CENSORSHIP AND SECURITY PARADOXES

When censorships happens, it's like you're talking one minute about the meaning of life and pretzels, and then all of a sudden-

author=kentona
Alex Jones' Attorneys Argue That No Reasonable Person Would Believe What He Says

You know, I figured newsppl no longer print news. But you just proved it. Blue blue.

1. Timing

The word news means exactly that - things which are new. Topics which are current are good news. Consumers are used to receiving the latest updates, and there is so much news about that old news is quickly discarded.

A story with only average interest needs to be told quickly if it is to be told at all. If it happened today, it's news. If the same thing happened last week, it's no longer interesting.

I already know what he says is nonsensical. That is nothing new. I.e. it is not news. What is news, is that in contradiction to what the founders spoke about free speech, people have decided that because he is a crackpot, he doesn't have the right to speak. Do I agree that China and US have laser beams zapped at clouds to control the weather? No. Does he have the right to say it? Sure, it's protected speech. Alex Jones will always be a crackpot. This is not news.

2. Significance

The number of people affected by the story is important. A plane crash in which hundreds of people died is more significant than a crash killing a dozen.

Not news. Affects one person, who as you have said, nobody cares about. So unless there are people, article is still not newsworthy.

3. Proximity

Stories which happen near to us have more significance. The closer the story to home, the more newsworthy it is. For someone living in France, a major plane crash in the USA has a similar news value to a small plane crash near Paris.

Note that proximity doesn't have to mean geographical distance. Stories from countries with which we have a particular bond or similarity have the same effect. For example, Australians would be expected to relate more to a story from a distant Western nation than a story from a much closer Asian country.

Some lawyers somewhere saying something. And who trusts lawyers anyway? This story has no sense of proximity at all, so still no.

4. Prominence

Famous people get more coverage just because they are famous. If you break your arm it won't make the news, but if the Queen of England breaks her arm it's big news.

I guess he's famous. But alot of ppl have never heard of him, because they aren't familiar with Alex Jones radio, and because they don't follow the people who hate him either. The average Fox watcher, or my dad, would not know who Alex Jones is.

5. Human Interest

Human interest stories are a bit of a special case. They often disregard the main rules of newsworthiness; for example, they don't date as quickly, they need not affect a large number of people, and it may not matter where in the world the story takes place.

Human interest stories appeal to emotion. They aim to evoke responses such as amusement or sadness. Television news programs often place a humorous or quirky story at the end of the show to finish on a feel-good note. Newspapers often have a dedicated area for offbeat or interesting items.

And here's the last one that could make it newsworthy. Only, there is no element of human interest either.

As far as the debate going on here, it is kinda curious that he gets deplatformed within a 24 hour period on most social media platforms, even though he's been tolerated on these same platforms for several years. The official reason, at least according to this Chicago Tribune article, he was alleged to have published content glorifying violence and using dehumanizing language to describe Muslims, immigrants, and transgender people.

The thing is, they knew he was all about this. He has ALWAYS used such language about Muslims and LGBT people. They let him go ahead with it. Then all of a sudden, they all ban together. Pressured to do this? Hell yes. If someone suddenly had it out for me, and decided the rpgs I make are "evil" and removed them from itch.io (they aren't even there, btw), RMN, Box, and GoogleDrive, all within the same day, I'd yell conspiracy too.

Here's the funny thing. Facebook is being raked over the coals for this stunt. And rightly so, the guy (Zuckerberg) declared up and down that Facebook is a place where friends may share things even with ppl who have different views, then he goes and pulls this crap.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/07/05/facebook-slammed-for-censorship-country-groups-patriotic-song.html
https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/25/facebook-slow-quarter-censorship/
So did politicians that demanded more censorship.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/34171/backlash-democrat-chris-murphys-push-censorship-ryan-saavedra

I still think it was because when Jones got sued, those platforms suddenly saw a potential liability and they broomed him to cover their asses. I mean, there are laws that say these platforms are not responsible for what he says, but lawyers have said those are open to interpretation, and if there's reason to believe they knew he was violating their terms of service (which he definitely was), then they may not have had that protection.

The thing I heard was that Facebook and many of those others have no legal right to do this, because they aren't private companies. And I don't mean they're public, like they encounter the public. I mean several of them have made government deals, and are no longer fully government-free in terms of how their business runs. Maybe a private company can censor someone they hate, but someone with their hand in the government cookie jar most definitely cannot.

Blue

author=StormCrow
@bulma: I disagree. I think that the fact that his lawyers have resorted to a strategy of "no one could really be expected to believe this crap" when his entire career has consisted of desperately trying to get people to believe this crap is newsworthy. So yeah, it's definitely got human interest down, and also timing and prominence. Proximity is obviously relative. I agree with you that it has no real significance but that's true of a lot of news, especially human interest pieces and local news.

Beyond that, I'm going to stay away from the entire etymological morass of "fake news".

In order to define fake news, we must shy away from what newsppl TELL us it is, and refer back to what we learned (hopefully) in high school journalism, which is that real news is stuff that is newsworthy. Since few of those qualify, not as much...

I suppose technically he is trying to convince people of that which is tremendous effort, and I do kinda feel for the guy. But telling people what they already believe to be the case is simply reinforcing stereotypes. Or as they say, "dog bites man is not news." While a man biting a dog may be. If something about this was completely shocking, as in the average street person believed his words but the lawyers say "nope, it's nonsense," that would be news because he has as you've said been trying to present these stories as legit. But yeah, he's hardcore Cassandra. Every now and then, his crazy is right, but even then people are like "he still is crazy."

author=bulma
Pressured to do this? Hell yes.

In agreement, let me quote one of the great philosophers of our age, Michael Render, AKA Killer Mike of the rap duo Run The Jewels (<3).

author=RTJ: Lie, Cheat, Steal
Like who really run this?
Like who really run that man that say he run this?
Like who really fund this?
Like who really fund who say he fund this?
Like who in the world gon' tell Donald Sterl who to put on the
“You can’t come” list?
Now don’t be silly
Who the fuck gon' bully me if I got a billi?
If I got a billi and the bitch recording me, I’m like who cares
What I wouldn’t be is on TV stutterin' ta-ta-talkin' scared
So the question is when Don’s at home
with that traitor ass bitch alone
Who’s that voice on the side of the phone
that shakes and rattles his bones?
Could it be the man behind the man behind the man behind the throne?

author=pianotm
I still think it was because when Jones got sued, those platforms suddenly saw a potential liability and they broomed him to cover their asses. I mean, there are laws that say these platforms are not responsible for what he says, but lawyers have said those are open to interpretation, and if there's reason to believe they knew he was violating their terms of service (which he definitely was), then they may not have had that protection.

Yeah. I do consider the platforms to be bad actors in this even if they're acting in obvious self interest. And I do consider Alex Jones to be a hilarious, frothing-at-the-mouth maniac that seems be angling to get in the Guinness Book of World Records for "Most Absurdly False Statements Shouted Incoherently At The Public".

And I agree with you. I follow Paul Joseph Watson because while he's also on the InfoWars bandwagon, the stuff he says seems to contain a few more iotas of logic and reason. Most of the fans of PJW are not big fanes of Alex Jones. But he's the owner of the company. Many of these guys have to stand with Alex Jones or fund their own platform. Jones has moments that are just "wtf?!?" but I just can't see those companies as behaving properly here.

author=StormCrow

Or as they say, "dog bites man is not news."

How is Alex "Gay Frogs" Jones begging people NOT to take his bullshit seriously not Man Bites Dog? It is the exact opposite of what he is always doing and could be expected to do.

Hmmm, when you put it that way....

author=kyonides
The other day Google locked me out of my own email account saying it was for security purposes and so on. Just because I never had accessed my email account from a new computer doesn't mean I'm the intruder! It told me I was forced to confirm it was me, who tried to log in by opening a darn stupid email they sent. Guess what, Google, I can't do that if my stupid cellphone was in the repair shop! How the hell am I supposed to confirm my identity then? I checked their so called alternatives and NONE of them was useful at all!!

I tried to send them some sort of heavy loaded critics regarding their security measures, but I seriously doubt they even care to read it or do anything to prevent it from happening.

Critiques. It is literally impossible to send gmail an email from what I've seen. They don't have a email for asking for assistance that is public to any search (not even their Contact Us page, it had only old-fashion mail). Ironic, huh? It's also difficult to call them (and I should know, I set up a Google MyBusiness and some scammers claimed to be calling from them, their number is 650-203-0000 and the number wasn't that).

In order to regain control, you need to tell it "try something else" until they offer to send you a text message. Changing the password further locks you out, asking about last password or email just makes them think you're trying to hack, the only reliable thing I found was sending a text message. It's pretty much all important to set this up in advance or you're locked out. Sending to backup email doesn't help. It's somewhat good but I had it send it only to tell me "great we know it's you, now change your password to something unfamiliar."

Yeah, I get that basically every day, cuz as I say, I'm behind a proxy. I switched my email to protonmail.com (they run a VPN themselves called ProtonVPN, meaning not only do you get a email account that isn't run by stupid assholes but you get a free pro-level proxy for six days, then after that either do a free version or upgrade), and to Box.com for storage (GoogleDrive is part of Google). This came around the time of all this censorship, so after getting rid of Youtube (linked to Google), Gmail, GoogleDrive, and finally the search engine itself (now use DuckDuckGo), I basically only use google to log in sometimes to talk on Disqus.