they're unreliable", because everyone just knows it and what would be the point? The people who work there know that they're never going to win a Pulitzer Prize and nobody really cares what they say because nobody takes them seriously anyway so they just do whatever.

In itself, the headline "Tabloid News Source Invents A Story" is not news, because they have been doing the same thing every week for years and everyone knows, so duh, who cares? BUT the headline "CNN Reporter Invents A Story" is news, and people would notice and their rival mainstream media companies would run it.

That's not to say they don't manipulate the narrative and selectively report things and push their own agendas all the time, but this is a very different thing to out-and-out inventing or "faking" a false story.

It's like the Lauer/Weinstien etc. stuff that I have even heard about on the other side of the planet. It's big news because they are big media figures. You don't see the headline "Pimp Slaps Ho Around On Street Corner" because it's not really news (deplorable as this may be).


           --------       -----------      --------


So when the internet/youtube etc. suddenly provided a media platform where anybody could produce their own media for free there was an explosion of all sorts of people telling all sorts of stories. There is all manner of good/bad/crazy/brilliant/weird/stupid stuff out there, almost totally unregulated.

But recently, all sorts of people in politics, marketing and industry have realized that they can use this platform to tell any story they want, without having to be accountable for it. They don't even need to do it themselves, just find someone who speaks their brand of politics then do a deal with them and get them to push their agenda.

Then they just get that person some notoriety by doing a few stories about them in the mainstream media (cnn/fox/whoever) and leading people to this secondary source (infowars is one example). Then that person can just wholesale make up any complete rubbish that they want and use blatantly false tactics, fear mongering and whatever else while the people backing them can pretend they had nothing to do with it.

This stuff has slipped under the radar for a while because the mainstream is accustomed to ignoring the tabloids and just assumed that nobody worth worrying about would pay any attention. Recently they have woken up with a start and realized holy crap people are actually believing that shit! This is a seriously disturbing trend.

IMO the presidential election was the thing that really tipped the scales. In the beginning, nobody took Trump seriously because they didn't believe that anyone would fall for such blatant conman tactics. Then he got elected, and started talking complete rubbish and people started reporting it, expecting something to happen. Trump just says "that's all fake news" even when whatever he did is totally on the record, he just denies it anyway and nobody cares.

Like when he announced that there were massive crowds of people at his inauguration and anyone can see the footage and there's hardly anyone there. He just says "was too" with a straight face and people just shrug their shoulders. It seems that many of his supporters know he does this but think he is somehow bullshitting for America, so they like it. Sadly "President Tells Another Lie" is no longer news. People have stopped bothering report it.

This made a lot of people sit up and take notice and say OMG you mean we can actually just make stuff up and that is patently, blatantly, provably false and/or illogical but people will still not care as long as we keep saying it over and over? Wow! Well damn, let's start doing that then... the rise of then 'infowars' thing and others like it a appear to be a direct result of this tactic.

What we are seeing now is the push back against this type of mis-information. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached after he got caught out lying, now Trump talks complete rubbish all the time and nobody cares. Whether or not the infowars guy or the current president are talking your brand of politics, if you really think about it you should agree that these types of tactics are bad.

If for no other reason, it's making the entire rest of the work think, "OMG how fucking stupid are Americans?". Have some self-respect.

[Lambchops]

cnn and msnbc obviously totally suck ass.  that's corporate news, at this moment programmed to talk about russia 24/7 because thats one issue that doesnt threaten any of the fatcats who own the network at all and can still galvanize idiot dems.  So just play that stuff round the clock, the democratic party likes it too because it doesnt turn off any potential donors.  and corporate news isnt ever gonna go too hard against what the state department or the rich peolpe want

doesnt mean alex jones isnt a total crackpot who makes up dangerous bullshit about false flags and fake pedo rings that a bunch of alienated dipshits actually believe.  and i mean pedo rings are out there sometimes, i mean just look at rich fuck jeffrey epstein and his lolita express (which bill clinton and trump flew on lol) or some shit thats going on in hollywood... doesnt mean you can just type ctrl-f and search the word "pizza" though and make up your own stories to fit your conspiracy into whatever you find.  That stuff is seriously dumb as shit and you get people believing it.

Haha I'm not surprised that the mainstream media are running with the Russia thing. It's a 2-pronged win/win for them.

1) It's linked to the whole Russian FB trolls issue so it undermines the credability of FB / internet based news sources ..... who are in may ways the mainstram media's biggest competition and greatest threat.

2) Trump has been calling them liars every time they say something he doesn't like. This story is not only proof of him lying, it's proof of him lying about using the dirty tricks that he accuses everyone else of using.

So I'm not at all surprised that they are pushing this story, because it suits their agenda. If, as you say (and I believe) mainstream is pushing this 24/7 then it seems to be an excellent example of them controlling the narrative and trying to influence public opinion. I still doubt very much that any of the individual things they are reporting are actually deliberate lies.


BTW: Yes quite obviously I don't like Trump, but no, that doesn't mean I am whatever liberal stereotype the right wing pseudo-media would have you believe. For the record I also don't like Hillary Clinton, never have. I think she's a slick figurehead for far too many old-money interests and has got where she is purely by trading political favors. Had she ever got into the office I think she would have pushed through a whole bunch of legislation for all sorts of shadowy types that she "owed one" to. This is normal in politics to some extent, but IMO few people were into that game further than Hillary.

[CumSavorer4385]

“But isn't this the only way to prevent the companies that own those digital platforms from doing the exact thing you're complaining about here?”

      Ideally, free market solutions are the preferred approach. Competing platforms are starting to emerge, but the old guard is fighting back, Microsoft servers threatening to shutdown GAB if they don’t censor users posts. However, for the most aggregious offenders, monopolies will require anti trust intervention for FB and Alphabet. Intervention has been the default position protecting the companies since the 90s, it’s only now extending protections to the consumer is being given serious consideration. Companies are shielded from liable under the Comm Decency Act if they are platforms or merely act as conduits. When they move beyond that realm and start acting as editors of content it becomes harder to make the argument they haven’t assumed the role of a publisher, opening themselves up to a multitude of lawsuits. You can’t have it both ways and still be considered a “platform”. Modernize the consumer Bill of Rights which already gives people the right to choose, ensuring they have a variety of content & sorting options to choose from and a right to be informed, what data is collected and how its used, a specific reason must be stated for a suspension or ban & a right to privacy, in the age of retaliation people should be able to maintain a shroud of privacy online to protect themselves, unless threatening a life. It’s concerning, since most legislation tends to curtail personal liberties, instead of extending individual freedoms. FB may eventually have to offer a migration assistant or allow competitors to access the platform with their own customized iterations, like switching cable companies that still rely upon much of the same core infrastructure.


“If a newspaper was publishing bomb-making and DIY suicide vest instructions they would be shut down.”

Not really, the supreme court has allowed instructions on how to make an atomic bomb and the Anarchist Cookbook is completely legal in the States for educational purposes.



Attributing volitility solely to misinformation, while ignoring the short sellers and private data misuse which was the issue of greater concern. It was actually a non issue when Obama utilized the same tactics incorporated by Cambridge Analytica, but for a conservative agenda.  They do want everyone using it, but thats why they try to make filters subtle and hard to detecct

“The "book burning" rhetoric is exactly the sort of uninformed rubbish that shock-jocks make their money spreading. “


     Most content consumed these days is digital, you don’t have to silence a voice, just make their message scarce and drown it out with amplified competing propaganda to tip an election. This has virtually the same effect of a book burning by keeping just enough of the population dumbed down with trivial issues, like the Kardashians, most people don’t have the time to or energy to deeply delve into things. You’re focusing on the most extreme example while ignoring the myriad of other examples already provided that could hardly be construed as “misinformation”. Youtube is already adding “fact checks” to videos that question climate change. Rome had a similarly detached & cosmopolitan attitude before it’s fall. These issues are hard for you to relate to since you’ve never had Free Speech, just empty promises from the Magna Carta, you probably cheered Tommy Robinson being locked up and Laura Southern being denied entry to the UK while Khan lets in all his terrorist buddies in. 15 acid attacks a week in the UK have become the new norm and nobody is allowed to speak out against the root cause which is Muslim Extremism. Didn’t mean to startle anyone, continue sipping your tea kind sir like nothing is wrong with this trajectory.

Shut the FUCK up you stupid fucking bitch ahahahahaha

[CumSavorer4385]

Lol that PB knows all the latest Lauren Southern and Tommy Robinson drama. BTW they should both be put in a gas chamber along with you 

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

reminder PB likes to claim he has a very high IQ

[van]

Tommy Robinson and Lauren Southern are amazing individuals.   Who the fuck is this cum guzzling faggot?  You guys really need to start banning random dumb fucks that know nothing about life.