Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Alex Jones Popularity Spikes After Being De-Platformed" video.

  1. @Freesociety Four media social giants censoring the one individual on the same day certainly qualifies as a conspiracy; either they agreed this between themselves or they were told to do it, it's not a coincidence. So why Alex Jones? As you say: other commentators object to American foreign policy; are critical of government and there are some really wild conspiracies that are genuine hokum; they even write and post content on these sites, but that isn't censored. There certainly have been people removed from these sites before and for various reasons: hate-speech (on Twitter); multiple copyright infringement (on youtube) and Facebook already gave some woolly concessions it would look into unsuitable conduct (including their own), possibly removing some content and not selling other peoples info. I don't think Alex Jones (AJ) got censored (a "time out" it's being called) because he's the people's champion; it's because he claims that the Sandy Hook massacre is a hoax and he won't shut up about it. Some might say that a person is entitled to their opinion (and I might be one of them); but if they voice that opinion and are wrong then they are just spreading misinformation. There is plenty of that already going on: polls; experts and other talking heads that get their funding from who knows where. Only most of that is about issues with two sides, in the case of Sandy Hook, or the Moon landings, it either happened or it didn't. The weight of evidence regarding Sandy Hook appears to be against AJ's version of events; yet still he persists. It is already well known that the media often runs sensational headlines and that click-bait is in vogue (since some clicks are monetized); also that in a polarised political system (the Democrats are not a left wing party) that extremism occurs, it's the only way to get noticed. The German authorities just jailed some old lady because she ran a site denying the "holocaust" (bit extreme perhaps, but she's an extremist. Nobody has jailed AJ; he still has "infowars" but it isn't a free and open discussion about Sandy Hook. The verdict was given; the dead have been buried and America's love affair with the gun continues. My bottom line is the official verdict looks correct to me; so I believe AJ is spreading misinformation and that isn't acceptable. I would guess he was warned, but AJ carried on regardless ... that's my guess. The corporations are more worried about having to pay the correct tax ... Normally AJ would be a revenue generator for them, so it's clear (to me) somebody told them to suspend AJ. Any guesses?
    1
  2. @FreeSociety. If you are talking to me then no: that's not what I'm doing; I'm trying to decide why four major social media outlets (owned by three huge companies) singled out Alex Jones (AJ) on the same day and censored him and my guess is it's because he's a "Sandy Hook" denier (and he won't shut up about it). I come to that conclusion because other commentators on these sites also: talk about conspiracy; say potentially inflammatory things and they rarely, if ever, get kicked off; but AJ did. Sure the media can try to portray someone as a monster, or reprobate, then later settle for an undisclosed sum and print an apology at the foot of page 13; but that's not quite what happened here; he got banned. I think you'll find that AJ has called "Sandy Hook": a hoax; a "white flag" and that is either the truth or it's made up. This is a serious matter and I'm not here to get offended on behalf of others, but if AJ is wrong, then in this case he would be very very wrong. If he's correct then the government (state or federal) are monsters, who will kill their own for material gain. Personally I don't have a lot of time for AJ: he's pro-gun; doesn't seem to have a problem with civilians owning and operating military grade weapons and while he and Jimmy often bring up the same problems to discuss; he's far more right wing. It's this Sandy Hook matter that got him suspended from four social media platforms. He definitely did call Sandy Hook a "white flag" ... do you believe it was not a massacre? As for Trump, time will tell if he's any good. I believe the President is simply a front-man as some policies don't change (regardless of President or party); I don't believe a: rich, white, individual from a privileged background that likes corporations will do a thing to help the majority of Americans ... just a different group of rich people. The two parties have proved they are basically different sides of the same coin as they: hiked the military budget; voted the Prez more powers and fast-tracked judges (to get home early, Jimmy says ...). The Prez wants a new tariff model; but at least two economics Professors (Wolff and Blyth) explain clearly why tariffs have major downsides. Globalists want to impeach Trump for creating jobs? That seems a bit of a stretch. Instead I believe the "Clintonites" (who claim to be "left" but are hard right-wing capitalists) "lost" a lot of money when Trump was elected; they are full of excuses as a select few bet a billion on them and believed their own publicity (so what a shock for them!). Why did four right wing entities ban a right wing commentator (that gets them clicks) ... I'd say because they were told to do that and they immediately complied. I'd bet AJ was told beforehand, lay off "Sandy Hook" ... it can't become political; he ignored it and he got blacklisted. None of this is a smear on AJ; if I'm raising a point someone else did previously, I subscribe to that position. Who has the power to make four/ three media giants jump? Whoever it is you don't mess with them. Time will tell with Trump; my opinion is that the main reason he got elected was he wasn't Hillary Clinton. I also believe the political system in America has been bought out ... that's why it's a vote for war or war.
    1