Posted on 08/12/2018 8:10:23 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Vimeo has pulled Infowars content from its site for violating the platforms standards.
A spokesperson for the video hosting service told Business Insider on Sunday that the Infowars videos "violated our Terms of Service prohibitions on discriminatory and hateful content.
The videos had been uploaded to the site on Thursday and Friday. The Vimeo spokesperson also told Business Insider that the company had told the account owner of the videos removal, and also issued a refund because "we do not want to profit from content of this nature in any way."
The site reported that Infowars had less than a dozen videos on the platform as of Wednesday, but that more than 50 videos were posted to the site on the following days.
Vimeo reportedly determined that the content violated the companys trust and safety standards within 48 hours of the videos being posted.
Business Insider reported that Vimeo CEO Anjali Sud will announce the removal of the Infowars content during a town hall meeting on Monday.
Vimeo is the latest platform to pull content posted by Infowars or its founder Alex Jones. Facebook, YouTube, Spotify and Apple Podcasts have all recently banned or removed content from the site or its controversial conspiracy theorist founder.
Twitter has said that Infowars and Jones will be permitted to stay on the site because they havent violated its policies.
A Twitter spokesperson said Friday the decision to allow them to remain on the site will stay in place, despite a CNN report revealing that Jones had repeatedly violated its policies.
Jones has faced criticism for spreading conspiracy theories, and was sued by the parents of two children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting for allegedly claiming the shooting was a hoax. Jones has denied making the statements.
I don't care if they own the equipment. When they control a major portion of public communications, the public is a participant and should exert some collective control over what should be allowed and what should be forbidden.
The greatest threat we have been facing for decades is that sewer of propaganda from the Democrat/Media system mostly located in New York. They have been manipulating elections by manipulating public opinion through their control of the "news."
They don't report things damaging to the Democrats (Like the horrible disaster socialism in Venezuela is creating) and they focus on things damaging to Republicans.
The public has a right to hear representative opinions and positions from the entire nation, not just the well connected upper "elite" in New York and Washington DC.
No one said anything about “free.” Since the public is a participant in monetizing these companies, it should be up to the public to decide what content they don’t want, not a “Big Brother” Censor.
>> Not a damn thing can or should be done about it.
But not to the exclusion of activism.
“For some reason many here think it’s the various social media sites’ responsibility to host him for free. “
No, but I believe he ought to be held to the same standards as others. Not a special “We Hate Conservatives” standard.
My position is that if they convey public communications to a significant portion of the public, they should be required to carry all traffic regardless of their own personal opinions regarding it. So long as it isn't illegal traffic, they have no right to stop it, and we the public have very much a right to hear it if we wish.
Would we tolerate for a minute a company refusing to serve black people?
Fox News is part of a public company.
Is it up to the public to decide what content they have to present?
>> The Internet is a public utility.
Be careful with that one unless you’re a Net Neutrality fan.
My God.
I never thought I'd hear anyone on FR advocating for the Fairness Doctrine.
We cannot tolerate censorship of significant portions of public communications, and I don't care who owns the infrastructure.
My positions is that if you are in the communications business, you must be forced by law to serve every customer that sits at your lunch table.
Don't like having to serve the entire public? Stay out of the public communications business.
You would prefer to have your opinion completely squelched and you declared a non-person by the technology companies?
At one time, I would have said yes, but now that I see the danger and the threat from allowing this, I must say absolutely not.
They are colluding to silence political positions with which they disagree, and we cannot allow that to happen in this nation.
Including the right to absolutely cut you off from the rest of society, put you in a form of jail?
Including, through the effect, of being able to starve you to death by denying the use of their infrastructure?
Do you think that Jim is in the communications business?
Jim doesn’t have the power to cut your life off completely from society. The tech giants have that power. They’ve become pseudo-governments.
Does it really matter what my preference is, or should we look to The Constitution?
“Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time. “ - O’Sullivan’s First Law
The Purge will continue. The Heretics must be rooted out and punished.
So long as it is the size it is, Free Republic is not going to be a threat to the well being of the nation.
Companies with millions or even billions of accounts are very much a serious threat to the freedom of our nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.