Alex Jones Joins Diamond & Silk In Massive Lawsuit Against Google / YouTube Discrimination

[goldenequity]

Alex Jones Joins Diamond & Silk In Massive Lawsuit Against Google / YouTube Discrimination
http://investmentwatchblog.com/alex-jones-joins-diamond-silk-in-massive-lawsuit-against-google-youtube-discrimination/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvZSiHrOTFQ

[specsaregood]

so he is suing a private company for deciding what they want on their own website?

[dannno]

so he is suing a private company for deciding what they want on their own website?

Probably for breaking their contractual terms of service.

Alex Jones brings a lot of people to youtube.com, and they have a contract.

[specsaregood]

Probably for breaking their contractual terms of service.

Alex Jones brings a lot of people to youtube.com, and they have a contract.

maybe he should go an support a site that wants his business instead of feeding more to the enemy.

[PierzStyx]

maybe he should go an support a site that wants his business instead of feeding more to the enemy.

Jones is a glorified snake oil salesman. He can't afford to lose the notoriety YouTube affords.

[dannno]

maybe he should go an support a site that wants his business instead of feeding more to the enemy.

...or he can sue them for breaking their contract AND go support a site that wants his business instead of feeding more to the enemy.

But if he does end up back on youtube, it will be better for the movement because he will have more exposure, despite the fact that some of that money is going to the enemy. That's just the reality of how it is.

[angelatc]

...

But if he does end up back on youtube, it will be better for the movement because he will have more exposure, despite the fact that some of that money is going to the enemy. That's just the reality of how it is.

Yep. In real life, I pay to run Facebook ads. I do not like it, but traffic in my store picks up dramatically when my ads run.

[dannno]

Jones is a glorified snake oil salesman. He can't afford to lose the notoriety YouTube affords.

Not having corporate or outside sponsorship is actually a really good thing to help a media company remain more objective because they don't get political pressure from their sponsors to report things a certain way.

His products are actually quite good. Selling them gives his audience a venue for purchasing these type of healthful products, increases the health and wellness of the audience, and gives them a way to support his operation and reduces his need to find outside sponsors.

[Schifference]

Not having corporate or outside sponsorship is actually a really good thing to help a media company remain more objective because they don't get political pressure from their sponsors to report things a certain way.

His products are actually quite good. Selling them gives his audience a venue for purchasing these type of healthful products, increases the health and wellness of the audience, and gives them a way to support his operation and reduces his need to find outside sponsors.

I agree with what you say but I don't think Alex Jones presents himself as a person that is in good health that takes care of his body.

[misterx]

so he is suing a private company for deciding what they want on their own website?

If Libertarians want to have a voice they are going to have to lose this notion that censorship is only bad when the government does it. Social media is the modern day public square. Multinational corporations weren't allowed to buy up the public squares and cut off access to their political opponents, and they shouldn't be able to do it on the internet either.

[Wooden Indian]

Gotta agree. If they did break their agreement, he's within his rights to sue for damages.

He's a clown in my opinion, but not because of this.

[dannno]

I agree with what you say but I don't think Alex Jones presents himself as a person that is in good health that takes care of his body.

He does now, he is in great health. He did let himself go a while back.

20 years ago:

http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/40/768x384/gallery-1475607760-alex1.jpg


8 years ago:

http://www.alternet.org/sites/default/files/story_images/alexjonesrandpaul-jones911.jpg

Today:

https://static.infowars.com/about/alex-jones-image-2.jpg

[specsaregood]

If Libertarians want to have a voice they are going to have to lose this notion that censorship is only bad when the government does it. Social media is the modern day public square. Multinational corporations weren't allowed to buy up the public squares and cut off access to their political opponents, and they shouldn't be able to do it on the internet either.

So we should give up on our notion of private property as well, right?

While we are on the subject, I was wondering why nobody was making a stink yet about those white groups domain names being dropped by their registrars. If anything THAT is a public utility.

[goldenequity]

If Libertarians want to have a voice they are going to have to lose this notion that censorship is only bad when the government does it. Social media is the modern day public square. Multinational corporations weren't allowed to buy up the public squares and cut off access to their political opponents, and they shouldn't be able to do it on the internet either.

bravo.

[misterx]

So we should give up on our notion of private property as well, right?

While we are on the subject, I was wondering why nobody was making a stink yet about those white groups domain names being dropped by their registrars. If anything THAT is a public utility.

Guaranteeing access to public utilities is akin to ending private property? The world isn't that black and white. I agree that in theory Facebook and Google should be able to ban anyone and censor anything they want, but the real world consequences of allowing that to happen are Orwellian enough that allowing it to happen is akin to political suicide for anyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren.

Yes, that is a big concern as well. They are starting with the white nationalists, and they will move to the palecons next, and then the libertarians. If it isn't stopped now, this website will be shut down too just as soon as the Dems are back in charge.

[Jamesiv1]

Probably for breaking their contractual terms of service.
got anything that supports that premise?

A copy-pasta of their actual T&C's with the part they broke highlighted would be compelling.

Otherwise, anybody that thinks its wrong for a privately held company to refuse service to whomever they choose can get the hell out.

[goldenequity]

got anything that supports that premise?
A copy-pasta of their actual T&C's with the part they broke highlighted would be compelling.
Otherwise, anybody that thinks its wrong for a privately held company to refuse service to whomever they choose can get the hell out.

you bery funy rd hat clown guy.
I see we're back to here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514013-Conservative-Lee-Stranahan-Has-YouTube-Account-Taken-Down-for-DISCUSSING-Radical-Islam&p=6511608&viewfull=1#post6511608).
cheers.