So, along with freedom comes calls for censorship

Amazon criticised for selling films promoting conspiracy theories on Prime

OK, Prime video has some nutters on it.

But as concern over online misinformation mounts The Sunday Telegraph can reveal it is also propagating the bizarre fantasies of Alex Jones and David Icke.

Mr Jones is a leading figure in the so-called US alt-right, known for his paranoid anti-government rants online.

OK. And here’s the kicker:

Amazon’s dissemination of conspiracy theories as part of a service challenging traditional television is likely to stoke debate over regulation.

The BBC and Channel 4 are demanding rule to ensure their programmes – which are produced under strict rules of accuracy – are guaranteed prominence as a shift to on-demand viewing via apps instead of channel menus accelerates.

On-demand-only programming is currently subject to much more relaxed regulation, although the Government has signalled a crackdown is in the works. Amazon did not respond to requests for comment.

They do indeed want to censor.

And they can go boil their heads, too.

20 comments on “So, along with freedom comes calls for censorship

  1. BBC/C4 are corrupt arms of the British state. And only a few of Alex Jones ideas are nutty. Many are now mainstream and becoming more so as the mare’s nest of anti-Trump, pro- Killary US state corruption is gradually exposed to light. Which is why every possible attack on the Internet is under way.

    It is the BBC/C4 who need a 24-hours-to-oblivion shutdown. On the same day the SCS is fired en masse and on the same Eck’s standard terms. No compo and pension confiscated.

  2. Here in the states, this runs hard into the First Amendment. However since it is Prime, they can ban whatever they like. This especially since Bezos is the owner of the Washington Post now.

  3. Amazon criticised for selling films promoting conspiracy theories on Prime

    That’s just about the entire media, isn’t it?

    The BBC and Channel 4 are demanding rule to ensure their programmes – which are produced under strict rules of accuracy

    Imagine saying this with a straight face.

  4. ’…known for his paranoid anti-government rants online…’

    Do the BBC & Channel 4 never broadcast anti-government rants then..?

  5. Given the extent of the lies created about Grenfell by both these august organs what they must mean is “let’s censor upstart competitors but allow us to continue to generate as much lefty propaganda as we want.”

  6. The BBC and channel 4 have both produced programs with …. questionable ideas of accuracy and honesty.

    They tell a story, the story meets the ideological views of the people agreeing to pay for the story. The story does not need to be the truth, merely needs to be what some viewers want.

  7. @Martin
    “the story meets the ideological views of the people agreeing to pay for the story”

    Uh? The BBC’s funded by a tax. Given that the BBC by & large promulgates the same viewpoint as the Guardian & the Guardian can’t attract enough paying readers to pay for itself, that’s a unique point of view.

  8. It’s old ground I know, but it is a “voluntary” tax?

    Provided that one does not partake of the condition imposed, there is no legal requirement to pay (and I know quite a few that quite legally don’t bother).

  9. “It’s old ground I know, but it is a “voluntary” tax?”

    If you don’t earn an income, you don’t pay income tax. If you don’t own a corporation, you don’t pay corporation tax. If you don’t inherit anything, you don’t pay any inheritance tax. etc.

  10. “The BBC and Channel 4 are demanding rule to ensure their programmes – which are produced under strict rules of accuracy – are guaranteed prominence as a shift to on-demand viewing via apps instead of channel menus accelerates.”

    They can fuck right off. FFS these people already get a ton of money from the state, one way or another (BBC license fee, no cost for C4 to use the bandwidth). If they give something to Netflix and Netflix doesn’t feel it’s worth giving prominence it just isn’t high value.

    The BBC has made what that’s actually really good in the past decade? Inside No 9? Torchwood: Children of Earth? Harry and Paul? That show with Portillo doing train journeys? Horrible Histories?

    They’ve ruined most documentaries because everything is so loaded with SJW context now. Everything has to be about women and ethnic minorities all the time. And you know, you want to talk about Grace Hopper as a pioneer of computer software, do so. She’s a significant figure.

  11. NiV

    Sure. I meant it more in the sense that if I don’t want any bananas I don’t need to pay for them.

    Ie, it is a “product that one is paying for” (albeit with the “general live viewing” restriction tagged on).

  12. “Ie, it is a “product that one is paying for””

    If the product you want is Coronation Street somehow you have to pay for all the utter twats at the BBC.

    The TV license is permission from the state to install and use television reception equipment (and otherwise receive live UK broadcasts). It is not a payment for, nor guarantee of, any service or product.

    The fact that HM Government grants the BBC exclusive rights to collect the license fee (via its wholly owned subsidiary “TV Licencing”), and exclusive use of the monies, is incidental to the legal status of the license.

    I involuntarily don’t have a television in order to not pass money to BBC cunts.

  13. PJF

    That was why I tagged the bit on the end, “albeit etc”..:)

    I don’t disagree with you!

    And ditto, but only since 2012 or, when they switched off the analogue and I realised one day that the rarely used box was now chucking blurry grey pixels at me rather than its usual SJW bollocks. A definite improvement at the time – with the bonus being that the grey pixels would now be free to watch…

  14. …The BBC and Channel 4 are demanding rule to ensure their programmes – which are produced under strict rules of accuracy…

    ROFLMAO – a more false claim would be difficult to invent.

    Is it 1 April? Joke/hoax/fake-news?

    BBC & C4 News and accuracy, honesty, impartiality are oxymorons

  15. “Sure. I meant it more in the sense that if I don’t want any bananas I don’t need to pay for them.”

    The Office of National Statistics reclassified it from a ‘service charge’ (i.e. a payment for a service) to a ‘tax’ precisely because you have to pay it to receive other services they don’t actually provide – the non-BBC broadcast channels. They don’t compete on price with other broadcasters.

    If you only had to pay the licence fee to receive BBC channels, it would indeed be a service charge.

  16. Bloke on M4 “They’ve ruined most documentaries because everything is so loaded with SJW context now.”

    True.
    I now often don’t bother with many BBC and C4 docs when the bias is really obvious up front. I have better ways to spend an hour than making myself more ignorant than I when I started.
    If I do watch a doc I usually afterwards do some searching to find out what I either haven’t been told or told in such a skewed manner as to be misleading.

    When a doc is on a subject I really know something about then the experience is usually more painful and infuriating than enlightening.

    And as for the drama…

  17. Bloke on M4 said:
    “The BBC has made what that’s actually really good in the past decade? Inside No 9? Torchwood: Children of Earth? Harry and Paul? That show with Portillo doing train journeys? Horrible Histories?”

    Torchwood: Children of Earth – 2009
    Harry & Paul – 2007
    Portillo’s train jouneys – 2010
    Horrible Histories – 2009

    Says a lot about the BBC that, with only five ‘decent programmes in the last decade’, one 11 years ago, and another two will drop out of the ‘last decade’ next year.

  18. PF said:
    “it is a “product that one is paying for” (albeit with the “general live viewing” restriction tagged on).”

    But that extra clause “tagged on” is the crucial thing that turns it from a fee into a tax. If we only had to pay the license fee if we watch the BBC, then fine. It’s the fact that we still have to pay if we only watch other providers’ output that makes it iniquitous.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.