Google Censorship?
-
Alex Jones is a nutter. People who follow him are fools. Society is correct to protect these fools by blocking their access to Alex Jones.
-
I do not know him at all - just stumbled on this video. -
@johnsenior1973 said:
Society is correct to protect these fools by blocking their access to Alex Jones.
wow -
@unknownuser said:
@johnsenior1973 said:
Society is correct to protect these fools by blocking their access to Alex Jones.
wowWe will protect you, resistance is futile ...
-
@johnsenior1973 said:
Alex Jones is a nutter. People who follow him are fools. Society is correct to protect these fools by blocking their access to Alex Jones.
John,
A good mate of mine has a great saying that has stood me in good stead over the years! 'Even a blind dog comes across a bone now and then once he keeps sniffing and digging'.
I would not be so quick to totally write off any perceived 'nutter'! Just look at the current situation here in Ireland and the Inter-Alpha Group?
Mike
-
Censorship ... nah. Google News is -nomen est omen- for news. If I were Google, I'd weed out the nutjobs on their soapboxes as well. Besides, it's a big internet. Plenty of room for Jones left.
-
Checked out the site, this guy is one step below Rush Limbaugh and the rest; it's conspiracy craziness and supposition with an inflammatory bent. The only thing missing is UFOs and Black Helicopters, but the site has the veneer of a proper news outlet. I see no real "news" content, it's all opinion and loosely tied together half-truths. No reason for Google to put it up as news. Typical fringe talk; he's repressed, it's all a conspiracy to shut him and his site down, Google is spying on the world, blah, blah, blah...
-
These fruit loops like Jones, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter (I can go on for ages) are very needed, as their message is so far from mainstream that it keeps us grounded, sure a few nut-jobs will follow them blindly, but the majority just write them off.
The flip side is if Jones does one day find that smoking gun he always seems to hunt for, it will be discounted as his reputation has already tainted the message.So, I say let him speak, we are immune to the message already.
-
Here, you'll enjoy this!
[flash=425,344:38xvfaol]http://www.youtube.com/v/_amyJCLmMY8?fs=1&hl=en_GB&fs=1&&[/flash:38xvfaol]
-
Yup, those are the wing-nuts I'm referring to, destroying the world one word at a time.
fortunately it only takes one click of a remote control to switch them off.
-
@unknownuser said:
Alex Jones is a nutter. People who follow him are fools. Society is correct to protect these fools by blocking their access to Alex Jones
john senior1973 on Wed Dec 01
@unknownuser said:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
General Assembly of the United Nations
December 10, 1948Alex Jones may be a fool but Google do not have the right to decide that for us
-
-
@gaieus said:
Google Censorship?
so it seems, from his words in the video.
maybe he does not deserves to be in the NEWS of Google, though he has been there until now. Google´s action responds to something. That is clear for me.
I think that what this man says is quite interesting to hear.
His insistence in the search for the truth of the 9/11 disaster is enough for me to take him into consideration
@mike lucey said:I would not be so quick to totally write off any perceived 'nutter'! Just look at the current situation here in Ireland and the Inter-Alpha Group?
Yes Mike, things are not clear at all.
And it makes no harm to listen to non_ official news.
Though it seems that some people here, do get hurt by them.I have a first-aid kit to share.
Not all of it, but may help.
-
-
Same with Amazon - censorship by kicking Wikileaks off it's Cloud.
-
actually it's hardly censorship.
Google are a private company. as such, they can do whatever they want. they decide that image search only shows dwarves doing the can can while painted pokadots, they can do that. they make their own rules.
and anyone got Google's say in this? I see alex jones claiming he's got problems with youtube ..on Youtube...??
-
-
@notareal said:
then we disagree. if you own something you get to make the rules about that. company or private individual - you get to make the rules about your property so long as it's within the laws of the land.
plus I'm still not seeing the other side of this, eg the google side? no one got anything?
-
Yes, I fully agree. Google own You Tube and they can do with it as they please BUT there is always a downside to censorship of even crank News!
I've been following this guy for quite some time and while I find him OTT on a lot of things, some of the questions he raises merit further investigation.
Ireland is currently in the throws of what I consider to be a vice grip and I emphasis the 'vice' portion. People say Ireland's Banks have caused the current problems BUT as far as I'm concerned the Banks in question are privately owned Banks and for the most-part owned by foreign entities, the Inter-Alpha Group et al!
These hidden World Financiers also control the major newspapers and much of the media. Fortunately, for the time being, they do not have a vice grip on the Net, although I imagine they are figuring out ways to achieve this but the very nature of the Net works against this!
So maybe it worth popping into Mr Jones occasionally to see what he has to say for himself! What harm can it do? We can do our own further investigation on the Net to get to the bottom of things.
Knowledge is Power and these days even the man on the Clapham omnibus can research and find much of the truth! The bottom line is never close your mind to these so called cranks as there is often a grain of truth in what they are saying!
Mike
-
Google news search and google web search are two different things...right?
Google web searches are manipulated by advertisement dollars...right?
Seems to me obviously keeping some of the crackpots off a news search is less offensive than surreptitiously pushing products in a web search...right?
Besides, google censors the type of advertising sites they accept (to protect the company image, I assume), why not the type of sites they call "news" (for the same reason)...?
Advertisement