Making Headlines on the Jewish-owned New York Times is every journalist's dream.
But for Alex Jones it's all trial and tribulation.
Citing the removal of Infowars programming from major social media, the Times jabbed
Jones as a trafficker in "unfounded" conspiracy theories mired with hate speech.
But why "unfounded?"
Are some conspiracy theories actually "founded" on evidence?
After all, the term "conspiracy theory" is said to be invented by the CIA so as to prevent
disbelief of BigGov narrations.
But there's a new kid on the block: hate speech!
[Clip: "ADL and University of California at Berkeley's D-Lab have been working to develop
a new approach to tackle online hate using the latest methods.
The goal of the Online Hate Index is to help tech platforms better understand the growing
amount of hate on social media and to use that information to address the problem.
By combining Artificial Intelligence and machine learning and social science the Online Hate
Index will ultimately uncover and identify trends and patterns in hate speech across
different platforms.
We've just completed our first phase of research, and found that the machine learning model
identified hate speech accurately between 78%-85% of the time.
In the next phase of our project, we will look at specific targeted populations in a
more detailed manner.
We'll examine content on multiple social media sites and we'll identify strategies to deploy
the model more broadly.
While there's still a long way to go with Artificial Intelligence and machine learning
based solutions, we believe the Online Hate Index will help tech companies better understand
the extent of hateful content on their platforms by creating community-based definitions of
hate-speech."]
Now, are tech giants using this 'hate speech' terminology to blur the distinction between
legitimate opinion and actual libel?
It sure stumped Zuckerberg.
[Clip: "Can you define hate speech?"
"Senator, I think that this is really a hard question, and, and I think it's one of the
reasons we struggle with it."
"For months, and really for years, the tech companies have been reluctant to weigh in
on a lot of these controversial speech issues, but it appears after months of criticism,
the tech companies have finally said in the case of Alex Jones that enough is enough."]
Naah.
'Enough is enough' is a violation of the entire, at large, 'community standards,' not the standards
of a tiny coterie of cyber-censors.
Social media should be on par with public telecommunication companies.
They don't decide if you're politically correct before providing services.
Social media should be under the same constraints--not by BigGov--but by Internet users who expect
a free flow of information.
Jones had millions of viewers.
Why not account for their consent?
How about 'two point three million' of them?
[Clip: "I represent Parkland Florida and in this discussion of social media the first
thing that comes to mind for me is the savage attacks on the student survivors of Stoneman-Douglas.
One of the most virulent strains of these attacks was that the students didn't survive
a school shooting, that they were crisis actors, that they were planted by some mysterious
cabal to finally get Congress to do something about gun violence.
And in the weeks after the shooting, Alex Jones's YouTube channel posted a video that
was seen by two point three million subscribers alleging that these were merely, ahem, that
these were actors and not real students."]
That's Jones' opinion, right or wrong.
Whacky or tacky, he should still have his say, and we'll decide if he's a quack.
For with no legal definition of 'hate speech,' cyber-censors decide what "speech" they "hate"
others to hear...while 'conspiracy theorists,' like Jones, become anyone going off the prescriptive
grid.
After all, Jones refused to tout the 9/11 script.
Is there only a 'kosher' side of the playbook?
[Clip: "Where were you on September 11?"
"Uhhm, you know, uhhh, I was home.
And um, and so, that particular morning, because I have light colored hair and fair skin, and
an annuity to the dermatologist, my wife, God bless her, had made an appointment for
me, ahhh, at the doctor."]
Kind of 'iffy,' if you ask me.
So why not let Jones have his say even if he's kind of 'iffy?'
[Clip: "Alex Jones is the Internet's most notorious conspiracy theorist, and with his
site, Infowars, he's peddled a number of dark and bizarre conspiracy theories."
"Sandyhook, it's got 'inside job' written all over it."
"Want us to cover Pizzagate, we have covered it, we are covering it, and all I know is
God help us, we're in the hands of pure evil."]
Don't like what you hear?
Don't want others to hear it?
Call it 'dark and bizarre' and voila! the pinky on the censorship key hits delete.
Like the kickoff of the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution, Jones got guillotined
right smack in the middle of Cyberspace Square.
And you, Mr and Mrs Journalist--even if you write for the New York Times--might just be
next.
Isn't it time for an alternative Internet infrastructure?
You better believe it!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét