Free speech.

[TheDemonLord]

Maybe you should actually read what is written.

Quite - like the part where all of the Companies say that they aren't cancelling their Youtube Advertisement campaigns, they just don't want their ads to appear on the Alex Jones channel.

Which is the opposite of what you are trying to portray - that they are cancelling ALL of their Advertisement OVER the Alex Jones Channel.

I also note your opinion on legal matters is not exactly as relevent as a federal court judges

Whereas my IT opinion carries a bit more weight - and this is where we are having the Philosophical discussion. Besides, the fact that a Federal court has classed a private citizens personal Twitter account as a public domain pretty much proves my point.

As for breitbart - I read the "90% drop in Advertising" - but did you read the fine print? That it was just the number of companies that advertise on the site, it says nothing as to what the percentage of revenue they lost.

The drop in viewership - Possible suggestions - Social Media filtering Algorithms, the leaving of Milo from Brietbart, The US Election was done and dusted by 2017.

And you can't draw a causation between a drop in advertisers leading to a drop in visitors - people don't visit sites for the Adverts...

[Laava]

I see you lot are still banging on in here, getting NOWHERE! Why are you wasting your time?
There, I exercised my free speech, now I'm waiting to see how many people get offended...

[husaberg]

Quite - like the part where all of the Companies say that they aren't cancelling their Youtube Advertisement campaigns, they just don't want their ads to appear on the Alex Jones channel.

Which is the opposite of what you are trying to portray - that they are cancelling ALL of their Advertisement OVER the Alex Jones Channel.



Whereas my IT opinion carries a bit more weight - and this is where we are having the Philosophical discussion. Besides, the fact that a Federal court has classed a private citizens personal Twitter account as a public domain pretty much proves my point.

As for breitbart - I read the "90% drop in Advertising" - but did you read the fine print? That it was just the number of companies that advertise on the site, it says nothing as to what the percentage of revenue they lost.

The drop in viewership - Possible suggestions - Social Media filtering Algorithms, the leaving of Milo from Brietbart, The US Election was done and dusted by 2017.

And you can't draw a causation between a drop in advertisers leading to a drop in visitors - people don't visit sites for the Adverts...

Read it again many have threatened to or have pulled all their advertising
Your IT carries no weight compared to a federal court judge when it comes to legal matters. None at all. You are reading only part of the the ruling and then trying to construct a narrative that suits what you want the outcome to be.
90% less advertisers is a loss of revenue
if they have 2600 less advertisers saying they dont want to advertise on a page its less revenue. 2900 now.
nope 3800 now https://www.fastcompany.com/40535815...amazon-remains

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/20...re-90-percent/

https://ir.net/news/politics/124618/...-unnerving-iq/

But Chief Executive Larry Solov recently told the Los Angeles Times that the company relies on advertising for the majority its revenue and that it uses multiple ad networks.

[TheDemonLord]

Read it again many have threatened to or have pulled all their advertising

From that Channel.

Not from Youtube overall (from your material):

some companies have begun pulling ads from Infowars’ The Alex Jones Channel.

The company believes that it existing filters should have prevented it showing on the InfoWars channel.

told CNN it has paused the specific ad campaign that ran on an InfoWars YouTube channel,

were being featured on Infowars's channels on the platform. Many of the brands said they were unaware of the situation and canceled their ads on the channel

Your IT carries no weight compared to a federal court judge when it comes to legal matters. None at all. You are reading only part of the the ruling and then trying to construct a narrative that suits what you want the outcome to be.

Except that a Federal court has made a ruling, infringing upon the Personal Account of a US Citizen, hosted by a Private US company.

That means that a part of Twitter is now considered a Public place - I've read the ruling, I've also read the inconsistency in it, stemming from the obvious that the Judge is probably not as well acquainted with technology as they are with the Law.

Furthermore, there has been a discussion (at multiple times) as to whether an Internet Bill of Rights is needed - to codify the rights of a Netizen.

90% less advertisers is a loss of revenue
if they have 2600 less advertisers saying they dont want to advertise on a page its less revenue. 2900 now.
nope 3800 now https://www.fastcompany.com/40535815...amazon-remains

Never said it wasn't a loss - the question is - how much - If 10% of your customers are responsible for 80% of your ad income - then it's not a loss of 90% of revenue, but only 20%. However, the site is still running and getting views - so it rather disproves your point.

[Graystone]

It's also a completely irrelevant question.

It's entirely relevant, as the assertion that he was unjustly banned relies on an examination of the ban reason. I get that you're up in arms against any erosion of your white male privelige, but at least make the sembelence of being logical about it eh!

[Katman]

I get that you're up in arms against any erosion of your white male privelige

I suppose Serena Williams is now your new poster girl.

[husaberg]

From that Channel.

Not from Youtube overall (from your material):








Except that a Federal court has made a ruling, infringing upon the Personal Account of a US Citizen, hosted by a Private US company.

That means that a part of Twitter is now considered a Public place - I've read the ruling, I've also read the inconsistency in it, stemming from the obvious that the Judge is probably not as well acquainted with technology as they are with the Law.

Furthermore, there has been a discussion (at multiple times) as to whether an Internet Bill of Rights is needed - to codify the rights of a Netizen.



Never said it wasn't a loss - the question is - how much - If 10% of your customers are responsible for 80% of your ad income - then it's not a loss of 90% of revenue, but only 20%. However, the site is still running and getting views - so it rather disproves your point.

Look you are not a lawyer or a federal judge
So your opinion is not really that relevent compared to a federal court judge i dont know how much clearer i can make it.
Secondly the over 3000 advertisers have pulled their advertisements associated with Brebeirt
If you cant see how that effects the income of a site that gets income from advertisement i dont know how to explain it to you so you will understand.
Most of the adverts that are left are third party adds of limited income potential

Breitbart appears to have been particularly hard hit by Facebook’s Jan. 12 announcement that it would scale back on posts from news organizations in users’ feeds. In February, comScore reported some dip in traffic for sites across the political spectrum but an analysis by The Outline found that conservative sites were affected most. The study found that, though Breitbart was posting about 9 percent less content on Facebook, its engagement had dropped by nearly 28 percent.
“Other [conservative] sites are getting killed, other sites are really taking it on the chin,” Shapiro said, suggesting that not all of Breitbart’s problems are unique.
But Breitbart’s decline in traffic comes at the same time its advertising base has been decimated by a boycott campaign. Its number of direct advertisers has been slashed from around 250 at the beginning of 2017 to just 17 now, according to the advertising consulting firm, MediaRadar.
Asked whether Breitbart is in trouble, MediaRadar CEO Todd Krizelman said, “From an advertising perspective yes, very clearly.”

ALex Jones has been removed from many sites he has seen is add revenue removed as multiple advertisers remove their adverts from being associated with his sites, he is facing criminal charges that have overflowed to the companies hosting his media.
Simply put hes not someone most business want to be associated with.

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/inf...yr-ad-revenue/
he company has violated its agreement with Infowars and this represents a direct, politically motivated attack on our funding with a potential revenue loss of around $3 million dollars a year.
https://www.infowars.com/bombshell-m...ort-for-trump/

In March, the Times revealed that a number of advertisements were appearing on YouTube videos promoting extremist, hateful and inappropriate content, which led many companies to pull their ads from the website. Audi, L'Oreal and the UK government, among others, all removed ads in light of the findings.

Until today, Jones and his content were extraordinarily resilient. Virtually no one was willing to ban the prominent conspiracy theorist, especially since the social media companies were facing constant accusations that they were biased against conservative views.
But now the balance has tipped, perhaps because defamation court case against Jones, accusing him of calling the Sandy Hook school shooting a hoax, is finally going ahead.

[TheDemonLord]

It's entirely relevant,

Not at all. Since I've not made the claim that would make the question relevant.

as the assertion that he was unjustly banned relies on an examination of the ban reason.

Except that's not been my point. You're trying the same Strawman that Husa is/was.

I get that you're up in arms against any erosion of your white male privelige

Why would you bring race into this discussion, unless you are a Racist?
Why would you bring sex into this discussion, unless you are a Sexist?

[TheDemonLord]

Look you are not a lawyer or a federal judge
So your opinion is not really that relevent compared to a federal court judge i dont know how much clearer i can make it.

You could try addressing the point, that would be a start. As I've said, the ruling contradicts itself from a IT perspective (which I DO happen to be an Expert on). Futhermore there is a Philosophical contradiction:

On the one hand they are trying to claim Private company, private rules and then acknowledging that something privately hosted has become a public space, in need of governmental protection

Now, I accept the contradiction, because this is an emergent phenomena, and Law often takes several years (or decades) to catch up with anything Emergent.

Secondly the over 3000 advertisers have pulled their advertisements associated with Brebeirt
If you cant see how that effects the income of a site that gets income from advertisement i dont know how to explain it to you so you will understand.

Because we have no data (conveniently...) on what that translates to. Is it a 5% drop in revenue, a 20% drop a 90% drop (as is inferred)?

Most of the adverts that are left are third party adds of limited income potential

Well, Amazon is still there - I hear they are a pretty big deal on the internet...

ALex Jones has been removed from many sites he has seen is add revenue removed as multiple advertisers remove their adverts from being associated with his sites, he is facing criminal charges that have overflowed to the companies hosting his media.
Simply put hes not someone most business want to be associated with.

Those companies have requested their ads not be associated on his Channel, not on Youtube as a whole - the risk that you are trying to portray is a red herring. Those companies are still paying Youtube for advertising. The revenue stream still exists.

Then you have to content with Alex Jones' popularity - his impact as stated previously is probably in the ~100 Million range - that's about 10% of youtube's user base. Most people have heard of Alex Jones and/or watched content either by him or containing him.

His Criminal charges are due to the Editorial style decisions at the company, which is an own goal.

Simply put hes not someone that businesses with a left wing bias want to be associated with. And all of the business in question have a left wing bias.

[FJRider]

The expectation is that if a copper pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket, he'll also give someone like yourself a ticket in the same scenario.

Not even close to the truth ... The police have the discretion to issue ticket's as THEY see fit. I've been in a group that has been pulled over (been going quite quickly) and of the four stopped ... I was not issued a ticket. I answered his questions politely and remained silent otherwise. The others chose to voice their revenue gathering opinions (and a few oink oink's) ... and were rewarded appropriately.

Same (traffic) Offense but different end result.

If however, the copper only gives certain group(s) tickets, you'd call into question the application of the rules...

If "Certain Groups" are involved in the same traffic offenses ... I'd question the attitude of the group ... rather than the attitude of the copper.

[husaberg]

You could try addressing the point, that would be a start. As I've said, the ruling contradicts itself from a IT perspective (which I DO happen to be an Expert on). Futhermore there is a Philosophical contradiction:

On the one hand they are trying to claim Private company, private rules and then acknowledging that something privately hosted has become a public space, in need of governmental protection

Now, I accept the contradiction, because this is an emergent phenomena, and Law often takes several years (or decades) to catch up with anything Emergent.



Because we have no data (conveniently...) on what that translates to. Is it a 5% drop in revenue, a 20% drop a 90% drop (as is inferred)?



Well, Amazon is still there - I hear they are a pretty big deal on the internet...



Those companies have requested their ads not be associated on his Channel, not on Youtube as a whole - the risk that you are trying to portray is a red herring. Those companies are still paying Youtube for advertising. The revenue stream still exists.

Then you have to content with Alex Jones' popularity - his impact as stated previously is probably in the ~100 Million range - that's about 10% of youtube's user base. Most people have heard of Alex Jones and/or watched content either by him or containing him.

His Criminal charges are due to the Editorial style decisions at the company, which is an own goal.

Simply put hes not someone that businesses with a left wing bias want to be associated with. And all of the business in question have a left wing bias.

Too funny for words so you are claiming to be more of an expert of US law than a Federal court Judge.
I am not addressing your point as i do not think in any shape or form that your opinion carries more weight than a federal court judge.

The judge’s ruling found, however, that the company has less control over the @realDonaldTrump account than Trump himself and White House social media director Dan Scavino – also a public official. Their power includes the ability to block people from seeing the account’s tweets, and “from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets,” in the form of replies and comments on Twitter’s platform.
Also key was the fact that the @realDonaldTrump account is used for governmental purposes. Specifically, the judge found that “the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President” – such as announcing the appointments and terminations of government officials.

As for brebeirt loisng a confirmed 3000 advertisers is substantial no one but the owners can put it in a dollar amount, there is nothing suspicious in the lack of $ amounts as Brebiert have not released them.
Suggesting that as they still have a few advertisers neglects that have 3000 less to pay the bills along with substantially less viewers.
The criminal charges against Jones are dues not to his editorial style but due to continued harassment and defamation of the the parents of a children who were murdered.
If you dont think that Googles legal people are not worried about the fact that youtube was used to conduct this you are sadly mistaken.

February 23rd: YouTube removes an Alex Jones conspiracy theory video and hands his channel a strike; two more over a three-month period would've resulted on a permanent ban. The video, on the Alex Jones Channel, InfoWars' main YouTube account, was titled "David Hogg Can't Remember His Lines In TV Interview" and suggested that one of the survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting was a crisis actor. "Last summer we updated the application of our harassment policy to include hoax videos that target the victims of these tragedies," YouTube says at the time. "Any video flagged to us that violates this policy is reviewed and then removed."

March 4th: A number of big advertisers on YouTube, including Acer, Fox, Nike and Paramount, having become aware of their ads running next to Jones' InfoWars videos, ask YouTube to discontinue the practice. According to the brands involved, they didn't realize their ads were being displayed on what they called offensive material, and decided to create exclusion filters so their products would not be promoted in videos from Alex Jones and other channels like it. YouTube declines to comment on the matter at the time.

July 11th: Facebook hosts a Q&A session with reporters about its efforts to fight fake news but fails to explain why a page like InfoWars, known for spreading misinformation, is allowed to live on its site. Facebook's argument seems to be that it doesn't want to be an arbiter of the truth. "We just don't think banning pages for sharing conspiracy theories or false news is the right way to go," the company says. "They seem to have YouTube and Twitter accounts too -- we imagine for the same reason."

July 17th: Facebook testifies before Congress (again), in a hearing titled "Examining the Content Filtering Practices of Social Media Giants." The company's president for global policy management, Monika Bickert, is unable to tell members of the House Judiciary Committee why InfoWars hasn't been banned from the site for spreading conspiracies. "Allegations that survivors of a tragedy like Parkland are crisis actors, that violates our policy and we remove that content," she says. "If they posted sufficient content that violated our threshold, that page would come down." The problem is that Facebook apparently can't decide when a page should be banned, since it doesn't have a "three strikes and you're out" policy like YouTube. "That threshold varies," Bickert says, "depending on the severity of different types of violations."

House Judiciary Committee Hearing On Content Filtering Practices Of Facebook, Google And Twitter

Facebook's head of global policy management, Monika Bickert, testifying at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
July 25th: YouTube removes multiple videos from the Alex Jones Channel, citing a violation of its community guidelines. Of the four videos removed, two reportedly featured hate speech against Muslims and transgender people. Another one was titled "How to prevent liberalism" and featured Jones mocking a child being shoved by an adult man. "We have long standing policies against child endangerment and hate speech," YouTube says in a statement. "We apply our policies consistently according to the content in the videos, regardless of the speaker or the channel. We also have a clear three-strikes policy and we terminate channels when they receive three strikes in three months." Even though four videos were removed, though, this counts as only one strike.

July 27th: Facebook blocks Jones from posting on his personal profile for 30 days, though the InfoWars and "Alex Jones" public pages aren't part of the suspension. The company says it's banning Jones for violating its community standards, after removing several videos from his account that promoted hateful content -- some of which were the same ones YouTube removed on July 25th. "Our Community Standards make it clear that we prohibit content that encourages physical harm [bullying], or attacks someone based on their religious affiliation or gender identity [hate speech]" Facebook said.

August 1st: Spotify removes an unspecified number of episodes of Alex Jones' podcast after user uproar. Multiple complaints from subscribers led the company to conduct a review of the show's content, and episodes that violate its hate content policy are taken down. The podcast, naturally, focuses on Jones' wild conspiracy theories about "liberals." In a statement, Spotify says, "We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community."

August 3rd: Stitcher takes things a step further and completely removes Jones' podcast from its service. The company says that in his program he has "harassed or allowed harassment" of others, and therefore it decided it would be best to take this severe action. According to Stitcher, that harassment "has led listeners of the show to engage in similar harassment and other damaging activity." Therefore, the company says, "we have decided to remove his podcasts from the Stitcher platform."

August 5th: Following in Stitcher's footsteps, Apple removes five controversial InfoWars podcasts from its ecosystem. This includes iTunes and the Podcasts apps. The company tells BuzzFeed News that it "does not tolerate hate speech." The action appears certain to severely limit Jones' reach, considering the hundreds of millions of iOS and Mac users in the US.

August 6th: Facebook finally decides to ban Jones and his InfoWars pages from its site, following months of indecisiveness. The same day, YouTube removes his official page, the Alex Jones Channel, from its site. Both companies say the decision to take these stronger measures came after Jones repeatedly their violated community guidelines.

Amazon has quietly stopped endorsing InfoWars host Alex Jones’s products which it continues to sell on its marketplace.
The web giant refused to comment on whether it would remove Jones on Tuesday afternoon but has been busy removing its “Amazon choice” label from items sold by InfoWars, including its line of dietary supplements.

[Drew]

No you havent you have not pointed out anything.... You made a few vague generalizations and an insinuation.
You made a remark that was not backed up by any actual supporting data that was based on a assumption made by you that was and still is apparently incorrect.
Reading between the lines , it appears you seem miffed you cant abuse people on a forum anymore, All i can say is. That's apparently nothing to do with me but everything to do with your lack of ability to control your emotions.

He gets to abuse folk more than me. I'm sin binned at the minute. Can only assume for something I said to Katman.

[TheDemonLord]

Too funny for words so you are claiming to be more of an expert of US law than a Federal court Judge.
I am not addressing your point as i do not think in any shape or form that your opinion carries more weight than a federal court judge.

Except that's not what I'm claiming - Please put the Strawman down.

You're not addressing the point, because you know it's fundamentally correct.

As for brebeirt loisng a confirmed 3000 advertisers is substantial no one but the owners can put it in a dollar amount, there is nothing suspicious in the lack of $ amounts as Brebiert have not released them.
Suggesting that as they still have a few advertisers neglects that have 3000 less to pay the bills along with substantially less viewers.

So, why is the site still running? If your claim is it can no longer afford to pay the bills, then it would be shut down. But the site is still up - which means clearly, the money they have lost is not significant enough to stop the operation of the site.

Which brings us to my ancillary point - the left-wing "Activists" such as Sleeping Giant aren't as effectual as they wish to appear to be. That in turn reinforces my main point - It's not a factual claim to say that they are bad for business.

In fact, remember the old adages: There's no such thing as bad publicity and the french "Succès de scandale"

The criminal charges against Jones are dues not to his editorial style but due to continued harassment and defamation of the the parents of a children who were murdered.
If you dont think that Googles legal people are not worried about the fact that youtube was used to conduct this you are sadly mistaken.

They had an airtight response:

"First Amendment - he's allowed to spout Conspiracy Crap and it's not our Job to stop him. If he's doing something illegal, Charge him with a crime and see how it goes"

I want to draw specific attention to one of the lines in your timeline:

July 11th: Facebook hosts a Q&A session with reporters about its efforts to fight fake news but fails to explain why a page like InfoWars, known for spreading misinformation, is allowed to live on its site. Facebook's argument seems to be that it doesn't want to be an arbiter of the truth. "We just don't think banning pages for sharing conspiracy theories or false news is the right way to go," the company says. "They seem to have YouTube and Twitter accounts too -- we imagine for the same reason."

Remember when we talking about making editorial decisions? Facebook's response was absolutely correct in this instance. It is not their job to be the surrogate Censor.

But, we've seen a reverse on this - the moment they started to be the arbiter of truth, they became an Editor with oversight and responsibilities - and furthermore, we've seen collusion on this (remember that all of the social media sites banned him within hours of each other).

All from companies who share the same approximate geographic location for their main headquarters, have the same political leanings and whose staff have a similar west coast, left-wing outlook on life.

[Graystone]

Not at all. Since I've not made the claim that would make the question relevant.



Except that's not been my point. You're trying the same Strawman that Husa is/was.



Why would you bring race into this discussion, unless you are a Racist?
Why would you bring sex into this discussion, unless you are a Sexist?

Right... So just what is the claim you're peddling back to?

Alex Jones is already part of the discussion, a hero for supporters of White male privelige.

[TheDemonLord]

Not even close to the truth ... The police have the discretion to issue ticket's as THEY see fit. I've been in a group that has been pulled over (been going quite quickly) and of the four stopped ... I was not issued a ticket. I answered his questions politely and remained silent otherwise. The others chose to voice their revenue gathering opinions (and a few oink oink's) ... and were rewarded appropriately.

Same (traffic) Offense but different end result.

By your own admission - different scenarios: You passed the attitude test, they didn't.

If "Certain Groups" are involved in the same traffic offenses ... I'd question the attitude of the group ... rather than the attitude of the copper.

Sure, but let me put it this way - If all other factors were equal (behavior, speed, road worthiness of the vehicle etc.) and the only thing changed was say the political leanings of the individual (maybe they had a National sticker vs a Labour sticker) - would your expectation be that they would receive the same treatment from the same officer?

If however across multiple instances (so not one or two but thousands upon thousands) that was not the case, you'd rightly cry Foul.