> There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451
reply
Where does that leave Alex Jones, then? It's called a slippery slope for a reason.
Where does that leave Alex Jones, then? It's called a slippery slope for a reason.
You seem to be implying that Jones' videos are truthful/informative and totally-not-a-scam, while the videos in the article, which actually contained educational content, were false, misleading, and perpetuating a scam.
Meanwhile, Jones has a supplement business that pulled an estimated $15 mil over two years (some estimate $25 mil) [1]. Here is a sampling of reviews from an independent lab that tested the substances:
- "Both of these products are most likely safe, but ineffective."
- "This product is a waste of money. The claim that 'Anthroplex works synergistically with the powerful Super Male Vitality formula in order to help restore your masculine foundation and stimulate vitality with its own blend of unique ingredients' is fluff on multiple fronts."
- "This product's claims related to 'nascent oxygen' also have no real basis in science."
- "We tested this product on the chance that it might be potassium iodide or sodium iodide, which it wasn't. Survival Shield is just plain iodine."
etc.
This is a guy who "... repeatedly asserted the Sandy Hook shooting was staged and the parents were liars and frauds who helped in a cover-up" [2].
So, what's your definition of false and/or misleading?
[1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-in...
[2] https://globalnews.ca/news/4149778/sandy-hook-sue-infowars-c...
EDIT: it seems I misread the intent of the post above mine. My apologies. I'll leave my response up for reference.
My point is to show that these criteria are very hard to apply consistently, particularly when there's money to be made. Alex Jones' channel is alive and well.
I can assure you wholeheartedly that I am implying that Alex Jones videos are squarely in the "false/misleading/perpetuating a scam" camp.