Amazon Prime Video Gives Amateur How-To's, Conspiracy Theories a Stage (wsj.com) 229
Streaming service touts its large collection of titles, but a majority are uploads -- and questionable films are in the mix [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; an alternative source wasn't immediately available.]. From a report: When Walter Wilson, a construction worker from North Carolina, sat down to watch the blockbuster "Avengers: Endgame" on Amazon Prime Video, he ended up seeing something very different: a 2007 documentary, also titled "Endgame," directed by far-right talk show host Alex Jones. Mr. Jones's videos have been banned from many mainstream sites like Apple's iTunes and Facebook for promoting outlandish conspiracy theories. "Endgame" purported to document a clandestine organization of bankers and politicians bent on establishing a "blueprint for global enslavement." Its availability on Amazon.com's streaming service highlighted a fact not widely known among subscribers: The e-commerce giant accepts nonprofessional and questionable content to offer a video library that in Amazon's style can dominate the competition through sheer volume.
While the video service is known for original movies and shows that have won Oscars and Emmys -- such as "Manchester By the Sea" and "Transparent" -- the site also carries thousands of conspiracy-theory videos, amateur productions and short instructional clips. Similar to Alphabet's YouTube, some videos are uploaded by individuals who made them or by others owning the rights to the content. Others Amazon bought in bulk as part of vast libraries of amateur content. An Amazon spokeswoman says the company has sought a broad selection of content, including videos from award winners and independent producers.
While the video service is known for original movies and shows that have won Oscars and Emmys -- such as "Manchester By the Sea" and "Transparent" -- the site also carries thousands of conspiracy-theory videos, amateur productions and short instructional clips. Similar to Alphabet's YouTube, some videos are uploaded by individuals who made them or by others owning the rights to the content. Others Amazon bought in bulk as part of vast libraries of amateur content. An Amazon spokeswoman says the company has sought a broad selection of content, including videos from award winners and independent producers.
Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink...
Any bets as to when the censorship starts?
Censor! Ban! Prohibit! Don't let us think for ourselves! Protect us from thought! /s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because capitalism isn't all its often made out to be. Turns out greedy people are often also shitty
Re:Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink (Score:4, Informative)
20th century Soviet communism worked out SO MUCH BETTER oh wai-
Re: (Score:3)
False dichotomy - there can be two bad choices. Neither thing should be leaned on as a wholly inclusive worldview.
Re: (Score:2)
How about two world wars under capitalism. TWO WORLD WARS in fact a whole century of war under capitalism and oh look this century, WAR again, driven by capitalism, another century of war. In fact the USA is has a whole war industrial complex driven by capitalism. Climate change the big driver capitalism. Oh yeah capitalism has a fantastic track record, 100 million killed last century what will they do for this century a billion. Claiming capitalism has a great track is to ignore WARs for profits completely
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because capitalism isn't all its often made out to be. Turns out greedy people are often also shitty
But one of the BIG POINTS of capitalism is getting such people to do stuff that's good for other people anyhow - by making them richer IF they do, poorer if they don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Wikipedia piece on Harry Dexter White is much more nuanced than your take:
White called for a comprehensive peaceful solution of rapidly escalating tensions between the United States and Japan, calling for major concessions on both sides. Langer and Gleason report that White's proposals were totally rewritten by the State Department and that the American key demand had been formulated long before White.
Also:
Some historians have argued, however, that White manipulated Morgenthau and Roosevelt to provoke war with Japan in order to protect Stalin's Far Eastern front. Historian Eric Rauchway rejects that argument, claiming it is supported by fake documents.
So White was a Soviet spy, but you're still wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Wikipedia, come on you know that's sanitized.
What does that mean?
Ultimately, the smear tactics that he used led him to be censured by the U.S. Senate.
Is that untrue?
He volunteered to fly twelve combat missions as a gunner-observer, acquiring the nickname "Tail-Gunner Joe". Some of his claims of heroism were later shown to be exaggerated or falsified, leading many of his critics to use "Tail-Gunner Joe" as a term of mockery.
Maybe that bit is untrue?
There are plenty of verifiable facts about McCarthy in the Wikipedia piece that show what a terrible person he was.
Re: (Score:3)
Much of what McCarthy asserted about agents within the US government was directly corroborated by what was found in the archives.
Much of? No, some of:
After reviewing evidence from Venona and other sources, historian John Earl Haynes concluded that, of the 159 people who were identified on lists which were used or referenced by McCarthy, evidence substantially proved that nine of them had aided Soviet espionage efforts.
So he lied about and destroyed the lives of at least 150 people. Please don't try to rehabilitate a man who was censured by the Senate. McCarthy was a bad person.
Check the source (Score:3, Insightful)
While I'm all for free speech, it's a bit hard to take this rant seriously when it comes from someone who's sig praises Joe McCarthy. Congratulations, you win the hypocrite of the year award.
He's too dangerous (Score:2, Offtopic)
You just don't get it. Alex Jones' ideas are dangerous to our first amendment rights.
He's been giving people this crazy ideas about utter nonsense, like the notion that the freaking frogs are turning gay [nih.gov].
Popper said in the Paradox of Tolerance that we have to defend ourselves from people who would use fists or pistols to take away that right. Surely we have the right to defend ourselves against freaking frogs as well?
Re: (Score:3)
Your link shows that the frogs weren't turning gay at all. They were turning transsexual.
Re: (Score:2)
I think your satire detector may have malfunctioned, or else it just got confused because some people say such things with a straight face.
Re: Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthin (Score:2)
Where's the amateur or otherwise, porn on Prime then?
It's very odd to have things like The Expanse up next to feature length My First Movie, or internet-grade videos. Everyone in our household already knows if it doesn't say prime original, and you haven't heard of it, run.
Re: (Score:2)
How, exactly, is this any worse than their book self-publishing service?
Re: (Score:3)
Alex Jones is not in prison or even been fined, despite threatening a member of Congress [thehill.com]. If the censorship hasn't started yet, it probably never will.
He has been sued by the families of shooting victims for lying about them. His ex wife has sought sole custody (which she partly won) due to his unhinged behaviour. Neither of these are censorship.
Re:Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even read/listen to Jones. Or anyone on youtube, except for maybe Hickock45 and that's a totally different subject.
I'm just waiting for the inevitable, anything that's not "correct" gets prohibited. I couldn't care any less about the content, it's the actual act of censorship that irks.
Re:Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that these are incorrect, but that they can be literally dangerous. Someone who believed an outlandish claim from Alex Jones showed up armed at a pizza parlor ready to free sex slaves; and there are regular death threats made to parents of Sandy Hook victims because Alex Jones claims that Sandy Hook was a fake media production with actors. Yes, these people are indeed idiots, but Alex Jones is encouraging these idiots with full knowledge that they're unstable. There are limits to free speech, including the incitement to violence and libel, and Alex Jones fits into both of those categories.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupidity is always dangerous.
Are you saying we should be able to terminate it at will now?
We need to instead just let the stupid people kill themselves instead of trying to protect them. That is natural selection and one of the best things we just need to "let happen"!
Re:Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that stupid people often take others with them when the let natural selection take them out.
Re:Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'A thing happened exactly one time, so we need to burn books i dont like'
that's what this guy just posted
Re: Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthin (Score:3, Insightful)
He answered your question just fine, but you chose to ignore it. So I'll rephrase it for you in a way you can't ignore: the occurrences you're worried about happen so infrequently that we do not need to "do" anything about them.
The whole idea that we can - or should attempt to - eliminate 100% of all risk and dangers in our societies is idiotic. Every reasonable person knows this, but it's not a popular thing to say. Instead we have moral panics about satanic cults and stranger danger, and then all the
Re: (Score:2)
We need to instead just let the stupid people kill themselves instead of trying to protect them. That is natural selection and one of the best things we just need to "let happen"!
In a high energy, high technology society, stupid people kill more than themselves. Sometimes a lot more. We don't allow just any asshole to wander into the control room of a nuclear reactor, and there are good reasons for that. Really really good reasons. Dangerous idealogues are only part of the problem. 'Hold my beer' guy is at least as bad, for different reasons.
Re:Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink (Score:5)
While Alex Jones falls into the same category of asshattery that WBC used to fall into, it's important to recognize that the same laws that protect his idiocy also protect valid and often necessary dissent from majority opinions. People who support broader limits on free speech do so because they want to curb the speech of people like these assholes, but these assholes are the first ones who will flock to the courts to silence dissent should you broaden those limits, and the end effect is you give the tools of tyranny to exactly the sort of awful people who would abuse them.
To bring this back around, though, this is about Amazon. I typically speak out when I see idiots like Alex Jones getting banned on Facebook or whatever because Facebook's nominally an open platform (or at least claims to be when it's convenient to them) and I think there's value in making sure that, on an open platform, idiots are allowed to run their mouths and get called out so that the idiocy doesn't just get relegated to forums where the idiots can spread their lies unchecked. However, Amazon is nothing like an open platform. They're a merchant selling products, not a service vendor getting ad revenue for hosting a communication platform. I think it's entirely reasonable to question why Amazon hosts content like this, as there's no potential discussion that can happen on their storefront about these conspiracy theories being false. The public value of hosting this kind of stuff is zero. It's one thing to complain that Facebook won't let you post about Democrats being lizard people, but I see no reason why Amazon shouldn't kick you off their store for selling a book about it. Just buy the book from the author if you really want to support idiocy so much.
Re: (Score:2)
but I see no reason why Amazon shouldn't kick you off their store for selling a book about it.
I do. It's Amazon making a design for me, that I should be making. Amazon for example could refuse to sell books about guns or sex. You know "idiocy".
"open platform" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the line between Facebook and Amazon is so clear-cut. Yes content providers get paid on Amazon, but when you start to look at the companies' roles in this there's not much to distinguish them. Both companies host content (however it was procured) and both companies get paid, whether directly (subscribers) or indirectly (advertising dollars).
Even when you start to consider payment to the content providers you have to admit that on both Facebook and Amazo
Re: (Score:2)
They're not even remotely symmetric. There's an argument to be made that MSNBC is the counterpart to Fox News, but neither is comparable to Infowars.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you did produce grave sites [findagrave.com], there would still be people who would argue that without exhuming the bodies and performing DNA tests and and and and...
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired: For in the Course of Things, Men always grow vicious before they become Unbelievers.
Re: Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthin (Score:3)
Isn't it starting to smell fishy to you?
No, but you're starting to smell rather nutty. I mean I enjoy a good run of anomaly hunting as much as the next guy, but you actually seem to be taking it seriously ...
On a related note, how in the hell is it that slashdot apparently allows these kinds of idiots to post anonymously, but every time I try it I get the message that anonymous posting has been disabled?
Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned overthrowing. (Score:2)
There are limits to free speech, including the incitement to violence and libel, and Alex Jones fits into both of those categories.
Darn. There goes our second amendment, "overthrowing the corrupt government/industrial/business/religion" plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just repeating what the supreme court has held. If you believe differently then that's up to you.
Re:Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink (Score:5, Informative)
Pedogate (not the Pizzagate shit-show it turned into) started on 4chan and Reddit. Someone please protect us from 4chan and reddit! My poor little brain. I might accidentally hurt myself reading 4chan or reddit!!!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You should do some reading. The Mueller Report outlines it very well. The CIA among others, also concurred.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you can do a little better than "educate yourself"? What exactly from that article supports Trump was elected based on Russian propaganda? You should be able to copy and paste the section that supports your argument.
I read the section. Most of it was "fake articles were made". No mention of what was fake exactly, or what those articles actually did. It doesn't say that those articles changed the values of people to vote for Trump, or what was in those articles that would cause a person to not vote fo
Re: (Score:3)
I'll agree on most of your points. A lot of people just...believed him. And there's a lot to unpack on why they believed him, but it's that: they believed it when he said things like "drain the swamp".
Amazingly enough, he's actually been accomplishing many of his stated goals (despite rabid opposition by a left wing that has apparently doubled-down all the way off the deep end), to the point that a lot of former nose-holders are now cheering.
I...can't quite agree with that. I think he's accomplished a lot for rich people, and he's made things harder for those that aren't rich.
Would you legalize snake oil? (Score:2, Troll)
At a certain point you're not _not_ hurting no one. Harmless kooks stop being harmless when people are made to act on their advice. Yes, the line is blurry, ugly and a mess. But we can't just throw up our hands and say "Marketplace of Ideas will sort it out" to resolv
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Alex Jones started out as an act but he gained popularity and the momentum is too great to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthin (Score:2)
Yes. We ban them both or we allow them all.
Unless we're the biggest hypocrites in the world and lack even a single shred of self-awareness.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just elect Alex Jones nuts to the same body and watch them fight it out. Fun!
Re: Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthi (Score:3)
Quite the conundrum. It sounds like we shouldn't be censoring anyone at all then...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Climate change people don't claim the world ends in 10 years but that 10 years may be the deadline for action after which it may become too difficult to reverse the warming trends. Climate change people also have never advocated for violence against others, or implied that violence may be necessary. Whereas with Info Wars and Alex Jones, who may claim he is only passing along news, appears to be inciting others who have acted in violent ways in response. Such violence has not causes Alex Jones to back dow
Re:Oooo, can't be having non-sanctioned wrongthink (Score:5, Informative)
Pssst.
16-year-olds grafted to someone's political agenda are ALWAYS sockpuppets. Ditto for other useful children (see: Hogg, etc). You shouldn't need some "bug in Facebook" to figure out that one.
Did it ever cross your mind that she's using them? (Score:4, Funny)
Not all 16 year olds are easily manipulated. It doesn't take many years for life to make a cynic out of you, and with the internet you can do it in a weekend. I used to have a "Daily Rotten" challenge before the site went down where I offered anyone who could read the site for a week and not lose faith in humanity a cookie. Never once gave out a cookie.
Re: (Score:2)
How is she suffering from climate change?
Well for starters (Score:3)
She's also going to be seeing much more extreme weather. Worse storms and the like given where she's from (Sweden).
That's just the short term stuff going on right now. There isn't a single scientist not saying that things will get worse, and at 16 she's got a long, crappy life ahead of her f
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Whatever else you think of Greta Thunberg her points are scientifically accurate in as much as there is no credible scientist arguing against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Because any 'credible' scientist willing to disagree would quickly be labeled a denier and be discounted, so they can continue to say that 99% of scientists agree with them and we shouldn't listen to the deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. As everyone on Slashdot knows, sciencey types love two things: overthrowing the established orthodoxy if the facts support it, and things that run on electricity.
This is why there is no conspiracy of scientists to push anthropogenic climate change. If there was any way to discount it, most scientists would.
Re: (Score:2)
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it isn't illegal, then what is the problem here? The Blair Witch Project professes to be a legitimate documentary made from found footage of student filmmakers who disappeared. People watch it for entertainment purposes.
Any time I see articles like this the first question I have to ask is "Who is going to be gatekeeper for the censorship you propose? You? Is your opinion on this matter supposed to be the standard against which things are judged"
Re: (Score:3)
"Who is going to be the gatekeeper for the gate that leads onto private property?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the Left's new strategy, ban "conspiracy theories" so they can then label every opinion they can't argue against a conspiracy theory. You just aren't smart enough to think and decide for yourself, see?
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have to label anything. All you do is show people the full uncut video, and it's obviously fake news. Just look at the Nicholas Sandman incident in Covington. Every mainstream news outlet smears this kid for harassing a native guy, when in the full video, the native guy was the one harassing the kid, and spouting racist lines like "go back to Europe".
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
https://www.npr.org/sections/p... [npr.org]
It's almost like you jump to blame "every mainstream media" without actually looking into the details. Quite ironic considering the topic you're complaining about.
Now CNN may have been trigger happy, but they also happily posted the counterside https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13... [cnn.com]
I'm not American so I won't profess to know what you consider "Every mainstream media outlet" but we certainly seem to have received both sides of the story just fine from those America media outlets big enough to have a presence here overseas.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between what's illegal and what's unethical.
Re: (Score:2)
^ THIS.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If you don't like what you are watching -- here's a fucking idea -- STOP watching it.
--
Censorship is precisely the problem.
Only children censor. Adults discuss and even laugh at taboo subjects.
Re: And? (Score:2)
I wish i was so blind, naive, and stupid so as to think that there actually ISN'T a cabal of bankers hellbent on controlling the world.
Dont know why this concept is so hard for people to grasp. It's like some people can't believe that any conspiracies exist.
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws! -Mayer Rothschild
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be trolling. Nobody with half a brain who works in the tech industry could possibly think that oligarchs and corporations aren't just as incompetent and ineffective as politicians and intelligence agencies.
Re: (Score:3)
"Censorship" includes, but is not limited to, government censorship. These videos shouldn't be censored, period. I don't care which platform they're on. If the video is ridiculous, then put a review section at the bottom for people to laugh at how dumb the ideas are.
Re: (Score:2)
If a video is declared to be libel in court, is that censorship? If so, then censorship may be good in this case. There are limits to free speech. And Alex Jones has indeed been on the losing end of several lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN just settled a defamation lawsuit where they were clearly in the wrong, yet they are still allowed to broadcast.
Do you think they should they be censored?
Re: (Score:2)
If a video is declared to be libel in court, is that censorship?
No. Only removing, altering, or restricting access to the video would be censorship.
Ruling on libel/slander, issuing a judgment for damages, etc. would not be censorship.
There are limits to free speech.
No, there aren't.
You can be held responsible for the direct results of your speech in some very specific circumstances.
You cannot be prevented from doing the same exact thing the next day. Not legally, anyway.
Go ahead and point to shitty court rulings, asshole judges who issue an order to suppress speech and then throw people in jail for i
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is under any obligation to amplify bullshit "ideas" that are both demonstrably false and which cause believers to do damaging things. It is not censorship for Amazon to refuse to host this crap on their website. It also adds to Amazon's costs which ends up reflected in higher prices for Prime subscriptions.
If Alex Jones wants to broadcast his crap, let him do it with his own resources and money.
Amazon currently hosts it. Talking or not whether amazon is obligated to host it is a moot point.
There's also a difference between "believers" doing damaging things and someone specifically telling them to do something.
Re: (Score:2)
It is literally censorship.
What the fuck do you think the word means?
Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)
"I for one am not going to renew my Prime Membership should this garbage continue to pollute the entertainment pool."
So you're not ok with this, but you are ok with "Space Raptor Butt Invasion [amazon.com]"? If there's anything polluting the entertainment pool, it's the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
"I for one am not going to renew my Prime Membership should this garbage continue to pollute the entertainment pool."
So you're not ok with this, but you are ok with "Space Raptor Butt Invasion [amazon.com]"? If there's anything polluting the entertainment pool, it's the latter.
The only thing polluting the entertainment pool here, is the censorship being proposed by hypocritical children.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
just that Amazon Prime is probably not the proper venue
Why not? I never understood why people just don't ignore content they don't like or want. You would actively need to be seeking out this stuff in order to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Tried the search. (Score:2)
Go search Endgame and see if you get any Alex Jones hits.
Just did.
First several hits are the Marvel movie, with the same picture of heroes. Then you start getting other stuff, starting with a DVD-of-TV-series named Endgame, other Marvel superhero videos, etc.
Eight pages in (128 titles) you're getting to stuff totally unrelated to the Marvel movie. Lego videos. _Ender's Game_ and _War Games_ science fiction, The Unit, Unforgetable, The Carrie Diaries, etc. Along the way there have been Insectables, DC c
Re: (Score:2)
It's a slimy practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Flat earth and Anti-Vaxxer content is now disguising itself as many other things because well, flat earth and anti-vaxxer stuff is often prohibited.
Flat earth materials are often heraled as the truth about the world, and anti-vaxxing stuff as "family care" or information as to how to raise your child.
Then even shed the whole "don't beli
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand what censorship is. Nobody is proposing that these videos be made illegal; just that Amazon Prime is probably not the proper venue.
Not the proper venue? That's rich considering all the other deviant shit for sale on Amazons website. Good luck drawing those moral lines around the world's largest vendors.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand what censorship is. Nobody is proposing that these videos be made illegal; just that Amazon Prime is probably not the proper venue. I for one am not going to renew my Prime Membership should this garbage continue to pollute the entertainment pool.
No, you don't understand what censorship is.
If Amazon removes or alters content based on the content, then Amazon is censoring that content.
welp (Score:2, Flamebait)
If you find yourself accidentally watching Alex Jones... I don't know what to tell you, other than you're probably too dumb to have Amazon Prime.
Why dumb?? (Score:3)
If you find yourself accidentally watching Alex Jones...
What if you are just in it for the LOLs? What is wrong with watching someone who has some strange theories, just to revel in the strangeness of them??
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever floats your boat man
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that these aren't just listened to as funny theories from a kook. Many of his viewers and listeners believe them and have attempted to take action based on these lies, including sending death threats to others. Alex Jones has also been sued for defamation and lost. This isn't just another variant of Ancient Aliens that's fun to watch when drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
I must say it is fun watching him failing in the court system.
Bad selection, horrible search. (Score:4, Informative)
Amazon Prime video really doesn't have a very good selection outside their own content. A lot of it is old, low budget, and/or named to be confusing with other, more well known titles. For example, they have a movie labeled Battle of the Bulge. However, it is not the classic film that most people would assume, but is in fact a documentary type film using newsreels.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of this on Netflix too, documentaries get used to fluff up portfolios everywhere I think.
Really? (Score:3, Informative)
I *literally* just searched 'ENDGAME" on Amazon prime video.
I got 170 results, starting with
LEGO Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu: The Complete First Season
Dead Rising: Endgame
The Four Horsemen of the Endgame
Clip: Transformers Devastation Playthrough
etc. No sign of nutball Alex Jones.
I searched Avengers Endgame and something like the first 6 titles were Marvel comic videos.
Still no Alex Jones.
I searched Alex Jones Endgame
I got 4 results:
State of Mind: The Psychology of Control -- this is the Alex Jones documentary, I suspect, although it says 2013, not 2007.
Hung: Season 3
Hung: Season 4
Silk
I don't see this is really a critical problem at all. Which then makes me wonder: in whose interest is it that we THINK this is a problem that needs some action to correct it, that action being of course filtering what we see/hear/read?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just Amazon (Score:2)
Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
- Cigarettes kill you and the companies know it.
- Project Sunshine
- Poisoning bootlegged alcohol
- Government testing on unwilling citizens (Tuskegee)
- MK-Ultra
- Government surveillance and disruption of political movements (Civil Rights/MLK Jr., etc.)
- Various plans to instigate/justify wars
To deny these conspiracy theories would be revisionist history and absolutely not OK.
There are a bunch of other conspiracy theories that can easily be argued to be "political speech" on the grounds that they accuse the government in the same way as the theories listed above. Culling those out would be like walking through a minefield of legal and PR liability.
So, which should it be? No conspiracy theories allowed and everything Alex Jones does is removed from the platform along with everyone implicating Trump of backroom deals? (All conspiracy theory until proven true...) Or allow them all?
I'm sure Amazon would be happy to play ball if someone would just write out the rules of the game.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But Alex Jones has many conspiracy theories that have been proven to be false. At some point you have to look at the reputation of a person and consider the content. Instead of "no conspiracies theories" maybe "no false conspiracy theories published by man known to spread false conspiracy theories"
Re: (Score:2)
But [CNN/MSNBC/Fox/BBC/CBC/Al Jazeera] has many conspiracy theories that have been proven to be false. At some point you have to look at the reputation of a person and consider the content. Instead of "no conspiracies theories" maybe "no false conspiracy theories published by man known to spread false conspiracy theories"
You propose we attack the people, not the argument? Ad Hominems all the way down?
Do Parallel Porn Titles also show up??? (Score:2)
Do Parallel Porn Titles also show up and if so that may be good for selling them.
the road to tyranny is paved with good intentions (Score:2)
I expect this kind of crap from religious politicians, grandmas, and oppressive governments, but not from what I used to think of as the generally intelligent readership of slashdot.
Here's a simple test- If what your wanting to do ends in "for your own good", "For the children", or "because we don't trust them to think for themselves", then what your trying to do is restrict freedoms, regardless of your specific why.
Freedom of Speech (Score:3)
Freedom of Speech isn't just a restriction on government, it's a fundamental principle of a post-Englightenment society. If you think people don't have critical thinking skills then go complain to the teachers' union instead of trying to stifle ideas like a Wahhabist.
Even a blind squirrel finds some nuts - all you people trying to ban Alex Jones should figure out who in the media was livid in 2014 about Jeffrey Epstein trafficking children for sex and Hunter Biden sitting on the board of Burisma.
Yet somebody with critical thinking skills can not believe him that it's Satan behind the events. Try thinking for yourself .
Re: (Score:2)