The new chief constable of Greater Manchester police has warned that forces risk being seen as the âthought policeâ if they do not tread carefully under the governmentâs new counter-extremism strategy.
Ian Hopkins, who replaced the retiring Sir Peter Fahy this week, said there would be a threat to free speech if police enforced too aggressively measures that include banning orders on non-violent extremists.
He said: âItâs not just about counter-extremism, itâs also about protests. We are in a very difficult position. We tread a very thin line in terms of making sure people can air views, there can be proper debate, that people can protest peacefully.
âFor me thatâs the real challenge, just making sure that police maintain that line and donât become the thought police because thatâs dangerous. â
So, this is a story I have been following recently. Slightly different to some of the opening posts, but felt it related enough to plonk here, not in itâs own thread.
But, this is something that may become a worrying trend. Billionaires using their wealth to silence the media.
This example is of Peter Thiel, a Silicon Valley Billionaire - who made a fuck ton of money investing in PayPal & Facebook early doors.
He has been funding the legal fees of Hulk Hogan, in a suit against Gawker - who published his sex tape. Why does he do this? He calls it âphilanthropyâ, but the reality is - itâs the result of a long running feud. Gawker (it should be said is a pretty trashy rag, tbh) ran a story âoutingâ Thiel. Thereâs of course no defence for this, Mr Thiel (like everyone) should be entitled to a private life. But for the man to engage in such a long-running vendetta against the outlet (or any other âliberalâ or âprogressiveâ outlet/institution) seems a pretty terrifying proposition.
This appears to not be a one off:
(From Guardian Article):
_Thiel ominously told the New York Times that he ârefused to divulge exactly what other [media lawsuit] cases he has funded but said, âItâs safe to say this is not the only one.ââ So there are an unknown number of media lawsuits he has going on. In 2009, the already billionaire mogul was willing to give a paltry $10,000 to an unknown video troublemaker, who has done a great deal of damage to progressive politics. How many things is he involved with? Only Thiel knows, and we can only wait to find out._Interesting that this guy is a delegate for Trump. A man that has also called for moves to curtail the press.
If this become an ongoing trend the implications are, in my opinion, scary as fuck. It perhaps isnât surprising, as it is essentially the logical extension of âWealth = Freedomâ.
Much of the system, including the financial system, is simply legalised corruption. The fractional reserve system is one such example, growing out of the revelation that bankers mightnât actually have your money, and definitely wonât if everyone draws their cash out at the same time. A huge scandal in its day, the illegal practice was so widespread that it was easier to legalise the corruption than try finding the money.
This is essentially lobbying without the veneer of altruism, or a particular wish to be transparent. Much of lobbying is merely legalised corruption. Money changes hands, campaigns are funded and favours are returned. When lobbyists expect some bang for their buck, how is that any different from buying democracy?
The ongoing trend to worry about is not the fact these things go on. We know they go on, but donât want to know. Itâs the point at which corruption becomes legal thatâs the worry, because at that point, youâve hardwired criminality into your institutions.
Interesting developments over the last week. Alex Jones has been banned from multiple social media platforms. It might just be Twitter that InfoWars is not banned from.
Cards on the table, I have little to no time for Alex Jones. If the powers that be are up to anything shady, Jones would be the last person I would want breaking the news. Few take him seriously - if Alex Jones told the world that coal was black, most of the world would call him a bullshitter.
I think this move will be counter-productive. There are already reports that as result of the infamy, his site, which he can still use to broadcast from, is more popular than it has ever been.
The episode also raises questions about who gets the right to censor. Right now, that responsibility is falling to corporate boards of the large tech monopolies, many of which are already under the public microscope on charges of being out of control.
The other worry is that Jones is the easily detestable tip of this iceberg. If his stuff is taken off the social media networks, whoâs next? What will they get banned for?
This is no defence of Jones, but his banning does represent another slide down what is looking like a very slippery slope, what with NFL players already being sacked for espousing views that conflict with that of the administration.
I think this is the central problem of the Internet.
The internet has allowed fantasists like Alex Jones a platform and a reach that pre-internet would have been unheard of. I suspect David Icke would have got more traction if the internet had existed back in the day - instead he was ridiculed, marginalised and simply faded away. the Internet doesnât allow that.
The global media platform (twitter facebook) do have a responsibility to ensure that content going up doesnt break the law of the land and the need to crack down of the more obvious false news (not the âI dont agree with itâ fake new ala Donald trump. If they want to be regarded as credible sources of information and news, then they should be held to the same publishing standards as the print media
I saw that H3H3 got taken off a livestream on youtube just because they were discussing Alex Jones. I used to watch Alex Jones every now and again more for entertainment, it never used to bother me but I havenât seen the stuff he got pulled for, and Iâm not sure of what service guidelines he broke to get pulled. It would seem that Logan Paul is able to continue pulling in views with his ongoing access to the platform, maybe he makes more money for youtube than infowars⌠oh shit iâm going into conspiracy mode 
Anyway hereâs a nice song about Alex JonesâŚ
The issue for me is that the views of Alex Jones and his followers do not disappear because he is removed from a social media platform, they just now continue unchallenged. (except Twitter where I believe he is still active)
John Oliverâs investigation into Alex Jones and Infowars. He (AJ) is more smart than deranged.
I hope this is the video I was after - Oliverâs done a couple of episodes on Alex Jones.
What guidelines did he break on multiple platforms, all at the same time?
âbut it is vanishingly unlikely that Apple, Spotify, Facebook and YouTube, not to mention the others, all arrived at their own independent conclusions against Infowars at the same time purely by coincidence. So if we are indeed witnessing international erasure on the basis of political opportunism rather than a specified threshold of the rules being breached, we should all have cause for concern.â
This is just another feeler, to see how far they can censor everything. Julian Assange will be the real test.
Who is Alex Jones? Doesnât she present The One Show
Thatâs just what they want you to think.
He was taken to pieces on the Last Leg, Friday night on ch4
This could have gone in the Trans thread too.
A powerful intervention by Cat Pain Blackadder.
Cunt. 
Thatâs the spirit!
btw, @saintbletch, can I get some kinda award as a Baba Yanga Blind Mystic please?
I set this thread up almost five years ago. I predicted Trump. I called the first two Labour leadership contests after Red Ed was ousted. I predicted not only the result of the 2019 GE, but also said why.