Alex Jones has finally been banned from the last large social media platform twitter. Last night we heard that because Alex Jones confronted Oliver Darcy and this violated Twitter's abusive behavior policy, he was going to be permanently banned from the platform. As well as Infowars, what's interesting was that. Or four twitter made the announcement? Some news outlets tweeted the story out, which means they had it written before Twitter actually announced that Jones was going to be banned and Oliver Darcy these subjects of the story. The reason Alex Jones got banned, tweeted. The story out at the exact same minute as twitter. This means that twitter contact media and pull them beforehand. What they were going to do that twitter knew they were going to ban Jones and didn't tell Alex Jones until the media knew and already had the story written. Naturally, you have people screaming allusion they're, saying the media is working hand in hand with Twitter to ban the competition, at least as a Paul Joseph Watson who works for enforce it sank and that may have

either case, some journalists are saying you know it's kind of weird. We understand that press embargoes are normal. This is a big story Alex Jones being banned, is going to harpaz. So, of course, Twitter is going to contact the press and let them know, but after going through the evidence, I have to conclude that at least by a bare minimum standard, I think you actually can say there was some collusion, because these news organs tions. In fact, Oliver Darcy has said. The only reason Alex Jones has been banned is because of media pressure if the media, if Oliver Darcy the subject of the story in which Alex Jones the band even cnn- includes themself in the story was given advance knowledge and the last month they took credit for putting pressure on these companies to ban Alex Jones. I have to say, at least by a bare minimum definition. There was some back, and

or between the companies- and there was a desire to ban Alex Jones, so let's take a look at what actually happened. We break down. Why? I think this to be the case and we'll look at exactly what happened yesterday and if they're, actually a Now before we get started. Let me give a quick shadow. Today's sponsor virtual shield virtual shield is a virtual private network service that helps keep your data safe, be it from the government, a hacker anybody wants to spy on your information. A VPN is going to help obfuscate your data and make it much much harder. We're never guaranteed perfect security. But that doesn't mean we don't lock our doors and lock our windows. Virtual shield is a simple step that you can take to help. Keep yourself and your family safe from anyone who would want to spy on you, for those that are interested in the link will be description below yesterday, Twitter safety announced that they had made the ban of Alex Jones. They said we took this action based on new reports of tweets Anne videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy. In addition to the accounts, past violations- and we can see this tweet came at four hundred and forty seven-

Pm and then we can see at four hundred and forty seven Pm Oliver Darcy, who is a subject of the story, also tweeted out a story from CNN the company that he works at Buzzfeed treated the story out exactly at four hundred and forty five, two minutes, before twitter. The AP had the story on Twitter one minute before they made the announcement. So now Only if the media new before Twitter announced the media was informed beforehand and We know this to be true now, because a writer for Buzzfeed NEWS has said this is true that he contacted Twitter and they told him it was going to Charlie wars all said. No, this won't be met with good faith, but there are some out there who might just be confused It's like the one below suggest something to various here was my process. I reached out to Twitter, independently of anyone to inquire about one of yesterday's tweets from Alex Jones. He highlights the tweet from Cassandra Fairbanks that says collusion

mainstream media, informed of twitters Infowars Band before Alex Jones was, he said, eventually got a response, but had to agree to an embargo credibly standard journalistic practice for a national news story with lots of interests. Most journals accept begrudgingly because it's better to have the info than not the reason for embargo. Often they gives reporters a chance to question and also a story with a bit of time to make sure no facts are flooded by rushing, This case I had about forty minutes to put together a story with context, so yeah honestly, nothing nefarious, but some people don't know what embargoes are at Sun reporters to help give context. All the heads up, which again is a thing that is reasonably common. It did was allow me time to double check my facts and add context on a high. Astoria so well definitively. Stating there is collusion, is a bit hard to do. I mean collusion implies there was some kind of secret act between the two groups that was going to cause harm to somebody, or it may be illegal.

But there was some exchange between Am Oliver Darcy said a month ago. That it was only the after the media continually pressed these companies. Did they actually start to enforce their own rules on August? Sixth, all over she said important Tech platforms did not enforce their own rules and take action against Alex Jones Infowars on their own accord. It took media outlets to point out for weeks that info course was skirting the rules on these tech platforms for them to enforce own standards. The Alex Jones have been violating these standards for some time and they only actually took action after weeks of media pressure. After weeks of the media outlets, saying you know, you say that this would violate your stand why is this still being allowed to be posted later in the afternoon? He said twitter spokesperson says that neither info wars nor any other associated accounts are currently in violation of twitter periscope rules. I don't think it's strange that Twitter notified the press Honestly, I lean towards nothing nefarious. The issue

is that Oliver Darcy has been putting pressure on these companies repeatedly. Really I kind of lean towards it may be an inadvertent, low level form of collusion and the reason for it is. If you go on twitter and search for racist death threats, it will only take you a few minutes. Find several and I'm not going to show them, because I will probably get in trouble on Youtube. So I did a search and yes, I found people staying racial slurs and death threats from days ago, in fact, during the here, and eca and showed it Jack Dorsey posts up from drug dealers. They were actually offering to sell drugs. How is it that all of these can remain on the platform, but for some reason Alex? Jones singled out. Well, as Oliver Darcy said, it was media pressure. So then, isn't it strange that media pressure got Alex Jones banned from various platform? and then after Alex Jones confronts Oliver Darcy Twitter announces they're, going to ban Alex Jones for his confrontation of Darcy, and they

Oliver Darcy and CNN beforehand to me that sounds like they were working. In the scenes, sharing information and tar did somebody who isn't the worst offender on Twitter. Now it could just be that Alex Jones is high profile is an easy target and yes, maybe it's just simple media pressure and twitter was backed into a corner and had to do it 'cause they were facing bad pr, but the point is Twitter gave advanced, launch 2a subject in the story. Look if groups like Hamas and specific branded Antifa cells and people like Lewis, Farah Khan, are still in the, form and twitter says offline. Behavior counts. You know towards whether they'll ban you, if they've removed, verify mission from certain individuals and not their counterparts on the left that conservative have been shadowbanned from auto search their counterparts in the left. Haven't though, yes, there are people on the left to get banned, because,

Hector he says in his hearing. They make mistakes constantly. I have to wonder if it's not just on purpose at this point. Let's look at this example: Hamas movement Hamas info en Hamas, a palestinian movement that resists the israeli zionist occupation and aggression. We struggle for equal rights for all in Palestine, and this has seventy four thousand followers. They say it's the official account. I don't know if it is, it's not verified, but I'm not surprised It's not verified, but what is Hamas defined as according to many western governments? It is regarded either in whole or in part, as a terrorist organization by several countries. An international organizations- The US considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization. You then have someone like Louis Farrakhan who there was an anti semitic, racist conspiracy theories off platform Twitter says that off platform behavior counts as to whether or not they're going to ban. So why Are they allowing the Taliban? Why are they allowing Hamas? I have to imagine it's on purpose.

Because that's what I was doing a blanket enforcement of its rules. I wouldn't be able to find racists death threats. I wouldn't be able to find people accidentally not being banned when they threaten Dana lashes family and I have had people threaten me physically. I thank you. Tell me that if I go and cover a story, they will steal my phone. They will physically attack me. They will. They will pin me down and steal my backpack and when I report this to Twitter, Twitter does nothing about it. Candace Owens puts out a tweet. She gets back even though she uses a very similar language to what Sarah Jeong used and she says that's. The point is specifically to highlight the Bye

and twitter bands are- and that's as group that was a mistake. Dana lash has her family friend Twitter doesn't band. This person later come back loops. It was a mistake when Congress confronts Jackie says we make mistakes, but how often do you make mistakes? How? How long are these mistakes going to keep happening? And then you have to try and convince me that you think Alex Jones is a bigger threat, because he confronted Oliver Darcy that Hamas then the Taliban, because those accounts are still active and that's apparently, okay and yes, you might argue, but TIM Alex Jones, made a direct statement. He did an action and Hamas and Louis Farrakhan is other extremist accounts. Don't use twitter in this way, so they are allowed to stay. Ok, if that's the argument you're making, then the proud boys got banned for being extremist organization. An Hamas did not the proud boys got banned for being extremist organization and their counterpart in the street battles. Epic branded antifascist cells that have their own logos and twitter accounts with 10s of thousands of followers were not banned, and this

Why? If you were to ask me, I would say at what point do you just say? Look it's not an accident and it's not a mistake. It has to be on purpose, and it might not be a grand conspiracy where Jack Dorsey Center saying, let's let's burn down in, but the media says there: pressure resulted in the banning of Alex Jones and then Twitter gives the subject of the story advanced notice. I have to say yes, talking to each other behind the scenes about Alex Jones being banned for the actions that Alex Jones took against Oliver Darcy. Maybe Oliver Darcy and CNN are the ones who actually reported him, or maybe it was just that, because many news organizations ask about the tweet. It was Essentia Lee reported, it might all be one big accident, but the domino's fall into place and whether not it's on purpose twitter took action against Alex Jones because of pressure from the media, and they gave advanced notice to the actual subject of the story. At what point do you say that is collusion? I don't know. I can't accused them of anything, and maybe it's all just one big dumb political game and twitch.

Is really just bad at what they do. But if the mistakes are going to keep happening, if every day it's a new mistake, I have to say: ok at some point, you're willfully enact you're just not willing to actually fix any of these problems. But let me know what you think in the comments below it will keep the conversation going. It's hard to definitively say collusion, but I have to I have to say it again if Hamas and the Taliban are actively posting on twitter, but you think the proud boys aren't extremist organization. You are really really bad at what you do or it's on purpose. So what do you think? Is it on purpose so I think at this point we can only say yes, because they gave four knowledge to the media companies that claim to be putting pressure on the media companies to Ben Alex Jones. How much? What else do you say? I mean short of Twitter, saying we did it on purpose and we work with media companies. I don't know what else you can do, but at some point you have to say hey guys if you're talking to each other behind the scenes and the media has admitted there the ones putting pressure on the companies to ban people, it sounds like you really did collude

So let me know if you think will keep the conversation going. You can follow me on Twitter at MKS, stay tuned, new videos every day at four hundred pm and more videos coming up on my second channel at six hundred pm: Youtube dot com, Slash TIM cast news thanks for hanging out I'll see you next time.