All Episodes
Aug. 9, 2018 - Brother Nathanael
05:43
Alex Jones Makes NYT Headlines!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
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 marred 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 big-gov narrations.
But there's a new kid on the block.
Hate speech!
ADL and the 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 with 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 we found that the machine learning model identified hate speech accurately between 78 and 85 percent 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 stumps Zuckerberg.
Can you define hate speech?
Senator, I think that this is a really hard...
Question. And I think it's one of the reasons why 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.
Nah. 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?
Doesn't their voice count too?
How about 2.3 million of them?
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' YouTube channel posted a video that was seen by 2.3 million subscribers, alleging that these were merely actors and not real students.
That's Jones' opinion, right or wrong?
Wacky 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?
Where were you on September 11th?
You know, I was home.
And so that particular morning, because I have light-colored hair and fair skin, and I'm an annuity to the dermatologist, my wife, God bless her, had made an appointment for me 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?
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.
Sandy Hook, it's got inside job written all over it.
You 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.
Export Selection