Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/technology/twitter-alex-jones-suspension.html
109 comments
> Turns out that there is a limit, and it's making really overt death threats
That's inciting or soliciting violence, not a death threat.
That's inciting or soliciting violence, not a death threat.
> get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others"
> it's making really overt death threats
I don't think that's overt, but I think it's grey enough (perhaps deliberately so) that it constitutes incitement to violence. This is awesome - banning account for specific reasons (message X contained an incitement to violence) means moderation can be applied consistently. Twitter has had a much better approach in this case than FB or Apple, who've simply stated there's an issue with hate speech on the entire account without saying what it was.
> it's making really overt death threats
I don't think that's overt, but I think it's grey enough (perhaps deliberately so) that it constitutes incitement to violence. This is awesome - banning account for specific reasons (message X contained an incitement to violence) means moderation can be applied consistently. Twitter has had a much better approach in this case than FB or Apple, who've simply stated there's an issue with hate speech on the entire account without saying what it was.
Being specific means the malcontents will simply adjust their language.
No longer will it be, “get out there with your battle rifles and let the blood of the infidel run free” but it will become, “let loose your holy Christmas candy and witness the tears of the spoilt children of the Left!”
There’s no death threat or incitement to violence there.
No longer will it be, “get out there with your battle rifles and let the blood of the infidel run free” but it will become, “let loose your holy Christmas candy and witness the tears of the spoilt children of the Left!”
There’s no death threat or incitement to violence there.
That claim would appear to be a lie. I decided to go get the other side of the story and watch the actual video in question, which can be found embedded in this article on Jones' website:
https://www.infowars.com/new-york-times-media-matters-lie-cl...
This is the first time I ever watched or listened to Alex Jones so I have no dog in this fight. However, I do not trust outlets like the New York Times to tell the truth about conservatives who are being shut down online. Apparently my lack of trust was correct.
There are two aspects of what Jones said that make me say the NYT is lying:
He starts by outlining the people he's talking (really, ranting) about, namely commies/the reds/antifa etc. Then he says people should move against them "politically, economically, judiciously, legally, criminally" which is pretty garbled, but I don't think he meant criminally as in literally "break the law" because he prefixed it with "legally" and "judiciously". I suspect he meant "via the criminal justice system".
The reference to battle rifles comes much later in the video and it's in the exact opposite sense of what the NYT is implying. He says:
And they're coming. And they're coming. They think they can really take down America. And ... this is it. So, people need to have their battle rifles and everything ready by their bedsides, and you've gotta be ready, because the media are so sophisticated in their deception [snip]
Having them "ready by your bedside" shows very clearly this is meant in the sense of defence not unprovoked attacks and moreover defence against the people who read the media not the media itself. Jones doesn't seem to be arguing that journalists will literally be coming for people in their sleep.
It's rather unfortunately ironic that the NYT's coverage of a video in which Jones claims the media is "coming for us" and "they're so sophisticated in their deception" seems to prove him right - they are using sophisticated deception to whip up a mob that is trying to "get" him.
https://www.infowars.com/new-york-times-media-matters-lie-cl...
This is the first time I ever watched or listened to Alex Jones so I have no dog in this fight. However, I do not trust outlets like the New York Times to tell the truth about conservatives who are being shut down online. Apparently my lack of trust was correct.
There are two aspects of what Jones said that make me say the NYT is lying:
He starts by outlining the people he's talking (really, ranting) about, namely commies/the reds/antifa etc. Then he says people should move against them "politically, economically, judiciously, legally, criminally" which is pretty garbled, but I don't think he meant criminally as in literally "break the law" because he prefixed it with "legally" and "judiciously". I suspect he meant "via the criminal justice system".
The reference to battle rifles comes much later in the video and it's in the exact opposite sense of what the NYT is implying. He says:
And they're coming. And they're coming. They think they can really take down America. And ... this is it. So, people need to have their battle rifles and everything ready by their bedsides, and you've gotta be ready, because the media are so sophisticated in their deception [snip]
Having them "ready by your bedside" shows very clearly this is meant in the sense of defence not unprovoked attacks and moreover defence against the people who read the media not the media itself. Jones doesn't seem to be arguing that journalists will literally be coming for people in their sleep.
It's rather unfortunately ironic that the NYT's coverage of a video in which Jones claims the media is "coming for us" and "they're so sophisticated in their deception" seems to prove him right - they are using sophisticated deception to whip up a mob that is trying to "get" him.
[deleted]
For those who are actually curious about what was said in the video Media Matters posted a clip that should provide some context:
https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808
https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808
I'm curious about how this is happening in America, of all places. As a European, I've always wondered (with a certain hint of jealousy, I might add) at the USA's absolute freedom of speech. People like the Westboro Baptist Church would've certainly been blocked from protesting here in the Netherlands.
At the same time, it's now companies that are very American, both by origin and by culture, that are (letting themselves be pressured into) censuring speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West. This strikes me as an odd paradox, coming from a country where people get taught from primary school onward to "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it".
I wonder where all this is going to lead, especially since these few companies control so much of global information flow. Are Facebook, Google and Twitter, once self-titled champions of free information flow, going to be the forces that end America's freedom of expression (in practice at least)?
At the same time, it's now companies that are very American, both by origin and by culture, that are (letting themselves be pressured into) censuring speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West. This strikes me as an odd paradox, coming from a country where people get taught from primary school onward to "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it".
I wonder where all this is going to lead, especially since these few companies control so much of global information flow. Are Facebook, Google and Twitter, once self-titled champions of free information flow, going to be the forces that end America's freedom of expression (in practice at least)?
> As a European, I've always wondered (with a certain hint of jealousy, I might add) at the USA's absolute freedom of speech.
The USA does not have absolute freedom of speech, it recognizes free speech as a fundamental right which means speech restrictions are evaluated under the “strict scrutiny” test.
> At the same time, it's now companies that are very American, both by origin and by culture, that are (letting themselves be pressured into) censuring speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West.
First, this is factually inaccurate: private parties throughout the West have controlled what speech they will choose to repeat, convey, relay, and associate themselves with under standards much more restrictive than those being applied by the controversial platforms today, which are controversial precisely because of how much extreme speech they choose to relay on their platform.
But, second, there is no paradox between the US’s strong notion of free speech and US private entities being selective about speech they will participate in: the strong free speech protection in the US has always included protecting the right of private actors to choose what speech they will participate in, not merely as a legal principle but as an essential theoretical underpinning of the right.
The USA does not have absolute freedom of speech, it recognizes free speech as a fundamental right which means speech restrictions are evaluated under the “strict scrutiny” test.
> At the same time, it's now companies that are very American, both by origin and by culture, that are (letting themselves be pressured into) censuring speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West.
First, this is factually inaccurate: private parties throughout the West have controlled what speech they will choose to repeat, convey, relay, and associate themselves with under standards much more restrictive than those being applied by the controversial platforms today, which are controversial precisely because of how much extreme speech they choose to relay on their platform.
But, second, there is no paradox between the US’s strong notion of free speech and US private entities being selective about speech they will participate in: the strong free speech protection in the US has always included protecting the right of private actors to choose what speech they will participate in, not merely as a legal principle but as an essential theoretical underpinning of the right.
I'm all for freedom of speech even if that speech includes ideas I vehemently disagree with (even hate speech). However, when speech incites physical violence and can be viewed as a legitimate threat, then it needs to be shut down.
Parents of children who were lost during Sandy Hook received physical threats and death threats because of Jones' comments. That's the line where free speech should be censored.
Parents of children who were lost during Sandy Hook received physical threats and death threats because of Jones' comments. That's the line where free speech should be censored.
so then those people should be banned. A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers unless they called for those actions to be taken.
>>A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers
Which is why politics is such a dangerous minefield to traverse. Sure you are never going to have absolute of anything, but certain ideologies are inherently violent in nature. And sooner or later some lunatic will do bad things in your name.
Free speech only means you are allowed to say things, it doesn't mean you get immunity from the consequences of your speech.
Which is why politics is such a dangerous minefield to traverse. Sure you are never going to have absolute of anything, but certain ideologies are inherently violent in nature. And sooner or later some lunatic will do bad things in your name.
Free speech only means you are allowed to say things, it doesn't mean you get immunity from the consequences of your speech.
So for example "tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media"?
I'd have to see the video myself - I'll probably look it up later in order to have an informed opinion. Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices.
> Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices
Welcome to the world of "plausible deniability". Deliberately speaking in a way that lets you defend yourself "oh I was only meaning metaphorically!" or "I was just joking!", where you intend a subset of your listeners to understand that you are speaking literally, is a common tactic. It's somewhat akin to the Motte and Bailey defense: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...
Welcome to the world of "plausible deniability". Deliberately speaking in a way that lets you defend yourself "oh I was only meaning metaphorically!" or "I was just joking!", where you intend a subset of your listeners to understand that you are speaking literally, is a common tactic. It's somewhat akin to the Motte and Bailey defense: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...
that's a huge presumption on your part. What you're essentially saying is that you know what the internal motivation of Alex Jones is, and that his metaphor is definitely what he actually believes. I don't think even he knows what his internal motivation is, and to suggest that you know he's secretly harbouring these murderous thoughts is ridiculous.
plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actual argument for something then pulls the "haha I was only trolling" argument, but to say for example to be ready for battle, in the context of politics, should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes. People use references to war, battle, fighting and so on all the time in the context of political conflict.
plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actual argument for something then pulls the "haha I was only trolling" argument, but to say for example to be ready for battle, in the context of politics, should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes. People use references to war, battle, fighting and so on all the time in the context of political conflict.
> should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes
Is that what happened? I guess I'm behind on the news; I had heard his twitter account got suspended, I didn't realize he was lynched!
Or is that just hyperbole? Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole in this situation, instead of discussing what actually happened?
I find interesting the transformations you use in your language—"get your battle rifles ready" becomes "be prepared", but "twitter account suspended for a week" becomes "tying the lynching ropes".
[this was edited, btw, since you responded while I was editing it]
Is that what happened? I guess I'm behind on the news; I had heard his twitter account got suspended, I didn't realize he was lynched!
Or is that just hyperbole? Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole in this situation, instead of discussing what actually happened?
I find interesting the transformations you use in your language—"get your battle rifles ready" becomes "be prepared", but "twitter account suspended for a week" becomes "tying the lynching ropes".
[this was edited, btw, since you responded while I was editing it]
That's just my poor writing skills - I meant that someone calling for political battle may not actually be inciting lynching or shooting the media or whatever, but speaking in metaphor.
Its not even a "plausible deniability." Anyone who listens to Jones knows he speaks over over the top and is hyperbolic. Yes "Battle rifles" can be taken as literally, however in the article they state against the media without quoting the full video/statement. It's hard to take it literally that people will get their battle rifles and attack the media (an object). The media isn't a person so its is reaching.
what isn't provided in the article is the actual video that provides context. He is making the statement 'we' are under attack. The Battle rifle is being used in the context of defending yourself from these attacks.
Media Matters posted a clip of the video in question. https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808
In my opinion they are reaching here even in their own clip taken from Alex's periscope video. I see it as him saying 'we' need to be ready. Earlier in the clip he says the time is now to act but says economically, judiciously legally and criminally. I assume given the others he mentioned criminally meaning press charges on those who attack.
I defiantly urge people to seek out the actual video or at the very least the clip above before instantly going to the 'He deserves to be banned.
I hate that I have to say this but I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I feel like I as well as many others have to say that (not just for this topic) otherwise its looked at as we're just followers and will defend him no matter what.
what isn't provided in the article is the actual video that provides context. He is making the statement 'we' are under attack. The Battle rifle is being used in the context of defending yourself from these attacks.
Media Matters posted a clip of the video in question. https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808
In my opinion they are reaching here even in their own clip taken from Alex's periscope video. I see it as him saying 'we' need to be ready. Earlier in the clip he says the time is now to act but says economically, judiciously legally and criminally. I assume given the others he mentioned criminally meaning press charges on those who attack.
I defiantly urge people to seek out the actual video or at the very least the clip above before instantly going to the 'He deserves to be banned.
I hate that I have to say this but I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I feel like I as well as many others have to say that (not just for this topic) otherwise its looked at as we're just followers and will defend him no matter what.
> The media isn't a person so its is reaching.
The media is made up of people.
The media is made up of people.
I agree that it is and I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples. I'm sure there are more examples makes up media but these are just some I can think of. These things of course are created by people but there is a difference between attacking the people and attacking a platform/object or ideas. I can't speak for him (nor would I want to), but I think that is the question of what he means. It looks like Twitter decided it was inciting violence toward people and/or violated their rules and suspended him.
> I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples.
Sure, but those are things that can't be attacked with guns. So when Jones talks about attacking them with guns, it's natural to understand it as attacking those parts which can be attacked with guns—the people, and the buildings (which contain people). And those parts have been attacked by guns recently.
Sure, but those are things that can't be attacked with guns. So when Jones talks about attacking them with guns, it's natural to understand it as attacking those parts which can be attacked with guns—the people, and the buildings (which contain people). And those parts have been attacked by guns recently.
Correct, they can't be attacked with literal guns, which means it could be a figure of speech. Could being the keyword since he is the only one who could settle that debate.
Lets assume it wasn't a figure of speech. I'm with you in that I don't condone if he calling for physical attacks on people be it with a gun or some other physical means. I don't condone or agree with that in general regardless of what side its on.
From the article: "calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others,"
battle rifle is in part taken out of context of what he said in the video and is editorialized to an extent to paint it in a way that could be construed as him calling to attack.
Taken out of the video with a little more context: "Because they're coming...This is it... So people need to have battle rifles ready at their bedsides..." https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808
I didn't put everything in that quote, but linked the video where I listen to it from so you can hear it in whole. If you take it in those terms he isn't calling for attacks or acts of violence, but is saying they are coming for you and you need to be ready to defend yourself. You can argue that defending yourself could become violent, but I see defense a little different then the aggressor.
By the way appreciate the discussion we having.
Lets assume it wasn't a figure of speech. I'm with you in that I don't condone if he calling for physical attacks on people be it with a gun or some other physical means. I don't condone or agree with that in general regardless of what side its on.
From the article: "calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others,"
battle rifle is in part taken out of context of what he said in the video and is editorialized to an extent to paint it in a way that could be construed as him calling to attack.
Taken out of the video with a little more context: "Because they're coming...This is it... So people need to have battle rifles ready at their bedsides..." https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808
I didn't put everything in that quote, but linked the video where I listen to it from so you can hear it in whole. If you take it in those terms he isn't calling for attacks or acts of violence, but is saying they are coming for you and you need to be ready to defend yourself. You can argue that defending yourself could become violent, but I see defense a little different then the aggressor.
By the way appreciate the discussion we having.
When people say "I'm all for freedom of speech, but..." it means they aren't actually for freedom of speech at all. In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats. Alex Jones has indulged in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know he has not called for violence or anyone's death. If we apply your rule, then how do we deal with the many death threats against President Trump by ordinary people and even celebrities. Are we to ban their preferred newspapers, TV and YouTube channels too? After all, where could they have got such an idea? If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.
>In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats.
To be fair, that's not an "arbitrary rule" that kylesellas just made up. Censorship of speech which threatens or advocates violence is commonly accepted as a limitation to free speech necessary for maintaining civil society, and the premise is codified in law throughout the world.
>If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.
The fact that the standard exists and that media also exists would imply that your definition of 'consistent application' isn't relevant.
To be fair, that's not an "arbitrary rule" that kylesellas just made up. Censorship of speech which threatens or advocates violence is commonly accepted as a limitation to free speech necessary for maintaining civil society, and the premise is codified in law throughout the world.
>If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.
The fact that the standard exists and that media also exists would imply that your definition of 'consistent application' isn't relevant.
There is no legal standard by which a broadcaster who doesn't incite violence can be held accountable by their followers who commit or threaten violence.
Brandenburg v. Ohio and Dennis v. United States provide a pretty clear legal standard for this:
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
Twitter, of course, is not the State and can do what they want.
But if the State censored or in someway punished Jones, they would have to demonstrate that his speech constituted "inciting" "imminent" "lawless action." And there have been several cases since which have focused mostly on the "imminent" part.
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
Twitter, of course, is not the State and can do what they want.
But if the State censored or in someway punished Jones, they would have to demonstrate that his speech constituted "inciting" "imminent" "lawless action." And there have been several cases since which have focused mostly on the "imminent" part.
When people say "I'm all for freedom of speech, but..." it means they aren't actually for freedom of speech at all.
Absolutism is poison.
Absolutism is poison.
100%
Tell that to the Founding Fathers.
The ones who said "All Men Are Created Equal", but really just meant landowning white males? And who explicitly defined the worth of a slave to be 3/5 of a non-slave?
You are mistating the 3/5 compromise, which does not define the worth of a slave as 3/5 of a non-slave. Your version makes it sound as if it would be better if dishes were fully counted for apportionment, when that would be worse.
The compromise gives additional representation to the free citizens of a slave state equal based on 3/5 of the number of slaves, but if voting power is worth, then it is saying that worth of those who enslave is enhanced by the number enslaved. The slaves themselves, though, are not recognized having any worth.
The only sense in which the 3/5 compromise makes a slave worth 3/5 of a non-slave is that it makes the marginal increase in voting power a free citizen derived from an additional slave in the state 3/5 of what they receive from a disenfranchised non-slave. (IOW, Jim Crow and it's modern successors are 67% more politically effective for the disenfranchisers per disenfranchised person than actual slavery under the 3/5 compromise.)
The compromise gives additional representation to the free citizens of a slave state equal based on 3/5 of the number of slaves, but if voting power is worth, then it is saying that worth of those who enslave is enhanced by the number enslaved. The slaves themselves, though, are not recognized having any worth.
The only sense in which the 3/5 compromise makes a slave worth 3/5 of a non-slave is that it makes the marginal increase in voting power a free citizen derived from an additional slave in the state 3/5 of what they receive from a disenfranchised non-slave. (IOW, Jim Crow and it's modern successors are 67% more politically effective for the disenfranchisers per disenfranchised person than actual slavery under the 3/5 compromise.)
You mean, in many cases, the people that wrote the Alien and Sedition Acts?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they weren't free speech absolutists.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they weren't free speech absolutists.
And yet we still have the First Amendment.
> companies ... censuring [censoring?] speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West
More than the Hays Code or HUAC?
And those are just in America; I'm old enough to remember when certain UK elected members of Parliament were legally banned from speaking on television, resulting in the weird "words read by an actor" workaround.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...
More than the Hays Code or HUAC?
And those are just in America; I'm old enough to remember when certain UK elected members of Parliament were legally banned from speaking on television, resulting in the weird "words read by an actor" workaround.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...
Clearchannel, which controlled most FM channels, infamously stopped playing John Lennon's "Imagine" after Sep 11 2001. So this is not new. In the absence of popular govt. media and channels, this does form de facto censorship in the US.
The usual explanation I have heard is that free speech is limited to tge govt. not able to arrest you for criticising it. It does not apply to private parties.
I think de facto censorship by private monopolies must also be illegal for true freedom of speech.
The usual explanation I have heard is that free speech is limited to tge govt. not able to arrest you for criticising it. It does not apply to private parties.
I think de facto censorship by private monopolies must also be illegal for true freedom of speech.
> Clearchannel, which controlled most FM channels, infamously stopped playing John Lennon's "Imagine" after Sep 11 2001
This snopes article provides some background about what happened there:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/radio-radio/
This snopes article provides some background about what happened there:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/radio-radio/
So songs weren't banned, they were deemed inappropriate to play.
Another example of Snopes proudly declaring FALSE when PARTIALLY TRUE would be more appropriate.
Ah the modern Web, where even the 'fact-checkers' play the spin game.
Another example of Snopes proudly declaring FALSE when PARTIALLY TRUE would be more appropriate.
Ah the modern Web, where even the 'fact-checkers' play the spin game.
"Radio personnel were still free to make their own programming decisions, and the list was merely intended as helpful advisory information."
How does that make a "ban" partially true?
How does that make a "ban" partially true?
But the absolute freedom of speech is just from prosecution of the government (correct me if I am wrong). private parties can always deny you their platform to be used for hatemongering or anything else really.
Freedom of speech is a principle about how to exercise power.
The first amendment is scoped to the government because the constitution is scoped to the government.
The first amendment is scoped to the government because the constitution is scoped to the government.
> The first amendment is scoped to the government because the constitution is scoped to the government.
Yes and no. It's true that he Constitution is scoped to government, so if there was a free speech principle that was not it might have been limited in the Constitution.
But the free speech principle actually underlying the Constitutional text is also scoped to government in that involves and relies on the freedom of all actors except government to choose what speech to make, endorse, support, relay, or associate themselves with to promote the competition of ideas and the success of good ones and elimination of bad ones, on the concept that the former will be more likely to be relayed and the latter will die out from failure to convince people to participate in spreading them.
If platforms of overwhelming reach and intrusiveness actively relay content blindly, it makes it much harder for the winnowing process to work.
Yes and no. It's true that he Constitution is scoped to government, so if there was a free speech principle that was not it might have been limited in the Constitution.
But the free speech principle actually underlying the Constitutional text is also scoped to government in that involves and relies on the freedom of all actors except government to choose what speech to make, endorse, support, relay, or associate themselves with to promote the competition of ideas and the success of good ones and elimination of bad ones, on the concept that the former will be more likely to be relayed and the latter will die out from failure to convince people to participate in spreading them.
If platforms of overwhelming reach and intrusiveness actively relay content blindly, it makes it much harder for the winnowing process to work.
Agreed. I think this is an important distinction that seems to get lost in some of the conversation. There is a fundamental distinction to be had between the government forbidding you from speech versus a private individual or corporation from excluding you from their platform.
Because it is American companies operating these big social media sites? Believe it or not, companies react to outcries by consumers, and they calculate that it will be better to suspend some users than not to.
Had it been European companies operating big social media sites, you'd seen the same thing happen. Companies are companies, and they aim for profit less so principles. And more and more Americans view websites' hosting of controversial content as implicitly condoning that content.
Besides, the First Amendment only prevent governments from limiting speech, not companies.
Had it been European companies operating big social media sites, you'd seen the same thing happen. Companies are companies, and they aim for profit less so principles. And more and more Americans view websites' hosting of controversial content as implicitly condoning that content.
Besides, the First Amendment only prevent governments from limiting speech, not companies.
> coming from a country where people get taught from primary school onward to "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it".
I've always found that to be a trite self-aggrandising phrase (especially in its "to the death" variant). How many of the people who have repeated that, actually stick by it long term? Gotta be microscopic.
I've always found that to be a trite self-aggrandising phrase (especially in its "to the death" variant). How many of the people who have repeated that, actually stick by it long term? Gotta be microscopic.
Especially given that said phrase was written by a Frenchman and popularized by an Englishwoman.
This seems to be a common misconception outside of the United States. The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private entities.
> I'm curious about how this is happening in America, of all places.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that any private entity has to facilitate it. In the US it means that the government can't instate laws that limit free speech, for what may be a broader definition of what is considered legitimate expressions thereof than you'd find in a typical European country applying the same principles.
> This strikes me as an odd paradox, coming from a country where people get taught from primary school onward to "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it".
Let's say that you throw a party. You invite friends and acquaintances to use your property. After a few hours, everyone is drunk and someone you don't really know well starts shouting racial slurs. You feel uncomfortable about it. Your guests feel uncomfortable about it. Would you fight for his right to use your property as a platform for his ramblings? He's ruining the party and your own reputation as a host is at stake. Your moral standards are being questioned. You would not be limiting his right to say anything by throwing him out. If nothing else he can go home and shout at a mirror.
That's the kind of situation you have with Facebook/Twitter/Google. They invite people to use their property, on their terms. If they don't like you, they'll kick you out. Even if they don't care, they might kick you out to save face. It's not paradoxical; it's very much in line with American culture: everyone should have the right to choose how to represent themselves and how to use their property. Get off my land! Trespassers will be shot!
> I wonder where all this is going to lead, especially since these few companies control so much of global information flow.
Here I think you pinpoint the problem exactly. This problem doesn't only concern censorship but how these companies treat and disseminate information overall. If public debate is largely controlled by private, poorly unregulated organizations, democracy takes a hit. Maybe tighter regulation of entities that deal with so much communication is called for. I think GDPR is a step in the right direction. Destroy the economic incentives to facilitate so much communication.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that any private entity has to facilitate it. In the US it means that the government can't instate laws that limit free speech, for what may be a broader definition of what is considered legitimate expressions thereof than you'd find in a typical European country applying the same principles.
> This strikes me as an odd paradox, coming from a country where people get taught from primary school onward to "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it".
Let's say that you throw a party. You invite friends and acquaintances to use your property. After a few hours, everyone is drunk and someone you don't really know well starts shouting racial slurs. You feel uncomfortable about it. Your guests feel uncomfortable about it. Would you fight for his right to use your property as a platform for his ramblings? He's ruining the party and your own reputation as a host is at stake. Your moral standards are being questioned. You would not be limiting his right to say anything by throwing him out. If nothing else he can go home and shout at a mirror.
That's the kind of situation you have with Facebook/Twitter/Google. They invite people to use their property, on their terms. If they don't like you, they'll kick you out. Even if they don't care, they might kick you out to save face. It's not paradoxical; it's very much in line with American culture: everyone should have the right to choose how to represent themselves and how to use their property. Get off my land! Trespassers will be shot!
> I wonder where all this is going to lead, especially since these few companies control so much of global information flow.
Here I think you pinpoint the problem exactly. This problem doesn't only concern censorship but how these companies treat and disseminate information overall. If public debate is largely controlled by private, poorly unregulated organizations, democracy takes a hit. Maybe tighter regulation of entities that deal with so much communication is called for. I think GDPR is a step in the right direction. Destroy the economic incentives to facilitate so much communication.
It will be interesting when he gets banned from AirBnB, Uber, Lyft, etc in solidarity. We already know AirBnB will discriminate against you if you harbor hate speech views even if they weren’t expressed on their platform.
The refusal to promote the voices of others is as much a part of free speech. Facebook is not the town square just because people used it that way.
Most users are outside of the US for these companies.
Freedom of expression isn't at stake here. Your right to free speech - even the "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it" kind - doesn't entitle you to get broadcast or listened to.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Sure, within a few days he was banned from Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and LinkedIn - which covers almost all Internet traffic.
It was just 4 companies that banned him, not the government. He can just go to the alternate versions of those platforms...
It was just 4 companies that banned him, not the government. He can just go to the alternate versions of those platforms...
How is this germane? He's also not on all the major television networks, radio networks, or newspapers. Why are you deeming the Internet special?
Alex Jones made his name originally driving around Austin with a sound truck.
You're not guaranteed an audience, full stop.
Alex Jones made his name originally driving around Austin with a sound truck.
You're not guaranteed an audience, full stop.
Freedom of speech does not apply to privately controlled products from private companies. Any one of these companies could create any arbitrary rule to regulate their platform and it's not a violation of free speech. The thought is that they operate in a capitalist system where they are optimizing for profits which means they need the most amount of customers so they are trying to accommodate everyone.
The same way all of these companies actively block spam on their platforms to improve user experiences. This is probably a result of analytics in inside Twitter where they realize that it's costing them subscribers and revenue.
The same way all of these companies actively block spam on their platforms to improve user experiences. This is probably a result of analytics in inside Twitter where they realize that it's costing them subscribers and revenue.
Freedom of speech is about censorship from the government. As much as Silicon Valley companies love to self aggrandize they are not the government and are under no obligation to allow their platforms to be used for furthering hate speech (or anything else.)
In fact I firmly believe sites like Reddit, Twitter and Facebook allowing racism and other horrible crap on their sites in the mid 2000s until recently is what helped make it more mainstream. In the web of the 1990s these idiots would have had to go to their own sites that nobody else goes to. Mainstream sites like Slashdot or whatnot didn’t tolerate it. For some reason after the dot com crash the new round of sites afterward have had some kind of delusion that they need to uphold free speech. And it’s nonsense.
In fact I firmly believe sites like Reddit, Twitter and Facebook allowing racism and other horrible crap on their sites in the mid 2000s until recently is what helped make it more mainstream. In the web of the 1990s these idiots would have had to go to their own sites that nobody else goes to. Mainstream sites like Slashdot or whatnot didn’t tolerate it. For some reason after the dot com crash the new round of sites afterward have had some kind of delusion that they need to uphold free speech. And it’s nonsense.
What does this have to do with "America"? It's a private company enforcing its own rules on its own platform.
I must say I have not been jealous of the US in this regard. In my opinion the state should be able to silence fascists and neo-nazis and jail them for hate speech. Unlike the US, people in Europe have experienced first hand what happens when you tolerate and enable them.
Also I don't think you can call it "absolute freedom of speech" as some speech, like calls for murder of the usual fire in a theatre exemple, are indeed not allowed. The US also has libel laws & copyright laws. To me the main difference with European style freedom of speech seems to be tolerance of extremist political/religious speech.
Also I don't think you can call it "absolute freedom of speech" as some speech, like calls for murder of the usual fire in a theatre exemple, are indeed not allowed. The US also has libel laws & copyright laws. To me the main difference with European style freedom of speech seems to be tolerance of extremist political/religious speech.
Hate speech is a slippery slope, it's ill defined and you grant an awful lot of power to the people who get to 'define' the term.
A critique of islam could be considered 'hate speech'.
On the other hand I do agree that calls for violence/murder should indeed be punishable and are also far better defined to be taken up as law.
A critique of islam could be considered 'hate speech'.
On the other hand I do agree that calls for violence/murder should indeed be punishable and are also far better defined to be taken up as law.
Isn't that the point though? Europe has experienced first hand not only "national socialism" (nazism), but also another type of socialism — communism. Still legal though, and going strong in Europe.
It's a grim comparison, but communism has actually produced a higher body count that nazism and fascism combined.
That US had traditionally granted free speech to all kinds of extremists, no matter the -ism, was truly remarkable and unique. Definitely a cause for wonder (even jealousy like OP says).
And the way they found to circumvent that pesky constitutional constraint by having mega-corp-in-bed-with-gvt monopolies do the dirty work, without breaking the letter of the law, is remarkable again. An elegant "hack".
It's a grim comparison, but communism has actually produced a higher body count that nazism and fascism combined.
That US had traditionally granted free speech to all kinds of extremists, no matter the -ism, was truly remarkable and unique. Definitely a cause for wonder (even jealousy like OP says).
And the way they found to circumvent that pesky constitutional constraint by having mega-corp-in-bed-with-gvt monopolies do the dirty work, without breaking the letter of the law, is remarkable again. An elegant "hack".
(Eastern) Europe has also experienced what happens when communists are in charge, yet communists are not being persecuted in any way, while fascists or nazis are. Something else is going on. Case in point: this comment is being downvoted without any explanation.
> this comment is being downvoted without any explanation
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
I am not complaining about it, but I think it's relevant to the point: oppression of certain opinions. Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Its pretty insane that public businesses are forbidden from discrimination on most grounds (political views, religious views, etc) of who it employs, or who can enter their business, but its perfectly fine for FB, Google, Apple, Twitter, etc., to completely control the content of the conversation on their platforms.
It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, or as a Restaurant owner I can't open a 'straight white people only' restaurant, but Social Media giants can basically purge any and all far right content.
It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, or as a Restaurant owner I can't open a 'straight white people only' restaurant, but Social Media giants can basically purge any and all far right content.
That’s simply not true. Without getting into left/right conversation, if you’re being disruptive at a restaurant, they can ask you to leave.
If you start using the inappropriate language at work, HR might have something to say about that.
Freedom of speech does not protect you against yelling “Fire” in a packed movie theater.
For some reason folks think you can say anything and there are no repercussions. That’s childish.
If you start using the inappropriate language at work, HR might have something to say about that.
Freedom of speech does not protect you against yelling “Fire” in a packed movie theater.
For some reason folks think you can say anything and there are no repercussions. That’s childish.
> It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes,
In the UK you're not forced to bake gay wedding cakes. You have the choice to bake cakes and not bake any wedding cakes at all. What you can't do if you're a business is refuse to provide cakes to people because they have (or you perceive them to have) a protected characteristic.
In the UK you're not forced to bake gay wedding cakes. You have the choice to bake cakes and not bake any wedding cakes at all. What you can't do if you're a business is refuse to provide cakes to people because they have (or you perceive them to have) a protected characteristic.
The situation isn't symmetrical at all; it only appears to be if you ignore or misrepresent the history of power and violence involved. The list of protected characteristics is small and political views aren't usually on it per se.
I'm unsure of what the exact legal status is federally and per state (although I've heard claims that social media giants represent de facto public forums and thus are subject to some free expression requirements), I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency.
Regarding "history of power and violence", well, if we compare the amount of violence and harassment right-wing events and meetings get (from Antifa, and other such orgs), vs. how relatively undisturbed gay pride events are, along with the overwhelming opposition of the media, academia, corporate elite, etc., to rightist views, I think its clear that the bulk of the "power and violence" lie not with people like Jones
Regarding "history of power and violence", well, if we compare the amount of violence and harassment right-wing events and meetings get (from Antifa, and other such orgs), vs. how relatively undisturbed gay pride events are, along with the overwhelming opposition of the media, academia, corporate elite, etc., to rightist views, I think its clear that the bulk of the "power and violence" lie not with people like Jones
> ompare the amount of violence and harassment right-wing events and meetings get (from Antifa, and other such orgs), vs. how relatively undisturbed gay pride events are
.. you find that you know nothing about why Pride exists and what it's for? Homophobic attacks on Pride marches themselves are relatively rare in the West these days, but individual random street attacks, abuse and discrimination against gay people are not.
(also, you seem to have forgotten that the US president and both houses are currently in power, or does that not count?)
.. you find that you know nothing about why Pride exists and what it's for? Homophobic attacks on Pride marches themselves are relatively rare in the West these days, but individual random street attacks, abuse and discrimination against gay people are not.
(also, you seem to have forgotten that the US president and both houses are currently in power, or does that not count?)
> It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, or as a Restaurant owner I can't open a 'straight white people only' restaurant [...]
What is wrong with you? What happened to you as a child that made you think this form of discrimination is even remotely acceptable?
What is wrong with you? What happened to you as a child that made you think this form of discrimination is even remotely acceptable?
You are completely misunderstanding his point.
He is saying why is it OK for a small business to be forced to accommodate something that may be against their belief system. But the biggest corporations, who are also managing our online discourse, can pick and choose what they like.
He is saying why is it OK for a small business to be forced to accommodate something that may be against their belief system. But the biggest corporations, who are also managing our online discourse, can pick and choose what they like.
But he's insinuating that people like Alex Jones should be protected by freedom of speech as if their fucked up ideads are some sort of alternative view that's just not for everyone.
This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for extremists that they don't have.
This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for extremists that they don't have.
> But he's insinuating that people like Alex Jones should be protected by freedom of speech as if their fucked up ideads are some sort of alternative view that's just not for everyone.
That is the case. In my opinion he's a hilarious nutcase, but just because you find his views offensive does not mean his speech is now illegitimate. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow the airing of controversial opinions, even if that means you end up with professional trolls calling tragedies a hoax. Any time you make a "freedom of speech doesn't apply to opinion X" argument, you are actively arguing against freedom of speech.
> This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for extremists that they don't have.
What does this even mean? Having a different opinion is not gaslighting and to suggest that it is, is to trivialise a form of psychological abuse.
That is the case. In my opinion he's a hilarious nutcase, but just because you find his views offensive does not mean his speech is now illegitimate. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow the airing of controversial opinions, even if that means you end up with professional trolls calling tragedies a hoax. Any time you make a "freedom of speech doesn't apply to opinion X" argument, you are actively arguing against freedom of speech.
> This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for extremists that they don't have.
What does this even mean? Having a different opinion is not gaslighting and to suggest that it is, is to trivialise a form of psychological abuse.
> can pick and choose what they like.
No, these big businesses cannot say "no tweets about gay weddings".
No, these big businesses cannot say "no tweets about gay weddings".
What I believe should be legal and what I believe should be done (by decent people) are different questions.
The baker won his case at the SCOTUS. [1]
Is being allowed to reenact Jim Crow something you really don't understand why you cant do?
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colo...
Is being allowed to reenact Jim Crow something you really don't understand why you cant do?
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colo...
> The baker won his case at the SCOTUS.
For overt bias-in-process reasons related to the state administrative adjudication of his particular case, not because the result otherwise would have violated his rights.
For overt bias-in-process reasons related to the state administrative adjudication of his particular case, not because the result otherwise would have violated his rights.
Isn't that part of the difference between customers and users? You cannot discriminate against customers, but you can against users.
I'm not aware of any such distinction in the law.
The more significant legal concept would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group, I'd imagine. "Far right" isn't on the list. (Neither is far left, incidentally.)
The more significant legal concept would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group, I'd imagine. "Far right" isn't on the list. (Neither is far left, incidentally.)
I don't know of a de jure distinction either, but clearly there is a de facto distinction. Perhaps the law is undefined on this subject?
Is Alex Jones far right? From what I've seen he's insane (intergalactic pedophiles etc) and right wing, but not inciting race war or anything you'd expect from US far right groups. Maybe I'm wrong and he does, I've just never seen it.
Right wing and conspiracy oriented, but not racist, no.
The way it makes sense is that "right-wing nutjob" is not a protected characteristic, whereas race & sexual orientation are protected.
Religion is also a protected category, for what it's worth. Nevertheless, many people disagree with allowing a religious loophole to discriminate against gay customers.
That means you can't be discriminated against on the basis of your religion, not that you can discriminate against other people because of your religion though, right? Just like eg. being gay does not allow you to discriminate against black people.
I know it's more complicated in practice because the problem is political and other factors come into play.
I know it's more complicated in practice because the problem is political and other factors come into play.
It's hard because some longstanding religious practices would now be seen as discriminatory. For example, many branches of Islam teach that it is not permissible for unrelated members of the opposite sex to touch.
If a Muslim man is punished by his employer for not shaking hands with women he meets in his work, is that religious discrimination? Or is he discriminating against the women because of their sex (also a protected class)?
If a Muslim man is punished by his employer for not shaking hands with women he meets in his work, is that religious discrimination? Or is he discriminating against the women because of their sex (also a protected class)?
Which is a nonsense principle. Private companies should be either allowed to discriminate on whatever grounds they like or forced to treat all equally.
This whole ordeal is a good example how f'd up the current internet infrastructure is. For a decade or so it just seems like the beginnings of a megacorp-ruled Blade Runner-ish world.
While companies have all the right to have control over whatever on their platforms, there just isn't a well known unfiltered, unmoderated, "real" spot on the internet anymore that is known to all - just some niche spots requiring technical or insider knowledge.
It's sickening to look at all the stock-footage-showing happy-go-lucky feeds - comments, articles, posts disappearing without a trace, individuals banned, search results removed.
I'm rather sure that the more this continues, the sooner a breakout moment happens, creating p2p-ish network not needing direct corporate support for content delivery.
To note: in no way do I support Jones, and as said, companies have the right to censor.
While companies have all the right to have control over whatever on their platforms, there just isn't a well known unfiltered, unmoderated, "real" spot on the internet anymore that is known to all - just some niche spots requiring technical or insider knowledge.
It's sickening to look at all the stock-footage-showing happy-go-lucky feeds - comments, articles, posts disappearing without a trace, individuals banned, search results removed.
I'm rather sure that the more this continues, the sooner a breakout moment happens, creating p2p-ish network not needing direct corporate support for content delivery.
To note: in no way do I support Jones, and as said, companies have the right to censor.
In the 90s and early 2000s you had to search for the nieche content as well or know where it was located. Hundrets of different phpBBs or other forums hidden from "uninitated" people.
The simplicity of central platform just has all the users going there, because they don't want to search for hours to find communities to participate in.
infowars is still available at infowars.com, they just can't use the platform and distribution effects of fb, twitter, spotify, etc anymore, so they are precisely back in 1999.
The simplicity of central platform just has all the users going there, because they don't want to search for hours to find communities to participate in.
infowars is still available at infowars.com, they just can't use the platform and distribution effects of fb, twitter, spotify, etc anymore, so they are precisely back in 1999.
The majority of people only access these distribution platforms.
The "they still have a website" argument equals to "in a dictatorship, you still have a home and you can say anything between its walls, people can come to you and listen". The internet is / should be much more than that.
I always found "disapproval by removal/banning" to be absurd. The true way of them not gaining ground is by educating people. Yes, it's a much, much harder way. Yet it's infinitely more fair, and probably the only way to a healthy society.
I always found "disapproval by removal/banning" to be absurd. The true way of them not gaining ground is by educating people. Yes, it's a much, much harder way. Yet it's infinitely more fair, and probably the only way to a healthy society.
You never lived in a dictatorship, do you? If people comes to your home and you say something against the "system", they will come and take you, the people who were listening to you and probably your family too. And you are probably not coming back.
I really wondering, how would you educate somebody who is shouting and threatening other people. Also, can you imagine how you would feel, if your child was killed in a school shooting and then somebody is telling everybody, that you are lying?
If you want to educate this idiot, go ahead, and before you try to do it, stop him from hurting people, who are already having the worst time of their life...
I really wondering, how would you educate somebody who is shouting and threatening other people. Also, can you imagine how you would feel, if your child was killed in a school shooting and then somebody is telling everybody, that you are lying?
If you want to educate this idiot, go ahead, and before you try to do it, stop him from hurting people, who are already having the worst time of their life...
There are many forms of dictatorships. The stalinist police state you allude to is just one, very outdated variant. It was easy to hate it, and thus it didn't live long. Far more dangerous forms are emerging now.
It's not just him you should educate. It's more about the people who listen to him. As for shouting lies: is it a better alternative to silence that man because you are right? On one hand, argue back, and accept that he has a voice even if it hurts you, on the other, it's the task of all the people standing around to dismiss and ignore and that guy.
It's not just him you should educate. It's more about the people who listen to him. As for shouting lies: is it a better alternative to silence that man because you are right? On one hand, argue back, and accept that he has a voice even if it hurts you, on the other, it's the task of all the people standing around to dismiss and ignore and that guy.
Why is he entitled to my platform and resources, exactly? I own stock in Twitter, why is he allowed to use my money for his voice?
Let him use your property as you see fit, by all means, but don't insist others do the same.
But of course you're equating Twitter with the State or a "voice" which is ridiculous. Please stop.
Let him use your property as you see fit, by all means, but don't insist others do the same.
But of course you're equating Twitter with the State or a "voice" which is ridiculous. Please stop.
> infowars is still available at infowars.com ...
Until the CloudFlare CEO decides that he wants to virtue signal too (like he already did with Stormfront).
Or until Microsoft decides to boot them from Azure (like they already did when Gab.ai had a post they didn't like).
Or until the DNS is revoked... which has already been done by government agencies.
Until the CloudFlare CEO decides that he wants to virtue signal too (like he already did with Stormfront).
Or until Microsoft decides to boot them from Azure (like they already did when Gab.ai had a post they didn't like).
Or until the DNS is revoked... which has already been done by government agencies.
> Until the CloudFlare CEO decides that he wants to virtue signal too
> Or until Microsoft decides to boot them from Azure
Welcome to the Open Market. If they don't want to do business with a company, that company is free to look for another vendor that will.
> Or until Microsoft decides to boot them from Azure
Welcome to the Open Market. If they don't want to do business with a company, that company is free to look for another vendor that will.
> stock-footage-showing happy-go-lucky feeds - comments, articles, posts disappearing without a trace, individuals banned, search results removed.
Could you explain what you're referring to here?
Could you explain what you're referring to here?
Just the obvious: all the social media feeds you see are heavily moderated and shaped to ignite actions that are beneficial to advertisers/the platform. Comments, posts are removed without notice (except maybe the poster). Major search engines filter according to police warrants, media corp inquiries, "privacy rights" (eg. EU's "right to disappear" law).
As separated cases they don't seem like much - but knowing how few major platforms there are (covering like 90% of what most internet users see) this is catastrophic. What someone should see shouldn't be decided in some Middle-European FB contractor's moderator sweatshop.
As separated cases they don't seem like much - but knowing how few major platforms there are (covering like 90% of what most internet users see) this is catastrophic. What someone should see shouldn't be decided in some Middle-European FB contractor's moderator sweatshop.
Who is going to quit Facebook so they have access to more nazis and whack job conspiracy theorists?
Some people find Alex Jones entertaining. I don't (not that that should be relevant).
Nazis and whack job conspiracy theorists.
For those that missed it, Infowars' podcast was also recently dropped from iTunes, and several of Jones' pages dropped from Facebook as well. I'm sure there are many people who are looking to see how successful Jones is in suddenly having to swim on his own, without these hugely successful platform. As much as I'm not a fan, I do kind of hope that he can prove we don't necessarily need these platforms to distribute content and grow one's following (creating that following in the first place is obviously another matter).
Will this wave of platform rejections force Alex Jones fans onto Mastodon?
Will this wave of platform rejections force Alex Jones fans onto Mastodon?
Twitter put up a ban for 7 days because the account tweeted a video calling for violence against media. People commenting here either have not read the article or are deliberately bringing in false parity between call for violence and request for cake for a wedding. It would be outrageous if any media did not ban call for violence, especially by somebody with considerable following in the public.
This is great for Alex Jones, he gets global notoriety, free publicity and gets to be the martyr.
Given Alex Jones weakness for theatrics he is going to play up this 'conspiracy' against him to prove every other conspiracy theory he nurtures for the next 10 years.
The 'co-ordination' however is blatant and raises questions about whether they are trying to silence him or martyr him. Is this really necessary, why is it co-ordinated and so heavy handed?
The only logical explanation for it being so brazen is they are doing this against him as cover to silence more 'problematic' figures which would raise more serious concerns about dissent and free speech. But that's a conspiracy theory.
Given Alex Jones weakness for theatrics he is going to play up this 'conspiracy' against him to prove every other conspiracy theory he nurtures for the next 10 years.
The 'co-ordination' however is blatant and raises questions about whether they are trying to silence him or martyr him. Is this really necessary, why is it co-ordinated and so heavy handed?
The only logical explanation for it being so brazen is they are doing this against him as cover to silence more 'problematic' figures which would raise more serious concerns about dissent and free speech. But that's a conspiracy theory.
Alex Jones will be fine. He's been around since the 90s, when shortwave radio -- that bastion of white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, fundamentalists, and other assorted kooks -- was his primary means of contact with his audience.
If anything this will make Alex, and his followers, even crazier, as his censorship by major Web outlets only PROVES that the DEMONS behind the New World Order are plotting to silence the righteous!
If anything this will make Alex, and his followers, even crazier, as his censorship by major Web outlets only PROVES that the DEMONS behind the New World Order are plotting to silence the righteous!
Now if only they'd do the same for spam, scams, malware, etc... you know, the actual stuff that hurts the platform.
I don't support Infowars but I'd take it any way over "Hai this is @EloanMusk2499 and I am giving out free cryptocurrency - just click this link or send 1BTC to this address and you'll get 10BTC in exchange!!!".
I don't support Infowars but I'd take it any way over "Hai this is @EloanMusk2499 and I am giving out free cryptocurrency - just click this link or send 1BTC to this address and you'll get 10BTC in exchange!!!".
I think the problem is technical and not moral.
Alex Jones threatened lifes, and the banhammer is easy to give to one single user. What about new user that are doing so many accounts a hour with different (guess private) proxy, etc?
I hope that twitter is addressing that problem with stronger anti-spam measure, but it doesn't really relate to Infowars.
I hope that twitter is addressing that problem with stronger anti-spam measure, but it doesn't really relate to Infowars.
Turns out that there is a limit, and it's making really overt death threats. I'm surprised he didn't get banned over the "Democrats are going to have a revolution" stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07...