Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:41 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk? 
Author Message
Years of membership
Intern


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 152
Location: Texas
Thanks: 5
Thanked: 54 times in 47 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
Now That Facebook, YouTube And Apple Have Come For Alex Jones, They Will Start Coming After The Rest Of Us

"August 6th was one of darkest days in the history of the Internet. When I learned that Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Pinterest and others had colluded to take down content from Alex Jones all on the same day, I knew exactly what was happening. They timed their attack so that it would hit the press at the beginning of the weekly news cycle on Monday so that their purge would have maximum societal impact. And the fact that there was such overt collusion was obviously meant to send a message. We were supposed to understand that if they can do this to Alex Jones, they can do it to any of us, and so we better shut up and fall in line...."

investmentwatchblog.com/now-that-facebo ... est-of-us/

These media giants have declared Jones to be “hateful” and “bullying.” But don’t worry, you’ll still be able to receive online Islamic instruction on how to beat women who won’t have sex with you:

google.com/search?q=youtube+how+to+beat ... mp;bih=796

The social media giants have become essential to modern society. Online & brick-and-mortar businesses are built around Facebook and Twitter, Instagram, the rest of them. And by the same token, the media platforms are built around their users. The platforms’ advertising revenue is generated by user content. Some of the giant companies even receive government incentives. The argument that the media giants are private companies and can ban whomever they want is not valid. The companies are, in part at least, public property. So maybe it’s time to break up the big tech monopolies, in the public’s interest.

Hopefully this abuse of Alex Jones will lead to congress finally educating itself on how the internet works. Once they see how important it is to have an internet free of Gestapo thought police, then legislation will be passed. At the minimum, congress should give us an internet Bill of Rights, so that those who are discriminated against have some form of redress. Or congress could make the abusive social tech companies publish their algorithms. Make them open source, and then everybody could monitor their own web traffic and determine if they’re being discriminated against (site traffic choked down by algorithms, shadow banning and so forth). Of course, the big companies will say this would open them up to attacks by Russians, but how could anybody POSSIBLY interfere any MORE in an election than is being done right now with the Jones affair? One of the main reasons they’re trying to silence him is because he was so successful an advocate for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. He helped swing crucial electoral votes to Trump, thus ensuring his election. The Leftists realized too late how much influence Jones had, and they’re determined not to let him have a voice in another election (the mid-terms are just 90 days away). The media de-platforming of Jones is election meddling of the highest order.

But at least the situation is garnering a lot of attention. Currently at the top of the DrudgeReport, the internet’s # 1 news page:

Image

    SOCIALS CLAMP DOWN ON INFO...

    INSTAGRAM bans Tommy Robinson... (He’s against Muslim gangs raping children, therefore a thought criminal)

    FACEBOOK Blocks Republican Candidate's Ad... (She dares to criticize the Khmer Rouge, a fave of Leftists)

    Asked to Change Rules for Journalists... (‘Good’ journos, like the ones who told us about Saddam’s WMDs, want 'fake news' exemptions. Alex Jones railed against the WMD lie, by the way)

    TWITTER Suspends Libertarian Accounts... (Libertarians support liberty, therefore they’re thought criminals)

    Senate Dems Circulating Plans for Govt Takeover of Internet...

    'Survival of our democracy' depends on banning sites...

Image

Alex Jones’ websites, the ones I know about. Support him or the big guys will take away YOUR internet freedom:
https://www.infowars.com/
https://www.prisonplanet.com/
https://www.newswars.com/


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


_________________


Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:39 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Bookasaurus

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1905
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 62
Thanked: 681 times in 523 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

 Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
First some media corporations banned Info Wars from content areas they own.
Then the Info Wars, Prison Planet, and News Wars web sites remained intact on the internet along with massive amounts of paranoid, Nazi, racist, and anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
Then they did NOT come for BookTalk because we do NOT
  • accuse Robert Mueller of pedophilia and threaten to shoot him,
  • accuse the Bush family of being an extraterrestrial race of shape-shifting reptiles,
  • break down and cry because we don't have time machines as promised by God,
  • or have lawyers attempt to expose home addresses of parents of children killed at Sandy Hook so hysterical F%[email protected] can physically harass them.



The following user would like to thank LanDroid for this post:
Chris OConnor, geo, Harry Marks, Robert Tulip
Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:34 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6016
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1611
Thanked: 1741 times in 1342 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
Why should a social media co.be any different from other media organs, which all are fee to choose what they publish? I agree, though, that fb et al can't possibly remove all that's objectionable. Alex Jones isn't at the top of that heap, I'd wager.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
geo
Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:51 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
Nobel Laureate in Literature


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 996
Thanks: 880
Thanked: 443 times in 367 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
I've already reported several fake memes on FB and had them taken down, since the new policies. So far none of my friends who mindlessly pass on lies has unfriended me, though I went so far as to refer to "bearing false witness" once. My theory is that they just think these fake things sound like what their opponents would do, so they pass them on.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
geo
Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:53 pm
Profile Email
Years of membership
Intern


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 152
Location: Texas
Thanks: 5
Thanked: 54 times in 47 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

It seems like that statement is from some alien culture now, but it used to be one of the guiding principles in American society.

The neocon Bush/Cheney cabal got hold of the government and we had 9/11. That led to the establishment of the Orwellian "Department of Homeland Security." DHS hired the former head of the East German Secret Police, Markus Wolfe, and the former head of the KGB, Yevgeni Primakov, to work as "consultants" in setting up security for America. The Clintons worked to bring the Communist Chinese into America, and Obama spent eight years race-baiting and dividing.

So it's no wonder that you guys defend the indefensible.

gcnlive.com/JW1D/index.php/onair?type=o ... amp;show=1

That's a link to Alex Jones' radio show re-broadcasts. GCN is the network, and they have some other interesting shows. The Darren Streblow comedy show is amusing. "I told my teacher we was forty-ninth in education and she said, 'Who's forty-tenth'?" Webster Tarpley is informative but wrongheaded now, since he caught Hillary mania. GCN is a good example of the free exchange of ideas, come to think of it...what you guys are arguing against. Shame on you for saying somebody should be shut up...for any reason short of endangering. Freedom of speech baby. If you don't like it, move to China. Oh, yeah, Apple already did. And Google's building the ChiComs a censoring search engine that will I.D. those pesky dissenters. China deals with Falun Gong members by killing them and harvesting their organs to sell internationally. Since you guys are all on the boat to China now, should the US do something along those lines? Harvest the organs of conservatives? And maybe the Leftists that don't agree with Bernie, or Hillary? That's what you're voting for with your support of censorship.


_________________


The following user would like to thank KindaSkolarly for this post:
geo
Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:13 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Bookasaurus

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1905
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 62
Thanked: 681 times in 523 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
Evidently you do not know what censorship is.
Quote:
Video platform Vimeo told Business Insider on Sunday that it had removed the Infowars account, citing multiple videos posted last week that violate its terms on “discriminatory and hateful content.” “We do not want to profit from content of this nature in any way,” a Vimeo spokesperson said.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/al ... 0743cc5515



Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4272
Location: NC
Thanks: 1750
Thanked: 1804 times in 1373 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
Quote:
August 6th was one of darkest days in the history of the Internet. When I learned that Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Pinterest and others had colluded to take down content from Alex Jones all on the same day. . . . This was a cold-blooded move that was carefully calculated down to the finest details.

The writer of this piece does not understand the difference between government censoring and the rights of private companies to control content (not to mention maximize profits). Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Pinterest are social media sites, video sites, etc., with standards and criteria for content. They are also publicly trade companies that have to address concerns from stockholders. Is the writer of this piece genuinely shocked that these corporations are manipulating the press in order to gain positive coverage? Is it a dark day in history when Facebook removes Russian propaganda? Is it a dark day in history when Youtube removes my movie clip (from the movie The Messenger) due to copyright infringement?

Quote:
The current purge of conservative voices has been going on for months, but this is the biggest bombshell by far.

Has conservatism now become synonymous with conspiracy theories, lies, and propaganda? I hope not. The stuff from Alex Jones is a mix of spin and garbage. But again, this is not a matter of censorship. If any newspaper or publishing company wanted to publish this material, it is absolutely free to do so.

By the way Youtube eventually did allow me to repost the scene from The Messenger.

From an infinite number of possibilities, you had to pick this one . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oSJdSL8YOE


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:09 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5287
Thanks: 1233
Thanked: 815 times in 709 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
Quote:
The writer of this piece does not understand the difference between government censoring and the rights of private companies to control content (not to mention maximize profits). Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Pinterest are social media sites, video sites, etc., with standards and criteria for content. They are also publicly trade companies that have to address concerns from stockholders. Is the writer of this piece genuinely shocked that these corporations are manipulating the press in order to gain positive coverage? Is it a dark day in history when Facebook removes Russian propaganda? Is it a dark day in history when Youtube removes my movie clip (from the movie The Messenger) due to copyright infringement?


I like the argument that states these social media sites have such a monopoly on online forums of open social discourse, they no longer fit the definition of "private" companies. They become defacto public arenas.
Accordingly, when they decide what content is deserving of censorship, they not only prohibit the exercise of free speech, they also practice discrimination at will, without legal consequences of any kind whatsoever. Autonomy is no longer protected and there is no recourse under the law to protect people from being discriminated against.

What is being blatantly discriminated against here is a certain political worldview.

The hypocrisy from the Left here is obvious:

-- A PRIVATE company like Hobby Lobby should not be allowed to withhold certain forms of birth control from its employees just because its owners hold certain religious views. They are guilty of discriminating against people who want access to any form of contraception they wish, and should not be denied any because they do not share the same religious worldview of the owners of said private company.


--- A PRIVATE company like Facebook can discriminate and or completely censure a person or organization base strictly on a worldview.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Harry Marks
Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:33 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6975
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1041
Thanked: 2010 times in 1616 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
ant wrote:
--- A PRIVATE company like Facebook can discriminate and or completely censure a person or organization base strictly on a worldview.


Who are you to tell a private company like Facebook how they enforce their policy? If their policy is that no Nazist propaganda is allowed on their website, who are you to say that's wrong, and that Nazis should be allowed to speak their mind on the website of a private company?


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:19 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Addict


Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1365
Location: Florida
Thanks: 580
Thanked: 547 times in 410 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
Yeah, it's ultimately their website, their "house."

What there probably needs to be is more "houses," so to speak. If the web were inundated with similar competitive sites like youtube and such, there would be more pressure not to infringe free speech because if your competitor doesn't and you do, that creates a problem when your popularity drops and theirs rises.

Going on the principle of all publicity is good publicity, who ever allows the most free speech will likely come out on top in a larger competitive sphere. Whoever is branded as anti-free speech, and one sided censorship, will almost definitely wane in popularity. And take the related monetary hits.

I was watching a Joe Rogan episode recently about this where he points out the near monopoly element of youtube and others and how more competition is probably the solution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgB-pmwlwDw&t=316s


_________________
YEC theory put to rest!!!

https://www.ex-christian.net/


Last edited by tat tvam asi on Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:36 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
Nobel Laureate in Literature


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 996
Thanks: 880
Thanked: 443 times in 367 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
tat tvam asi wrote:
who ever allows the most free speech will likely come out on top in a larger competitive sphere. Whoever is branded as anti-free speech, and one sided censorship, will almost definitely wane in popularity. And take the related monetary hits.


Probably it's not that simple. The revenue comes from ad revenue. 4chan definitely has the lowest standards for decent behavior and truthfulness, but most people don't want to go there (except, perhaps, like one takes one's children to the zoo to gawk at the beasts). The idea that I don't have to worry about verifiable, provocative lies being spread on facebook definitely makes it more attractive to me.

Ordinary human community is not libertarian. People who want to be anti-social can go do it by themselves. If anything, most people are too intolerant and tribal, and that's where the internet echo chambers are finding their niches. The biggest social problem for our time is the one of reaching across those boundaries which so easily become barriers.



Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:40 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6016
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1611
Thanked: 1741 times in 1342 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
ant wrote:
Quote:
The writer of this piece does not understand the difference between government censoring and the rights of private companies to control content (not to mention maximize profits). Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Pinterest are social media sites, video sites, etc., with standards and criteria for content. They are also publicly trade companies that have to address concerns from stockholders. Is the writer of this piece genuinely shocked that these corporations are manipulating the press in order to gain positive coverage? Is it a dark day in history when Facebook removes Russian propaganda? Is it a dark day in history when Youtube removes my movie clip (from the movie The Messenger) due to copyright infringement?


I like the argument that states these social media sites have such a monopoly on online forums of open social discourse, they no longer fit the definition of "private" companies. They become defacto public arenas.
Accordingly, when they decide what content is deserving of censorship, they not only prohibit the exercise of free speech, they also practice discrimination at will, without legal consequences of any kind whatsoever. Autonomy is no longer protected and there is no recourse under the law to protect people from being discriminated against.

What is being blatantly discriminated against here is a certain political worldview.

The hypocrisy from the Left here is obvious:

-- A PRIVATE company like Hobby Lobby should not be allowed to withhold certain forms of birth control from its employees just because its owners hold certain religious views. They are guilty of discriminating against people who want access to any form of contraception they wish, and should not be denied any because they do not share the same religious worldview of the owners of said private company.


--- A PRIVATE company like Facebook can discriminate and or completely censure a person or organization base strictly on a worldview.


Let's look at this. Hobby Lobby's purpose is to sell people craft supplies and such. It can pick and choose whose wares it sells, can legitimately discriminate regarding any product. Facebook's original purpose was to connect people; it added a news and information function as time went on. Can't it legitimately decide whose "wares" it wants to allow through its servers by setting up quality control standards? You imply that Infowars represents a different "worldview" and that this is somehow innocuous. Fb says no, what Infowars has is defective (i.e., fabricated) products, and they refuse to host them.

Is there hypocrisy in liberal opposition to Hobby Lobby's policy of not providing its employees coverage for contraceptives, while liberals uphold a private company's rights in other areas? That's a more legitimate argument to have. I don't have my mind made up.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:48 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5287
Thanks: 1233
Thanked: 815 times in 709 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
Interbane wrote:
ant wrote:
--- A PRIVATE company like Facebook can discriminate and or completely censure a person or organization base strictly on a worldview.


Who are you to tell a private company like Facebook how they enforce their policy? If their policy is that no Nazist propaganda is allowed on their website, who are you to say that's wrong, and that Nazis should be allowed to speak their mind on the website of a private company?



If Infowars is indeed disseminating Nazi propaganda I'd agree to censoring them immediately, As I would if they were inciting violence against a person or groups of people.
You'll have to show me evidence they are.

If you can't produce the above your reasoning is a fallacy of accident.

Cyberspace is in its infancy stages. It's introducing unique questions of law the courts undoubtedly will be addressing for years to come.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Harry Marks
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:59 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5287
Thanks: 1233
Thanked: 815 times in 709 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
DWill wrote:
ant wrote:
Quote:
The writer of this piece does not understand the difference between government censoring and the rights of private companies to control content (not to mention maximize profits). Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Pinterest are social media sites, video sites, etc., with standards and criteria for content. They are also publicly trade companies that have to address concerns from stockholders. Is the writer of this piece genuinely shocked that these corporations are manipulating the press in order to gain positive coverage? Is it a dark day in history when Facebook removes Russian propaganda? Is it a dark day in history when Youtube removes my movie clip (from the movie The Messenger) due to copyright infringement?


I like the argument that states these social media sites have such a monopoly on online forums of open social discourse, they no longer fit the definition of "private" companies. They become defacto public arenas.
Accordingly, when they decide what content is deserving of censorship, they not only prohibit the exercise of free speech, they also practice discrimination at will, without legal consequences of any kind whatsoever. Autonomy is no longer protected and there is no recourse under the law to protect people from being discriminated against.

What is being blatantly discriminated against here is a certain political worldview.

The hypocrisy from the Left here is obvious:

-- A PRIVATE company like Hobby Lobby should not be allowed to withhold certain forms of birth control from its employees just because its owners hold certain religious views. They are guilty of discriminating against people who want access to any form of contraception they wish, and should not be denied any because they do not share the same religious worldview of the owners of said private company.


--- A PRIVATE company like Facebook can discriminate and or completely censure a person or organization base strictly on a worldview.


Let's look at this. Hobby Lobby's purpose is to sell people craft supplies and such. It can pick and choose whose wares it sells, can legitimately discriminate regarding any product. Facebook's original purpose was to connect people; it added a news and information function as time went on. Can't it legitimately decide whose "wares" it wants to allow through its servers by setting up quality control standards? You imply that Infowars represents a different "worldview" and that this is somehow innocuous. Fb says no, what Infowars has is defective (i.e., fabricated) products, and they refuse to host them.

Is there hypocrisy in liberal opposition to Hobby Lobby's policy of not providing its employees coverage for contraceptives, while liberals uphold a private company's rights in other areas? That's a more legitimate argument to have. I don't have my mind made up.


What a horrible analogy.
A worldview vocalized is an expression, not a "product" for purchase.
Expression can only be done through speech, or writing.
Expression in most cases is protected by law. There are exceptions that prove the rule, of course. One being speech that incites violence against people.

Former Facebook employees have openly admitted the company routinely suppresses conservative news:

https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-wor ... 1775461006



Last edited by ant on Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:07 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
Nobel Laureate in Literature


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 996
Thanks: 880
Thanked: 443 times in 367 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Today Infowars, Tomorrow Booktalk?
Alex Jones has promoted a conspiracy theory that the shootings at Sandy Hook did not occur. I don't understand why anyone thinks this is what freedom of speech exists to protect.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/al ... ok-n893841
Furthermore it is part of a pattern of paranoid propaganda which led to death threats against the parents.

We are not talking about unpopular opinions or worldviews, we are talking about mental illness on a social scale.



Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:38 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm

• What's next on our Short Story menu?
Mon May 22, 2017 8:29 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2018. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank