ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Alt-Right News Site "Infowars" Shut Down!

Updated on August 14, 2018
Trevor-Cunningham profile image

Trevor Cunningham is a freelance writer who enjoys controversial topics in the political, religious, and global sects of the world!

Source

Infowars' Website Shut Down for Good?

As of approximately 12:00PM Central Time Zone, Infowars' website has been suffering from what founder and lead talk-show host Alex Jones describes as a "Cyber-Attack", although Jones has not provided the source that he believes the attacks are coming from. The picture above provides a picture of what the website has been reduced to, with links being provided to their store and their donation feature, as well as Newswars and PrisonPlanet which are alternative publications closely associated with Infowars' main site.

As far as Jones and his crew have stated, there is no timetable for the return of the full version of the website. Jones is encouraging people to support them financially through purchasing their products and donating, as he wants to take this to the judicial system on the premise that his 1st-Amendment right has been breached. Jones has stated on-air that he believed that a deep-state coo against him would eventually take them off of the air and remove him from the internet.

Could he be on to something, given the preceding events until this moment?

Source

Apple Took the First Bite

On the 6th of August popular “Big Tech” companies moved against the popular alt-right news media site as they removed Alex Jones and Infowars outlets from their platforms, citing violation(s) of Terms of Service. Apple was the first proverbial domino to fall, providing Buzzfeed News with this official statement: “Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users…”

Once Apple took the step forward, other tech giants YouTube and Facebook moved to ban Infowars, providing similar reasoning for their proceeding. Prior to the official permanent ban, YouTube had given Alex Jones two strikes for submitting content that they considered to be against their community guidelines. More specifically, YouTube removed four videos of Jones’ but decided to group the removals together to compose one of Jones' two strikes in accordance with their management system.

Response from Alex Jones

Alex Jones, who the mainstream media has often called a Conspiracy Theorist, responded to the actions by claiming that "Infowars is the most censored program in the world because [they] know the truth..."

Jones has often been critical of the Mainstream Media, whom he consistently implies are angry with him for snuffing out their viewer counts and ratings. Interestingly enough, many of the media publications whom Jones criticizes took advantage of this weak spot in the Infowars armour to critique Jones.

In essence, Jones claims that he was censored by these tech-giants in what he describes as a "communist-style crackdown", solely being opposed for telling the truth. Jones often accuses the Chinese government of controlling technical companies, and states on air frequently that there is a "Communist-Chinese takeover" being enacted on the American people as a part of a greater global scheme to enact a World-Government.

Source

Violation of Free Speech?

The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution is defined as:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In light of these recent events, one should ask themselves... is Alex Jones on to something? Is this truly a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Infowars is a media publication... they're significant in size and attention, and controversial in nature. Regardless, is it a violation of their United States Constitutional right to a non-censored press?

Step away for a moment and think, unbiased of your opinion on Alex Jones. It isn't just taking him down from Facebook, or YouTube, or removing his content from prominent social-media platforms...

Jones claims that they're attacking his entire website.

If the press is protected under the 1st Amendment, but Infowars is being censored, what conclusion should we reach?

Additionally, if this proves to be an attack on Alex Jones and Infowars, and the attack is successful at shutting them down... Who is next in line?

Vote now!

1st Amendment Violation?

See results

© 2018 Trevor Cunningham

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Ken Burgess profile image

      Ken Burgess 

      3 weeks ago from Florida

      Paula,

      I have to say I agree about his voice, I tried to watch him more than once to see what the hubbub was about, but I just could not stand that voice, it was as bad as nails scratching on a blackboard to me.

      If you take note of my post below to PolitiGal the links help flesh out the story, these platforms contracted with MSM to host and promote their content, and removing the likes of Alex Jones soon followed.

      Follow the $$$ ... that is half of it. Obviously the other half is that the people running the likes of Youtube and Facebook were all to happy to be rid of Jones and his perspectives.

      What made Youtube and Facebook were the alternative and individual sites ranging from Alex Jones to PewDiePie who have bigger audiences than CNN has had in years.

      In order to survive MSM had to become the premier and promoted sites on Youtube, Facebook, etc. and in order for people to be continuously exposed to and programmed by their propaganda, the alternative sources of information (IE - Jones) need to be removed.

      Jones is just the tip of the iceberg of the 'clean-up' that will occur on the main internet platforms in the coming months/years.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 

      3 weeks ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Trevor......Although I am not a fan of Alex Jones, I am able to be fair and see his "banning" as a violation of his Constitutional rights. My argument for or against any news show, talk show, radio or TV program is that we, as individuals are free to watch & listen or NOT. The choice to turn on or off any program, for any reason, exists and is as simple as exercising our rights.

      In order for me to form an opinion of Alex Jones, I had to see his newscasts, which are quite clearly, 90% opinion-based. If you pay attention, it's easy to see that Jones covers his ass very well. A common thread in the information he presents is, "this is what it appears to be.....but it may not be." "It looks to me as though........but some see it another way." etc etc.

      Basically, besides having an extremely annoying voice, Jones reminds me of the trouble-maker who starts an all-out fight in a bar and then sneaks out the back door, leaving everyone else to pummel one another.

      I lost any small amount of interest or respect for Alex Jones when he began speaking daily of the "Sandy Hook Hoax," which, of course we thinking, sane, realistic people know was/is NO HOAX. I simply refused to give this man, one more minute of my time, as he caused ongoing enormous pain to those affected by the Sandy Hook tragedy.

      That, IMHO, is simply WRONG. Peace, Paula

    • Ken Burgess profile image

      Ken Burgess 

      3 weeks ago from Florida

      Hi PolitiGal,

      I believe the multiple platforms suspended Infowars for political reasons more than profit driven ones.

      Although considering YouTube and Facebook and the rest signed deals with the MSMedia companies to promote their content, it only makes sense that they must now remove the content (Like InfoWars) that made their platforms so popular. For instance InfoWars had more followers on its App than CNN did.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-signs-deals-...

      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jun/27/digi...

      https://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/19/google-cbs-de...

      To be clear on what is really occurring, is not just the banning of InfoWars, it is the replacement of independent and individual content and opinions with the Newspeak of controlled MSM content.

    • politicaladvent profile image

      PolitiGal 

      3 weeks ago

      Companies that support the program have to also look at their bottom line. If they are advertisers for infowars, and their support causes a decrease in revenue, they have the right to drop them like a bad habit. Infowars would have to find new sponsors without an audience who cares about the product they’re selling.

      Infowars is very popular despite their fringe content. They can still run their business, but advertisers also have the right to cater to their own audience.

    • Trevor-Cunningham profile imageAUTHOR

      Trevor Cunningham 

      4 weeks ago from United States

      Brad,

      I am in agreement with your contention. They appear to be more left-winged than non-biased.

      This platform is unique in that it provides you the opportunity to write "freely"--the loophole is that it has to be within their policies which, as you mentioned, seem to be liberally-based in nature.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 

      4 weeks ago from Orange County California

      Trevor

      In how they should be non biased in comparison to the social media policies on Jones?

      My contention is that they are biased, and that is the way they implement their policies, much like Facebook, Twitter, and others.

      Policies shouldn't be implemented with an agenda.

      I have done a number of articles on hubpages and their policies.

      Thanks

    • Trevor-Cunningham profile imageAUTHOR

      Trevor Cunningham 

      4 weeks ago from United States

      Brad,

      Elaborate for me, sir?

      Where do I see HubPages as far as how they should handle material pertaining to Alex Jones moving forward?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 

      4 weeks ago from Orange County California

      Trevor

      Thanks for your comments.

      Where do you see hubpages in this scenario?

    • Trevor-Cunningham profile imageAUTHOR

      Trevor Cunningham 

      4 weeks ago from United States

      Brad,

      My commenting and interjecting between you two's conversation is irrelevant. In the midst of your conversation it would be inappropriate for me to interject and throw in what I believe -- many people receive that as the original poster (or author in this case) to be delivering an ultimatum which is comprised solely of what they believe.

      Since you asked, I will respond (not because I think it is necessarily the right thing to do). I responded to Ken in prior commenting, but accidentally deleted the comment whenever I was attempting to edit it.

      It is assuredly a Private-Company collusion to dismantle Alex Jones. No question about that. The companies have obviously had Alex on their radars for some time. The companies do not coincidentally remove him from their platforms on the exact same day within hours of each other by accident.

      Is it within the private companies rights? Debatable, but possible.

      Is it the an attack on the 1st Amendment? It would appear so, to some extent.

      Mr. Happy's analogy of the thief and the innocent was incorrect in that it lacked the proper context of this specific situation with Jones. No, it is not about "remaining consistent" or "if you can apply it to one scenario then you can apply it to all". Very clearly you would not send a random innocent person to jail for something irrelevant to them.

      However, in the realm of press and freedom of speech, Brad's logic was correct. If one side if silenced and the other side is left unpunished, that is not the right way to handle things--nor the narrative that we want to create and enforce moving forward.

      It is very clear that there are Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats (yes there are a different between those four groups), Independent and Libertarian, Tea party and... you get the premise. To censor the speaking of one group, or two groups, but to erroneously ignore the speaking of the other groups in order to preserve "their rights" is not a good thing. It is actually the exact opposite. It is a very, very bad thing.

      Jones may have had some theories that people didn't agree with. Jones may have spoken about topics that others wouldn't touch, provided sources, and provided his input.

      What then, let's ban him?

      No. Remove the videos.

      No. His audience was very big, speak to him via telephone.

      No. Strike his account (YouTube had twice, admittedly).

      No. Encourage him to not repeat these offense.

      What in the world did Apple have to do with Facebook's policies?

      What did YouTube have to do with Apple?

      What did any of the groups have to do with each other, aside from them being mediums or publications used as social-media outlets.

      If Jones violated one group's policies, let that one group handle him.

      Or, let a wide-host of outlets, publications, mediums and platforms remove him on the same day within hours of each other.

      Nonsense. It is nonsense to have watched it unfold that way, and it is nonsense to ignore that reality.

      Context is key in understanding this story and understanding the grand-scheme and potential consequential events moving forward.

      There was very clearly collusion taking place. Very clearly. Whether or not you liked the man's behavior, message, or what have you. Ignoring that is to look directly at evidence and call it what is isn't.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 

      4 weeks ago from Orange County California

      Mr Happy

      What you need to remind me is why you don't respond to my comments?

      And what about free speech, that we hear so much from the anti Trumpers.

      As for the FCC fine, you didn't get it right

      "The Federal Communications Commission has lowered the boom on a pirate radio station known for its broadcasts of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones – and also hit it with a $15,000 fine that its owners are refusing to pay.

      A lawsuit filed this week in US District Court in Austin, Texas, accuses Liberty Radio of operating at 90.1 FM without federal authority since at least 2013, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

      In place of the station’s offerings, religious programming aired on the frequency Wednesday.

      The station, which stopped being transmitted over the air in December, has been streaming online and via a call-in “listen line,” a check of its website txlr.net showed."

      --------------------------

      Mr Happy

      Feel free to go back to my comments and either agree or disagree with them. I took the time to make them, it would be nice if the author of this article could also take the time and make some serious comments.

      Thanks

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 

      4 weeks ago from Toronto, Canada

      You're just digging the whole deeper lol Why did You have to mention the FCC? Now I have to remind You that the FCC just hit Mr. Jones with a 15k fine. He's doing bad on all fronts because he is a loose cannon. That's basically the bottom line.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 

      4 weeks ago from Orange County California

      Mr Happy

      "Mr. Brad wrote: "You missed the point. When one side is left intact and the other side is punished that is the problem." - So, when a thief goes to jail, we should send some innocent people to jail too, just to make You happy? Great logic there."

      B:

      Now you not only missed the point, you changed the logic to take it out of any meaningful context. Are you saying that the social media is comparable to the police? The police are supposed to be neutral and just look at criminal acts. There is no issue of criminal acts in the Jones issue, is there?

      In fact that is why in monopolies that serve the public, the government regulates them like with the FCC. And these social media are de facto monopolies, but they are not regulated and they can implement very biased policies. And these policies can be a chilling effect on free speech, if not a total shutdown of free speech. Hearing only one side is not free speech, is it?

      ------------------------------------

      B:

      As for your comment to Ken, he can answer it, but I have my own comment on your answer.

      The fact that all of these social media cites have made the same biased decisions, with Jones says the bias issue is in all of them. Just like the recent attack on President Trump by over three hundred newspapers. And one has to look at the owners of these companies to see that they are anti Trump, and they will be biased against anyone pro Trump.

      It even happens here on Hubpages.

      ----------------------------------------------

      Regarding Mr. Ken's statement that: "It is not a 'private company' decision when we see ALL platforms remove his postings on or about the same day." - This is very simple: enough is enough. Everyone just about had enough of that man's terrible behaviour and people decided not to let him have any part of their PRIVATE owned platforms.

      ------

      By the way, I am not a fan of Alex Jones, but I don't think he should be shutdown, just because of bias.

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 

      4 weeks ago from Toronto, Canada

      Mr. Brad wrote: "You missed the point. When one side is left intact and the other side is punished that is the problem." - So, when a thief goes to jail, we should send some innocent people to jail too, just to make You happy? Great logic there.

      Regarding Mr. Ken's statement that: "It is not a 'private company' decision when we see ALL platforms remove his postings on or about the same day." - This is very simple: enough is enough. Everyone just about had enough of that man's terrible behaviour and people decided not to let him have any part of their PRIVATE owned platforms.

    • Trevor-Cunningham profile imageAUTHOR

      Trevor Cunningham 

      4 weeks ago from United States

      Ken, I apologize if it appears that you are speaking to yourself in the comments below. I went to edit a portion of the comment and deleted it. My mistake.

      Thanks for sharing that website!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 

      4 weeks ago from Orange County California

      Mr Happy

      You missed the point. When one side is left intact and the other side is punished that is the problem. That problem is bias, and when the owners of a public media cite can dispense that bias it becomes a problem.

      It doesn't matter how you define that problem, but bias allows one side to spew their views, while it prevents the other side from giving their views.

      The msm has been doing that for a long time, but it is different when the bias is used against the people directly.

      Also, calling Jones a Conspiracy Theorist is also an attack. This is a term created by the US government to stem the people resentment against the Vietnam War. This allowed the government to not answer the questions about why the WAR, but just swat it down with two words. Conspiracy Theorist.

      Is that what you favor?

    • Ken Burgess profile image

      Ken Burgess 

      4 weeks ago from Florida

      Trevor,

      In regards to his website being under attack, he is still creating content and posting it on the bitchute site https://www.bitchute.com/

      I went there yesterday to create an account, to find someone else who had been banned from YouTube, and he has a site as well.

      I don't watch him, his voice and delivery I never appreciated, but I subscribed to him there just to lend some support.

      Its all good, if they didn't ban him, people wouldn't find sites like bitchute, which is going to become the new youtube in quick fashion as youtube becomes the new host site for garbage MSM canned programming... the reason why I went to youtube was to get away from that crap.

      YouTube, Facebook, Apple have partnered with MSM news... which means its time for all the millions of people who ignore MSM like I do to find new platforms to use.

    • Ken Burgess profile image

      Ken Burgess 

      5 weeks ago from Florida

      An opinion on the matter by Dave Cullen:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRnwm8R-Do

    • Ken Burgess profile image

      Ken Burgess 

      5 weeks ago from Florida

      It is not a 'private company' decision when we see ALL platforms remove his postings on or about the same day. Alphabet (youtube), Apple, Facebook, etc.

      Pay attention to what extremist viewpoints are, and are not, allowed. Pay attention to what forms of racism are, and are not, allowed.

      A few months ago any major organization or person that promoted 'white supremacy', were banned from all platforms.

      A few days ago it was Jones and other persons they considered 'alt-right' and/or 'conspiracy theorists'.

      Tomorrow, it will be me, or you, eventually. Thought Speak is right around the corner.

      What is interesting, is this step-by-step censorship is taking place while Trump is President... it makes me wonder what is to come in the months and years ahead when all those voices who had stood up in support of him (or against the corruption in D.C.) have been removed from the air, and the internet.

    • Trevor-Cunningham profile imageAUTHOR

      Trevor Cunningham 

      5 weeks ago from United States

      I see where you are coming from. To use an analogy of my own... if I were to welcome you into my home and you began to violate the set procedures, it is within my moral rights to exclude you from being in my home.

      Thank you for your response!

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 

      5 weeks ago from Toronto, Canada

      There is free speach to a point. You can't yell "bomb" in an airport, etc.

      Now to this specific issue. Mr. Jones placed his videos on private platforms, which have rules and regulations. If he violated those rules and regulations, they can kick him off their platform. Think of it this way: there is free speach but if You come to my house and start yelling for example, I can kick You out because You are in my house. Same way, Youtube, or Apple, can kick him off their platforms.

      Seems reasonable to me but that's just my opinion.

      All the best to everyone!

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)