We NEED To Talk About The PURGE Of ALEX JONES!

in news •  3 months ago

We are all Alex Jones Now!

Regardless of what you think of the man this recent internet purge of Alex Jones by the major tech companies is wrong on every level and it needs to be rejected and exposed for the sake of free speech, freedom and liberty. This blatant attack on the free flow of information shows how all the major tech companies have made themselves gods of political opinions and the gatekeepers of the infowar.

In this video

Dan Dicks of Press For Truth explains why the internet purge of Alex Jones is a direct attack on all free speech and why we must support Alex and anyone else who challenges the status quo now more than ever before it’s too late!

Support independent media:

Patreon ➜ http://www.patreon.com/PressForTruth
Patreon Alternative ➜ https://pressfortruth.ca/donate
Paypal ➜ https://www.paypal.me/PressforTruth

Cryptocurrencies:

Bitcoin ➜ 13oNiHUNGn9vdfv7MT5kjwe7np9bwf5ccv
Ethereum ➜ 0xEce2AEf1F26373a00BDC7243d1201a98578CC67e
Bitcoin Cash ➜ 1MxgFpQdMujLYRTkSTw4PGDmL99s83PFKR
Dash ➜ XirLdVdyaW9rXvhKic78ruc2X39HjNhdTV
EOS ➜ 0x2BBB00605730feA136623CA366979705293DA659
Litecoin ➜ LVVaVCfNN25AuU1Ex2s4tX2Ze3iCig2kRo
ARK ➜ ALLDoYdZTSo2G79Rn9RizzAes2bLwK2VVx
Lisk ➜ 6851060122493388407L
Verge ➜ DGx3kPjZmiYpsZfEePjEpT6sStsNXS1vK2
Reddcoin ➜ RkMCsv5mtMpKaQZRuQFE5fzadse2G2DNfp
Nano ➜xrb_3rc4uthr5ahyxxzhu1riihcmudiefr4qxzpoq9tq3brbaqpxe6wn8twzb3pq
Cardano ➜ DdzFFzCqrhsrGjJqD8F8NuPvhevcDkonwv3UfGwWxveZ5QQZ9ujtjmXpGxhrSXFa3AsxK94qdi8w2pq289FLqhgQVDyuUN3zxwd4g5M9
QR Codes for all the above cryptos ➜ https://pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/donate-cryptocurrencies/

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

You Rock Dan!

May Your Health Be With YOU. 2 png.png

Well he can just come on Steemit / D-tube like we do :)

This is why I don't use centralized social media or medias anymore for anything (almost).

·

Agreed. But isn't DTube centralized? I mean IPFS isn't, but the index of all the content is still centralized and could be taken down by a rogue element? Am I missing something here?

·
·

I do agree with you, very good question, let me respond with a rather long answer:

Someone (who I right now forgot the annonymous username of) on Steemit, made the arguement to me in a comment, that D-tube was just as controlled as youtube. I have tested that in praxis by different means, mostly just using it a lot.

First of all, when I began to talk about this in a video, after that I lost the (before that) almost continuous votes from the d.tube account, that has a huge deligation from Steemit inc. I also asked Adrian (@heimindanger) what the guidelines was for getting votes from the d.tube account and he responded something similar to youtubes guidelines (I dont remember the exact formulation, it is in some old post of mine), what I remember is that he used the word "hate speech" and went on to that "hate speech" would not be upvoted, would be downvoted or something like that.

When I asked him more specific questions, to his one comment, he never responded to me again.

"hate speech" is a very subjective term, that many conspiracy literate people do think is a huge part of the "powers there should not be"'s way of silencing the population. So this term should not be used as a guideline in a censorship free media as d.tube, if you ask me.

In general it seems like d.tube has a lot of centralized power and in effect, even that some of the content is different then on youtube, then I do think d.tube has a centralization problem too. But then again, this is only my opinion, I could be wrong?..

Other critics of d.tube:

  • It is to me unclear how long a video is stored and which mechanism that decides this.
  • I have had problems with the upload interface several times, mostly in the past. Now for the most part it is working, even the speed of uploading is variating a lot.

So over all d.tube is more like a proof of concept, not really fair or that decentral, that we would like it to be.

As for Alex Jones.. I dont really like his work, other then some of the first work he did.. but I guess d-tube would upvote him, just because of the attention he would bring by being there.

It seems to me that the d.tube's voting is very random, but I could be wrong.. I don't know the inside, but I imagine a very small group that have to handle all this power of the d.tube wallet.

·
·
·

OK, that pretty much confirms my own suspicions. I suspect IPFS is immutable. We are running some large scale IPFS servers in our data centers to help contribute back to the free and open Internet in some way. We have a lot of unused bandwidth and I'm very happy to donate as much of this unused resource to IPFS simply because it isn't helping anyone to have it go unused. I know that if I put up some content (video, audio, whatever) on IPFS, it is permanent. What is not permanent is the indexing to it. I guess this is similar to the old BitTorrent thing, where the torrent files that point to the content could be taken down, but the content itself is out in "the cloud" and you can't roll it back. So if d.tube got co-opted, taken down, etc. I suspect that if it was open source and could be forked, someone would simply fork the database and create a new d.tube.

These are all assumptions, of course. I'm probably wrong on some/all of them. But it would seem that the database and source code that powers d.tube should be put somewhere in the public domain so that all the work that hosts are doing and uploading, can be brought back to life in the case where d.tube is attacked by an adversary.

·
·
·
·

I also am not an expert on this IPFS technology... I think unfortunately the whole d.tube thing is a little shady compared to text on the Steem blockchain, that is perfect!

I still use and promote D.tube, as I think it is (together with dlive) the best alternative we have, also because of the Steem payment model.

I was making videos for a long time thinking that they would be stored permanently, but that is fare from the case, it is more like only 1 weeks storage or so, I have heard, but not checked it!!.. The length of the storage time should also depends on the numbers of views, again this is only someone told me in a comment, I dont know if it is true or not!

I have asked Adrian (@heimindanger) a lot of questions related to this, but he only responded ones and not with full details.

So in effect d.tube is a mystery to me, but I still use it.

·
·

And maybe this is actually the real answer to your question:

I have seen examples of that D.tube has asked a poster to not post certain content, because they could get regulatory complains and subconsequently threat with that they would block that persons accounts.. I dont remember what they called it.. but this is actually proof that D-tube is not censorship free... I think that it is harder for governments to censor stuff on D-tube, also because of its nature of short term videos and regulatory proccesses takes time.. but it is still there...

So yes, the only thing that is perfectly censorship free till now, is text on the steem blockchain.

·
·
·

And the immutable nature of files in IPFS. What is not censorship free is the indexing of those files. Is that correct?

·
·
·
·

Again, I don't know.. if it is true that a video only stays up 1 week or so... then it is somewhat less solid then youtube.

·
·

use it till you lose it!

Dan bring Alex Jones to steemit! He can later start uploading his videos on DTube. :)

The transgendered example was a bad one. You're wrong on that point, which is especially problematic because your point is that you're so exactly correct. I really would have used a better example, because otherwise, it was a great post.

·

Would you care to elaborate on what makes the transgender point wrong? I can't help but see it as a side effect of personal confusion as to what we are told this life is really all about in general, which I, myself, have a lot more to learn about. Personal beliefs are neat, and should be cherished and respected, but aren't always true.

Why has Facebook not been replaced yet? The sheep to ingrained in the system?

·
·
·

Yes, there is. Don't use Facebook. I haven't ever used it, and I don't intend to in the future. I'm not at a loss for having done that - if anything I have more time to spend in more productive areas of my life. And yet, I support Steemit, DTube, etc. because at least I can hear uncensored views of my fellow humans without them being harvested like a battery farm in the Matrix.

Hate speech?

The truth is that 'Hate Speech' is nothing more than two words 'Hate' and 'Speech' which when put together have no recognised or accepted meaning in the English language.

It is simply a propaganda tool which is used as an excuse to censor free speech, by those who have something to hide on our current "long march to tyranny".

So the next time someone (anyone) makes an accusation of Hate Speech, absolutely insist on them identifying the exact words and the exact context in which they were said in order to justify their accusation.

You will find that they can't do it, because it can't be done. Because as I said Hate Speech has no recognised or accepted meaning in the English language.

·

Both hate and speech have accepted meanings in English. To claim they don't, and that hate speech is therefore an invalid topic, is a fallacy.
"no recognised or accepted meaning"
I think that would be 'nor'. Too bad @grammarnazi only corrects spelling, and not grammar (irony).

·
·

You are mistaken.
Just because two different words have accepted meanings of their own, does not necessarily mean that when they're put together that the combination has an accepted or recognised meaning.
There are any number of examples of this like "Cow Banana", need I go on?

Also, while you're at it, can you give us a clear example of so called Hate Speech?

No I Didn't Think So!

·
·
·

Cow banana? As you say, putting two words together 'does not necessarily mean when put together the combination has an accepted meaning'.
In the case of cow banana, it has no widely accepted meaning.
Hate speech does.
"need I go on?"
If you still think you have a valid point, yes, because you've yet to make it.

·
·
·
·

"In the case of cow banana, it has no widely accepted meaning.
Hate speech does."

Oh does it now? Please cite an example of this Hate Speech.

You can't ..Can you????

I'm Listening.................................

·
·
·
·
·

The "if you don't respond, and in the exact way I want you to, then I win the debate even if you've disproved my premise and logic" argument.
Well, as you so wisely predicted, I refuse to play along, because I have my own wise prediction, which is you wouldn't accept any answer given.
Your original comment has been disproved. Hate speech has a well accepted meaning in society. Even if you could somehow prove it didn't, where were you hoping to go next with that?
PS: Look up "disjunctive syllogisms".

·
·
·
·
·
·

I'm sorry but no amount of innuendo and hyperbole will make up for your inability to give a straight answer to a simple question.

"Well, as you so wisely predicted, I refuse to play along".

That's not what I predicted. I predicted that you couldn't answer the question and it looks like I was right.
Your pretending to be 'refusing to play along' looks like a rather pathetic and disingenuous excuse for not being able to answer.

You say "Your original comment has been disproved".
When, where and how was it disproved? Somehow I didn't notice.

Was it when you said "Hate speech has a well accepted meaning in society."?

If the fact that you said that, supposedly disproves my original comment then you better have some hard evidence to back up that assertion.

"because I have my own wise prediction, which is you wouldn't accept any answer given."

I'm not so sure how wise that prediction is. In fact by making it, you appear to be casting aspersions about my character. Such egregious behaviour is unacceptable in any mature discussion and is likely to destroy whatever credibility you might have had.

Now, If you don't answer the question we can only conclude that you CAN'T answer it, which will prove exactly what I said in the first place.

BTW. I looked up "disjunctive syllogisms" which is nothing more than a fancy way of describing the act of deceptively implying that the choice of options or answers are limited to those of a given set, when this may or may no be the case.
However I don't see that it has any relevance to this discussion.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Honestly can't bother to read that. You're not paying me enough to help you improve your debate skills.
Learn some basic reasoning - it will serve you well. Your original point is discredited no matter how many false ultimatums you issue. Your premise is false, your logic is sketchy, and your outcome is invalid.
Oh and unless you reply the way I want, which is to say "I concede", then I win. (By your own reasoning, that works!)
Now please, declare yourself the winner, and tell me you're done with this conversation, so I can have one more smile on your behalf.

·
·
·

Just my 1 cent, we live in a digital age which evolves faster then our language can. If it’s in wiki it has a meaning to any younger generation, not to say I am disagreeing with your over all point of it being used to censor.

Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes
source wiki

I see it as “ohh you hurt my feeling, cause I only have one I’m calling hate speech”.

Posted using Partiko iOS

·
·
·
·

How about " Criminals should be imprisoned "
Here my speech is attacking a group on the basis of attributes.

Is this Hate Speech?

Oh and maybe you could tell me who wrote that entry in Wiki and why would you believe them?

·
·
·
·
·

Ohh I never stated I believe the wiki entry, rather it’s the source that will be used by the masses.

So IMO your statement there would be disqualified by it being an attribute that coincides with the action of the statement, such as to be a criminal you must first have broken a law and been convicted therefore you should be imprisoned based on the law and conviction classifying you as a criminal. Now state “criminals should be killed” then here in Canada where there is no death penalty or tolerance for threats the masses would consider that hate speech. Myself I figure people need tougher skin, if we don’t let the “bad” views be expressed how can we educate ourselves against them.

Posted using Partiko iOS

·
·
·
·
·
·

"your statement there would be disqualified by it being an attribute that coincides with the action of the statement"

"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes"
source wiki

Wiki doesn't qualify the word "attributes". Therefore in plain English it means any and all attributes.

So essentially it means speech that attacks anyone since everyone has attributes.

So what does it mean by "attacks"?

"Now state “criminals should be killed” .

So if you said "I think we should introduce or re-introduce the death penalty for certain types of criminals"
Would that be hate speech?

How about "illegal immigrants should be sent home" or
"Paedophiles should be imprisoned for life"
Or "White people should be dispossessed"?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I view “attacks” as inciting violence, so no your examples do not really fall into the catagory of hate speech at least to me. Those are all debate topics leading to possible legal or political reforms.

You are right this term of “hate speech” is to vague to actually have a conclusive discussion about but I still do think the fall back will be upon whether the speech contains unacceptable actions.

In the case of Alex Jones we see all the borders of this classification “hate speech” being pushed but on the other side of that equation those pushing the narrative are drawing a line in the sand. Eventually our understanding of what “hate speech” should be defined as will evolve and most likely cross back over that line making those pushing this false narrative look like even bigger fools!

Posted using Partiko iOS

·
·
·
·

If that’s the accepted definition of hate speech, then social media platforms have been harassing and deplatforming people for no reason.

Honestly, the real definition of hate speech is “wrong think”

·
·
·
·
·

I say the definition is more “differing views” then “wrong think” but your right on your point and thought path!

Posted using Partiko iOS

·
·
·
·
·

I wouldn't say it's for no reason. The reason is they want to silence their opposition i.e. anyone who tells the truth about them and their plans to dominate the World.

The excuse they use is Hate Speech which as you say is really"wrong think", which is such an ambiguous concept that no one can prove or disprove it.

Notice that they can't point to any particular instance of hate speech on any of the sites they harass or de-platform.

Nice post,
I Given you upvote and comments.
Please, Give me upvote and comments.
https://steemit.com/mgsc/@mdsohagm752/ethereum-classic-tops-usd2-billion-to-set-3-month-price-high

What almost everyone is forgetting and nobody is addressing though is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem.

I've just made a post explaining what it is and what we can do about it:

Mass Censorship: The Real Root of the Problem...(and what to do about it)

_1stAmendmentCensored.jpg

If Alex has been lying, he should be sued for defamation. If he's crazy he should be ignored. The massive purge points to the probability evil people wish to silence him. Totalitarian liberals must be opposed at all costs.

hatespeech is compelled speech dressed up as compassion - people who are offended by sounds dictate you not to use these sounds, because you might prove they are incorrect and they want to always win their "argument" by being a righteous victim. Why have a discussion? Why have freedom of speech or expression if you can decide to be offended, never raise above your limits and stay a dumb bigot in your mediocre comfort zone. Why would anyone decide for me what I want to hear?

"I order you to not use words because I don't like when you prove with words that I am incorrect and I don't have an argument to prove you wrong with words, so I start swinging and sending political mercenaries to threaten you death and initiate violence.
You shall never speak again, because I choose to get offended by everything, because it is my moral victory and I am smarter and more civilized than you and win every argument.
I will never face my limits now, so I will never learn and continue being useless and dependent on my masters deciding for me. You are oppressing me with truth, so truth becomes hate speech."

You have to give credit to the masters, right? How well designed it is. How ingeniously they manipulate idiots with emotions. Still after at least 10K years of rabid ape circus, there are enough retards to fall for this shit of dividing the sheeple over and over again...

Why would anyone get offended by sounds? Buy earplugs FFS and crawl back to your mediocre comfort zone! :D

I was a subject of mainstream media abuse a week ago. They motivated the hell out of me to sacrifice my life to fight for justice and freedom... not that I wasn't before...

I want to make it as public as I can and I will spam about it a little if I have to ;) Otherwise I will be silenced. Please help me spread it. Just trying to help this paradigm shift. I just want to help freedom.

https://steemit.com/tribesteemup/@evolutionnow/propaganda-rabid-pigs

As animated as Alex Jones can get, and sure he says some crazy shit, the fact is he should have the right to say it. If no one can question authority, question the message, etc. then we all lose. Some people will get their panties unhinged over things he (or others) might say - to them, they should get over it. They have the same right to voice their position. Then we have, what we call in the real world, a "conversation". If you choose to get violent over that, then that is another thing. But mature people should have the right to have a conversation, and no entity should be able to take away that right.

What I'm more concerned about is that I hear a lot of "the government is taking away my rights", but in this case we have to realize that the trap people have fallen into is that these big tech giants are basically "quasi-govt" bodies now. They are utility companies that if they switch off your flow of information (in or out), then it is like someone switching off your Internet. Sure, you can get around it, but controlling the distribution of information is as powerful as controlling the message itself. We have to realize that if you boycott them, you will lose because they control how we think (search engines), how we navigate (maps), how we telephone each other (mobile phones), how we message, and how we keep in touch with family, etc. not to mention the many other areas that they impact in our lives. We've all drunk the Kool Aid here, and Alex Jones is simply the canary in the coal mine of what happens when you upset the status quo. The ability to have your distribution shut down is the same level of control that emerging bands in Hollywood have when trying to get a record deal, etc. They might be the best musicians in the world, but if no one can hear them, they don't exist.

Aye straight censorship bs same as first using the term “conspiracy theorist” to discredit in the first place.

Posted using Partiko iOS