Mixed feelings. iTunes is a private business so they can ban who they want. But it sets a bad precedent.
August 6th, 2018 3:05pm
It sets a bad precedent when you start banning people for their political views.
Also, he got banned everywhere at the same time. That suggests a coordinated effort. On the other hand, they probably wanted to ban him for awhile, and once Apple did it everyone else thought it was safe to follow.
There's also lots of people with 100-10000 people who get banned and you never hear about it. The "next popular extreme conservative voice" is never going to get off the ground if he's banned everywhere.
Even though it's theoretically an "open Internet", if you aren't on FB/YouTube/Twitter/etc, it's like you don't exist. The big Internet companies have too much influence.
Now that they have a monopoly market position, they're starting to use their influence to shape people's opinions. I.e., if FB started banning people when they first got started, they wouldn't have caught on. Now that they have a nearly unbeatable monopoly, they can do whatever they want.
August 6th, 2018 6:24pm
Next week, they'll decide that you're bad for the world, and drop your channel from their lineup.
Like I said. Bad precedent.
August 6th, 2018 7:27pm
This year, the Supreme Court ruled that companies do not have to take all customers.
Pie or cake?
August 7th, 2018 7:02pm
Companies may or may not have to take all customers.
However you are a piece of shit because SCOTUS did not rule that at ALL with this ruling.
You are trying to post your leftist crapfest here by dramatically and totally intentionally misstating a SCOTUS precedent.
Communications platforms such as Twitter should be treated in law like utilities such as phone companies. They shouldn't have the right to "ban" someone at all. I would like to see a situation where when they identify "bad" behaviour they notify the authority and in response the authority authorises the non-transmission of that person's communications (a ban of sorts) or makes some other response such as take no action.
IOW, put the response into public hands. Then if people don't like the responses in general then they can vote accordingly, or advocate changes to laws or whatever. At the moment these companies make their own rules in areas which by nature are too important to be left to a company.
And so with Infowars, it should be a matter of public policy whether Jones can broadcast and what is acceptable or not, and not a decision for Twitter and the other companies.
Really good classic Jones. Young Turks invited him to their show then Cenk got really mad after he saw Roger Stone, stole Jones' microphone and attacked him.
If YouTube and Facebook are going to create boring, sterilized environments where nothing interesting or controversial can be discussed, then people will find alternatives.