I have to admit that I’ve watched, but can’t take it on a regular basis. I always come away with the impression that Jones is mentally unstable and would be considered a total whack job, tinfoil hat nutcase in the pre-internet days - destined to be standing on a soapbox in a park or on a street corner ranting. But because of the ease of broadcasting, he has found a massive audience of like minded individuals.How many Terbites watch/read/follow InfoWars?
If many TERBites watch Infowars on occasion, what will you conclude? If hardly any TERBites watch, what will you conclude? If only a small number of TERBites even respond to your poll, what will you conclude?How many Terbites watch/read/follow InfoWars?
The poll question should read: “Sometimes I watch InfoWars because they report stories not covered in the Main Stream Media.”
(I hit the character limit in the poll question)
What makes you think Youtube is trying to silence Infowars? They are not. Infowars success = revenue for Youtube. Key to this discussion is for you to understand why Infowars received his first two strikes.He's an unstable conspiracy kook, but in a true democracy even conspiracy kooks should be allowed to speak freely.
Youtube is IMO wrong when they try to silence him
What exact rule or law did he break??Infowars broke both the Youtube rules and the law. Those Youtube videos were removed as a result
If you keep avoiding the question you can probably guess what I’ll conclude.If many TERBites watch Infowars on occasion, what will you conclude? If hardly any TERBites watch, what will you conclude? If only a small number of TERBites even respond to your poll, what will you conclude?
I've already answered your poll question in the 2 strikes thread, as you well know. So why dodge my questions?If you keep avoiding the question you can probably guess what I’ll conclude.
If/When you need to know you will be told.I've already answered your poll question in the 2 strikes thread, as you well know. So why dodge my questions?
Wow, you went from wanting my answer to it's a big secret in a hurry! Ok, I'll just write your answers out for you, to save you the trouble:If/When you need to know you will be told.
I don't think you could watch any media outlet for 30 minutes and think you're getting balanced reporting. Such an outlet doesn't exist. The question the OP is asking is whether it's EVER worthwhile to watch Infowars, presumably regardless of whether you agree with their take on a particular story, or not.The mainstream media is becoming more biased, especially since Trump's election, but they're still much better than entities like InfoWars. I can't see how anyone could watch InfoWars for more than 30 minutes and think they were getting a more balanced reporting than through mainstream media.
Which is what I answered. You can sift through the bias in mainstream media because it's relatively minor, so it is worthwhile to consume mainstream media. But InfoWars is so rife with bias and falsehoods that it is worthless, or even harmful, to consume.I don't think you could watch any media outlet for 30 minutes and think you're getting balanced reporting. Such an outlet doesn't exist. The question the OP is asking is whether it's EVER worthwhile to watch Infowars, presumably regardless of whether you agree with their take on a particular story, or not.
+1. I have the same opinion about Breitbart - totally biased and fake content.Which is what I answered. You can sift through the bias in mainstream media because it's relatively minor, so it is worthwhile to consume mainstream media. But InfoWars is so rife with bias and falsehoods that it is worthless, or even harmful, to consume.