Lets talk a bit about Alex Jones. I think his case is an extremely interesting one that touches upon free speech.
I set up a question on twitter the other day where I wanted to see what the general response from Hivers would be on the case he lost where Infowars was fined with 1 billion USD.
I have been following Alex for almost 15 years now and he was one of the people that intrigued me the most during my search for "truth" in my high school and early college days.
His approach was compelling at the time to a young mind. He was someone that oozed enthusiasm and certainty in all he said. Something that wasnt the case with any other journalist at the time (if you can call him that).
That was in a way seductive as committing to certainty is much easier than actually having to put in effort and research everything.
Not until I was introduced to the class where we were taught the scientific process, what a hypothesis is, what a theory was, inductive and deductive reasoning... etc. did I realize how misplaced the attention I was giving to conspiracy theories was.
From there I was able to explain the conspiracy way of thinking very simply:
- Make up a conclusion you want.
- Does it fit my overall narrative?
- Is it earthshattering enough?
- Proclaim the conclusion with certainty.
"If something I want to be true, could be true, it must be true."
Its an irrational way of thinking, thats not unique only to conspiracies, based on nothing but guesswork and wishful thinking. There was also the seductive notion of having "secret", "hidden" knowledge that no one else had which made you special that appealed to people.
Alex went through a few phases, some more fun than others. At this point I was watching him like I watch the "Ancient Aliens" show. It was all nonsense yet entertaining.
You had his "bohemian grove" phase. His "911 was an inside job" phase, His "Joker-Obama is a muslim that wants to destroy the world" phase, "Pizzagate" phase, his "gun" phase", "Stop the steal phase", etc.
Some of these things were simply right wing talking points turned up to 11 and some were utter lunacy.
The introduction of the right wing talking points brought him to the mainstream and it gave him an audience of people that were no longer simply solitary loonies that felt disenfranchised and marginalized by the system.
All in all I consider Alex Jones utter poison and the worst of the worst when it comes to Fake News.
What eludes me is why so many of those that attack CNN, MSNBC or "MSM" apply none of the same scrutiny to him. MSM is a dishonest term used often by those that are actually bigger and more popular by any given metric than who they paint as being MSM.
I know of no one like Alex that makes such extraordinary claims with such consistency with no evidence whatsoever, or even when evidence is to the contrary, yet he is exempt of the same level of scrutiny as CNN, FOX, BBC, etc.
These big networks function in a different way.
- They have their biases and agendas.
- They create a pool of specific facts that push the narrative in their wanted direction.
- They omit all other facts that counter their narrative.
- They very rarely outright lie. (The "Russian collusion" story they ran for years being an obvious exception)
Heres an example:
During the BLM riots, CNN didnt say that nothing was happening. What they did do is play down the gravity of. A riot wasnt a riot, it was a "protest". A burning building wasnt a violent riot it was "a MOSTLY peaceful protest."
The rioters were justified by them, stories about struggle and injustice were pushed.
On the other side of things you have the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Tucker Carlson, or Daily Wire (Owens, Walsh, Shapiro) are either ignoring what is happening, ignoring the murder, rape, not covering the story, or they are downplaying the war by sharing stories about how Ukranians are going to the beach this summer during a war. How Ghost of Kyiv is not real. How there are Nazis in Ukraine. How NATO is at fault not the aggressor.. Biden sending weapons is bad but Russians threatening nukes isn't discussed. etc.
So these networks dont outright lie often (although they do that as well) as much as they create a portfolio of facts that suits them, overexaggerate them, and omit everything else.
"See those Ukranians swimming? What war?"
Alex Jones operates differently. He presents unconfirmed absurd claims and exaggerates them often keeping them vague and broad. You have people like Assange that actually uncover and expose things, present factual documents and focus on specifics. Facts being a focus. Alex Jones uncovers nothing and exposes nothing. He is a preacher preaching from a book of conspiracy fiction.
NICK SANDMAN:
In 2020 CNN and other networks were held accountable for how they painted the Nick Sandman kid. The way they presented the story, they made it appear as if Nick was the one to blame for the incident. He sued them for 250 million and settled for a smaller sum still counted in millions of dollars. By some estimates multiple millions of dollars.
Now... When that news dropped, do you guys remember how it was painted on the right and by many of those that are upset with the Alex Jones lawsuit.
"Good, fake news got what they deserved. Fake news is being held accountable for their lies".
They were mocked, Sandman was celebrated.
MSM was being made an example of.
If you compare that case to what Alex Jones did, the difference is striking.
Nick Sandman stood in place and basically nothing of note happened that day while Sandy Hook was a tragedy where 26 people, most of them children 6 years of age, were shot to death.
CNN painted Nick Sandman as an arrogant teen. Alex Jones painted the parents of the dead kids as liars complicit in a grand conspiracy to take away his rights.
Some of the things he did and said:
He doxxed a dead kids parent.
He blamed the parents for faking it, being actors and being complicit in a grand conspiracy that had a goal of taking away his rights. He called it all a hoax.
From there his viewers desecrated the kids graves, after a parent killed himself they harassed the family calling his death a hoax. Without a doubt Alex Jones and InfoWars were directly and indirectly responsible for further ruining these peoples lives.
Now, I have a few questions to pose:
Should networks that openly lie, spread misinformation be held accountable for their actions or should free speech protect them?
At what point do you think the line should be drawn? Or should there be no line? Should we hold fake news accountable when its clear their coverage has a unjust and clear affect on the target lives like is the case with InfoWars where they defamed the parents? Should that only apply to Networks or should it apply to those that clearly are the ones inventing the fake news? Do you support the judgement, but think the fine is too high?
Should Alex Jones be in the clear but rather Infowars the one prosecuted?
The Wild West is not dead. The problem of cognitive hygiene is a difficult one. In more sane cultures, someone like Alex Jones cannot make any significant amount of money.
How much of it is the fault of those propagating nonsense and how much of it is of those acting on it?
If someone fills someone's head with hate and spread divisive narratives based on manipulative practices and lies that affect society, can you hold those people accountable?
Or do you chalk it off to human stupidity and absolve those that create those narratives. Thats the question.
I'm inclined to hold the purveyors of hate accountable.
Would be great to see integrity in journalism but I don't think that ever existed, anywhere. Can report on something like new tech or a current event etc., sure, whatever, but the instant modern day politics is applied, it becomes bunk. Everyone's full of shit and the consumers become mouthpieces, spreading shit all over the walls.
So Alex is a cross between entertainment and journalism. So is Colbert, those folks on The View, etc. CNN, Fox. Doesn't matter what team you play for. They all talk shit, too. So now there's a billion sitting on the table and a case to refer to. If the system is fair, all those folks are going down as well. Should be a cash grab. It'll look like Walmart on Black Friday.
You mentioned how the 'professionals' know how to word things in a way that protects them down the road. A lot of these independent online youtuber style DYI "journalists" didn't get that memo. Clickbait headlines and bogus claims galore, for views. That might bite them in the ass but it's no secret; they should have known in the first place.
People are free to talk shit. People are free to jump on that money in the same way. That's the way of the world, I guess. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I would hardly call any of them journalists. Propagandists maybe.
There was the Nick Sandman case, now this. Do you think this could actually be good when it comes to accountability for news networks.
Some see it as a free speech issue. Some see it as clamping down on fake news.
I was using the term journalist loosely. I shouldn't do that. Should only mean one thing. Propagandists sure. Provocateurs perhaps. Forced laughter, cheering and applause, distracting folks away from the ulterior motive or feeding them what they want to hear so they can feel good about themselves. It's so weird.
You mentioned Sandman. I think that Rittenhouse kid is working on something as well. All these problems stem from the politics involved when "reporting" the stories. All they had to do was leave that shit out but that's impossible once your entire market depends on it. They cornered themselves into this mess.
If people enjoy what they call 'freedom of speech', why piss on it and take it for granted? If someone fires off a few rounds and kills someone with a gun, it's intellectually lazy to say all guns should go away. Makes more sense to be angry with that individual who shot. So those who stand for free speech should maybe be a little pissed with Alex, corporations, and everything else, for taking it for granted. I don't know anyone who's a fan of being lied to.
Personally I'd prefer to see folks in that industry scared straight into being honest. Won't happen though. That billion dollar story is like a day old, people are already forming their teams and talking points. This will go in circles for a few weeks or months until there's something far more fashionable in the news. The only thing that'll change is maybe someone got a new phone. In other words, nothing will change.
I wish there were a way to make it so that anyone who is claiming to be a journalist, or running/in public office should get hefty fines for knowingly lying to the public. It can be like traffic violations where you get a certain number of them, then a warrant for your arrest is issued as a repeat offender. Hell, I don't know though. It would never work, because establishing that someone knowingly lied is clearly an extremely difficult task.
And some people in this country (USA) are clearly above the law no matter what law enforcement would like you to believe, so no amount of evidence would ever be enough to force them to face any real consequences for their actions.
It would be tricky to implement. There is a difference between lying and being wrong. I think the difference is in the approach you take. For example with Alex Jones and Sandy Hook he proclaimed it with certainty and enthusiasm, with 0 responsibility present in case he was wrong.
What is said and how its said, matters.
Right, this is the hard thing. Although these days no one can ever even admit to being wrong. They just double down, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is produced.
I just saw the news clips earlier of Alex Jones laughing and taunting his victims on his show as his sentence was being read. Disgusting. How cruel and evil can you be? It's amazing to me that there are people out there with zero conscience.
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people( @lordbutterfly ) sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.
What you posted here has nothing to do with the merits of the case, the exact thing named in the case has happened when it comes to "MSM", and this is as obvious of a deflection that I can think of.
For me, Lee Camp's point is that no matter what happens, the US government and the power brokers calling the murderous shots never get held accountable. Alex Jones being totally nuked consistently is similarly convenient to them as having Julian Assange falsely imprisoned is.
Yes, it's true that Alex Jones exaggerates to the point of psychosis at times and I agree that quite a bit of it is likely to be (either deliberately or sub consciously) designed to make money. At the same time, he has consistently delivered whistleblower and other testimony, plus his own insights - which quite often are correct and which are damning for the people calling the shots. While he has played a role in his own downfall, there are also very evil people working to bring him down too.
Personally, I found his very early documentaries to be very helpful in understand what was going on in the world - less than 5 of them. After that I stopped paying much attention to him. He has definitely held back the seeking of truth globally imo, mainly because so many eyeballs were on him and he quite often missed the mark and failed to use diligent application of logic.
He may well be a deliberately engineered actor or manipulated in other ways (just like how Jeffrey Epstein was very clearly involved in manipulating many well known power brokers and public faces).
It is certainly sad when people see Alex Jones' failings and then leap to the conclusion that 'conspiracy' doesn't happen. Conspiracy is a crime in and of itself in some jurisdictions and is regularly prosecuted. Theories about conspiracy are literally what power police forces and politics in many cases. The idea that conspiracy theory is a sign of delusion is simply psychotic.
But he called out New York times. A publication. Not the government. Im talking about holding fake news accountable and should we. A different discussion.
There is a difference between "conspiracy theories" and conspiracy fact. One requires guesswork, the other is based on documents, data, and facts.
I explain above what conspiracy theorists do and how they approach things. The opposite of a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones is an investigative journalist.
Alex Jones cannot uncover a conspiracy, an investigative journalist can. A good journalist understands the burden of proof, Alex does not.
Its simply a matter of the quantity of absurdity believed. A conspiracy theorist can believe things that are true, but if he believes a abundance of the insane things that most conspiracy theorists do, that are frankly nuts, then we are definitely talking about delusion.
I don't know which specific pieces in the NYTimes Lee Camp is referring to, but it is very common for MSM to make statements and opinion pieces that regurgitate the lies made by governments as if they are fact, never question them and even to vilify those who do question them. That has been the norm in many cases during my lifetime - gov lies about COVID19 being a prime example.
Anyone can be held accountable for what they say, but as soon as we try to punish people for saying things on the basis that other people believed them and we think that what they said was wrong - we are literally: a) accusing the believers of being idiots and b) deciding that it is down to us to 'correct' them.
This is clearly a very unethical position to be in, in numerous ways and easily identified as arrogance and interfering powermongery. The key point for me is whether it is more fruitful to punish people who say what we don't want them to say or whether it is better to help inform others so that they don't end up believing false information.
Too often it is the case that liars who know they cannot do the second option because they know that they are are spreading lies, will rely on the first option of censoring and silencing people instead. They use well thought out techniques to get the public to view them in a good light and to believe that the censorship is necessary, without noticing that they are agreeing to give away their power and to proudly state that, yes, they are ignorant and need to be told what's true by government entities.
One effect of this is that even when people are not lying and are genuinely trying to inform and educate people in a healthy way, they can easily be ridiculed and censored because there is a prevailing narrative that anyone who comments on world events and doesn't have the right 'authorisation' is probably wrong or a liar.
So by all means hold people accountable but don't fail to notice that the degree to which you ask for big weights to crush other people is the degree to which those same weight may be used to crush you too.
Not really. Theories tend to also be based on documents, data and facts - they simply insert new perspectives based on those data/facts. This is also how science generally tends to work. As with science, whereby today's 'fact' is tomorrow's garbage, the world of 'responsibility tracking' (or 'conspiracy theory' if you prefer) involves the use of theories, facts and documents etc.
Science tends to rely on experiments and repetition to substantiate it's claims, whereas politics and daily life eventually rely on courts and debate/argument. Ideas in science are often wrong and so too are the outcomes of courts.
I understand what you mean. I agree that AJ has often lept to conclusions wrongly. However, I will only add that he is actually doing what about 90% of people are doing too - every day, about all manner of things. The mind of most people is full of nonsense believed to be real. Belief itself is guesswork and error, yet most people are convinced that beliefs are needed and valuable.
He is definitely not comparable to good investigative journalists, though originally he wasn't bad at it - but that was a long time ago.
Ultimately, we all have our own standards of proof. I treat Alex Jones similar to how I treat MSM. He and they may from time to time highlight something important that no-one else is talking about publicly - but I never assume that what they are claiming is absolute truth or free from bias. I treat all information from all sources that same way actually. None the less, since I value my own survival and sometimes interact in circles where power is concentrated, I regularly examine and use theories about what conspiracy may be taking place.. Doing so has kept me safe and alive, for the most part - in fact, since I was a kid. As with most things in life 'your mileage may vary' with the theories - depending on the quality of information that went into them and the care that was taken in processing/creating them. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
And they often do the opposite.
So youre saying that those that spread the lying and manipulative narratives should not be held accountable in any way? So why do you attack MSM as you call it?
Sure, im not asking anything. Im questioning if holding fake news, networks that promote false information and affect the targets in a clearly massive, life affecting, negative manner should be held accountable for doing so. I think thats a valid question.
I was referring to the colloquial understanding of a theory, not the scientific one as there is nothing scientific about conspiracy theorist thinking.
Todays fact is not tomorrows garbage. Facts do not change, new facts are introduced that change the final explanation. The scientific theory is subject to change, not the facts. Unless they were not facts to begin with.
There is a level of responsibility that should be present when making extraordinary and potentially dangerous claims when you are in this business. What I say and what someone that distributes information to millions says should be held to different levels of scrutiny. How we approach that is subject to discussion.
Getting hit in the face by a 5 year old is not treated the same as being hit in the face by Deontay Wilder.
Congratulations @lordbutterfly! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 8000 replies.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPWhat amazes me is that someone who is considered by myself as as advocate and innovator in the decentralized media space such as yourself can come into the public square and casually commit the actual offense of which you accuse Jones, while defending hos suppression, censorship and persecution. Your statements are slanderous libel and defaming and you state them as fact, yet you provide no proof, evidence, or sourced information.
Alex Jones and Infowars did not doxx a victim's parents.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/27/21110759/wolfgang-halbig-florida-arrest-sandy-hook-hoax-troll
He didn't blame anyone, he said it was very suspicious and there are reasons to question it because of the media narrative and conflicting reports. It is not a crime to question the narrative, that is the essence of free speech and a free society to be able to question authority and hold them accountable. I can't help but ask if you think that the parents of the Uvalde victims are supposed to just believe the official narrative?
It seems ridiculous to me that you can say of Jones, "I know of no one like Alex that makes such extraordinary claims with such consistency with no evidence whatsoever, or even when evidence is to the contrary . . ." when he provides documentation to every claim he states as fact. His most recent book is one of the most well documented and referenced books on the subject of the Great Reset, or you can just go to WEF or UN website and find the evidence there in plain view, or you can just look around you in real time and see the evidence of the agenda that he has been reporting on for over 20 years. Funny how short the time between the "media" calling something a conspiracy theory and then touting it as the next great thing has escalated.
It doesn't take much research to discover that Jones does research and has evidence for the conspiracies you casually brush off as theories or extravagant lies. You mention Assange with high esteem but casually brush off his ongoing demise, but the corruption at the top levels of government is lunacy propagated by disillusioned misguided fools too dumb to know the truth or do their own research. He is just a fallible person like all of us who can be wrong, and maybe he was about this event, but that isn't even the point of any of what is happening here.
From your stated takes on the issue, it is very obvious to me that you haven't done any research on the case, any of the evidence or proceedings but are basing your opinions on your prejudice against Jones and your opinion of him. How is it that you followed Jones for 15 years and see what is going on all over the world today and still say with a straight face that he is lying and making things up? Is it willful ignorance, do you think he just got lucky, or have you denied the truth for so long you can't walk it back?
You basically excuse the media for colluding with big tech, and the government to spread outright lies and propaganda and suppress and censor speech for political agendas that erode our rights and endanger our well being as just party narratives and talking points. While in the real world, all over the globe govts are parroting the same authoritarian agenda which includes suppressing speech and controlling "disinformation" with the actual disinformation coming from those who are doing the controlling. This is fact, not conspiracy theory (fact-term coined by CIA to chill questioning JFK events).
The Covid narrative is crumbling before everyone's eyes and the truth of collusion between governments, big tech, the media and pharma in a global crime against humanity is coming to light. Jones reported and showed evidence that this was an ongoing plan and agenda years ago. Is that all coincidence?