YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
"The InfoWars website receives approximately 10 million monthly visits, making it more visited than some mainstream news websites such as The Economist and Newsweek."
This bothers me. Say what you like about his content, but it is not fringe. He is the preferred "thinker" of a significant fraction of the population. If you think the solution is to deplatform him, you're thinking about the problem wrong.
He is an opportunity. By becoming a lightening rod and focal point for a large fraction of a country's misguided thinking, he has made that misguided thinking more fragile. Easier to dislodge. Because now you just need to find a combination of words that helps his followers see him for what he actually is.
And if you succeed, everyone who sees will get a lesson in thinking more clearly. They will be more resilient to a future charlatan.
So if Alex Jones makes your blood boil, then put that emotion to work. Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. Use whichever tools appeal to you. If youtube wants to help, then youtube algorithms should be tweaked to encourage people to view both sides of the debate.
You are assuming this would actually have an effect. Given recent history I am pretty sure people would
A) Not see your debunking because it isn't in their little echo chamber of targeted fitlered online news and content.
B) Wouldn't believe you or critically think about any debunking anyway.
There is a reddit bot that tries to post alternative news sources to subreddits for a given story to encourage a balanced news diet which is a laudable step in this direction.
https://www.reddit.com/user/alternate-source-bot
Just have a look at it's log to see which subreddits it is banned from: https://www.reddit.com/r/alt_source_bot_log/
Your argumentation rests on the assumption that people are convinced only through reason. There are several professions and industries that work just by considering that to be naive.
Prejudices, herd mentality, fear, anger and a lot more biological drives are the main drivers of most people beliefs. "Reason" is just a make up and varnish they apply to make it less ugly.
We can also have a grand old time debunking each and every single one of the crackpot theories that come out of the show, which surprisingly nobody has ever tried before!
There's no way that can go wrong after a while.
Gotta preserve that freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas.
For better or for worse, the ideas that grasp the most people have prevailed historically.
Letting one small group of people, regardless of how they're chosen, or how self-righteous they feel, decide what's okay and not okay to say, will never end well.
> Letting one small group of people
What one small group of people? There are literally thousands of social media sites, and people are completely free to join or quit any one of them. If there were no competition in this space, I might be concerned. But just a few short years ago Facebook was unheard of and MySpace was the "monopoly".
Let customers choose. The customers are not one small group of people.
Well, giving him whatever platform he wants has already gone wrong right now. So if deplatforming him goes wrong in the future, and puts us back into the same situation we found ourselves in before today, at least we'll have between now and then to enjoy things, and come up with a plan C.
What consequences have there been?
egged on by some congresslady in California and MSNBC.
So ya. Pretty simmetrical.
The hegemony trying to shut up someone's political speech only decreases legitimacy across people that were never going to believe him in the first place.
For everyone else, the conspiracy theory that The Powers That Be don't want anyone to hear his message just became conspiracy fact thanks to YouTube, Apple et al.
As I said though, he used his platform to abuse people and should have been banned a long time ago, regardless of his lame conspiracy theories.
Why? He and his followers are "not even wrong". I wouldn't argue with any of them for any longer than I would any (other) anti-science person. It's simply not worth the effort (they aren't in reach of reason) and possibly harmful besides (it validates/confirms for them that their views have credibility enough to merit rebuttal).
This is a man spouting off that there is evidence that Michelle Obama is a man [1]. If that's not a fringe idea I'd like to know what you think one is. To me a fringe idea is one that is so obviously wrong that it is not worth considering its merits.
Doubtless there are many fools willing to consider the 'facts' surrounding Michelle Obama's gender but they are wackos. His ideas are not worth debunking. They are prima facie false. Discussing his punditry gives credence to the notion that his ideas are worthy of consideration. They are not.
His followers will not see him for what he is. They are clearly impervious to facts and reasoning. Anyone willing to follow the rantings of a man spouting off Alex Jones' nonsense is beyond being able to be reasoned with.
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=alex+jones+says+michelle+obama+is+...
The best thing to do is just silence their voices; no ifs, ands, or buts.
Remember, these people are against the idea of democracy.
> Remember, these people are against the idea of democracy.
Oh, the irony of following the one sentence with the other.
> You're making the mistake of thinking that Alex Jones and his followers are rational and good-faith actors - a pre-requisite for debate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...
How uncharitable of you to write that. I didn't "forget" it. It wasn't relevant to my point. The first line was specific to this situation, but the final two I quoted represent a very universal and timeless position.
In fact, ancient Athens suffered greatly when "silence the voices of the enemies of democracy" became the dominant position in their society:
Universal and Timeless position is a stretch. It is not black and white, it is grey and the first line in OPs comment put context to that grey.
While it would be lovely to have a democracy with an educated rational electorate resilent to hateful demagogues and other threats to the stability of that democracy, we are not there. In that situation you can let it fester or reduce the impact.
Yes it can be abused and we have to be careful. But we are in a Paradox of Tolerance situation.
Rather than state what has already been said: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17702464 is a good summary.
It's not a good one, though.
Specifically, I am guessing this has something to do with Jones taking legal actions against parents whose child was murdered.
I don't think this has anything to do with his "ideas" - that is a severe misunderstanding of the facts of the case. There are still plenty of people with horrible ideas on Youtube. This has everything to do with Jones using his media power to attempt to silence, discredit, and harass parents whose children have been murdered. I mean, seriously, you don't get much lower than that.
Not at all a fan of Mr Jones (the little I've seen makes him seem like a garden variety nutcase peddling inane conspiracy theories), but aren't we just a little bit concerned when someone is banned on the same day by all the major internet content shops due to some unspecified "TOS violations"?
Did he violate all these various different TOS agreements on the same day? If so, how is it not extremely obvious which term he broke?
I think this demonstrates the power of the internet's big content vendors. They can block anyone, at any time, for any reason. They're not accountable nor required to uphold any freedom of speech, yet it's how we all get our information now.
There is still freedom of speech in physical public spaces, but a large and increasing share of our lives is spent on the privatized spaces of the internet, where corporations are the absolute arbitrators of our rights to express and consume speech.
Jones is not a generally sympathetic figure, and few of us will be genuinely sorry to see him go. But what about the next guy marked for deletion?
"First they came for the kooks..."
There's a very big difference between a blowhard who just says things and a blowhard who tries to have people killed. I really hope you can see that.
For calling for Hillary's and Obama's assassination? The Secret Service investigated and determined that it would be too difficult to prosecute in the absence of someone actually taking Jones up on the offer. (If someone had, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now--he'd be serving life in a SuperMax for conspiracy.)
Pure speculation, and unlikely at that. There were dozens of assassination attempts against past presidents, not once has anyone been imprisoned for allegedly inciting the attempt.
This comment, and your previous one as well, are trying to criminalize acts of speech that are protected by the First Amendment.
Which is why there are no current criminal proceedings against Jones.
Generally, I'm hearing this about topics where I'm in strong agreement. Yes, we SHOULD take action against these attempts to exploit our inherent logical weaknesses for the promotion of values we disapprove of (sexism, racism, hatred, violence, etc).
BUT...before I agree, I like to say "How is this different than banning speech/actions promoting something society generally favors but historically did not. Could the same rules have been/be used to prevent the end of slavery, to deny equal rights (including voting rights), to silence those complaining about abuse of power of raising awareness of injustices? Would the rules used to silence peddlers of lies like Alex Jones be used against, say, proponents of generally unpopular and uncomfortable opinions such as improved rights of life for animals, or polyamorous marriage rights? (The only commonality of those being that each has been used as an example by some of a concept treated as ridiculous on it's face).
And here's the thing - I _don't_ ask these questions to try and reach a "enh, guess we should just let everyone be a-holes and eventually it will work out". I want to find a legit answer. Sometimes I can't, but most of the time I circle around some concept that DOES make a difference, even if it's hard to nail down in words. I think that's important because while civilization has generally moved in a positive direction over time, none of that has happened by just waiting it out - people made a fuss, took risks, raised awareness. Governments, churches, media, and other social bodies hashed out opinions and decided what was right, what was wrong, and what was unacceptably TOO wrong. Knowing that these processes can fail does not mean we should give up on them, instead we should work harder to find better success rates.
We are not well equipped to handle societies at the scale we have them (see Dunbar's Number etc), but that does not mean we can't try to get better.
As a result, things like this tend to fall into buckets for me: "Yeah, good idea, but we should be careful", "I wish, but only once we figure out how to distinguish the reasons", "I wish, but honestly there are still too many legit points to remove this from discussion", "Nah, this is important churn to work through" and "Are you crazy? They are right and should be amplified, not silenced".
The paradox of tolerance: "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
- Karl Popper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
Are you asking, how is banning someone for peddling hateful conspiracy theories different from banning someone for supporting human rights and dignity? You don't... I dunno, see a few differences between those two messages?
Or is it the future bit that you're worried about—you think that maybe in the future society will generally favor the idea that the parents whose children were murdered should get death threats? And us rubes who banned something like that will think "oh man, this is great, if we had only known!"
No, I'm saying "what rules do we create that would apply to prevent horrible speech now that wouldn't also prevent speech of people doing good but upsetting things?" In the past people in favor of desegragation or womens suffrage or interracial marriage or other "good" things were regarded as trying to overturn the public good. How do we find rules that permit us to say "no!" in the name of good and not have those rules turned against good disturbances of the status quo?
I think there is an answer, or at least an improvement over nothing, but I dont think it is an easy answer, and I dont know what that answer is...yet. meanwhile I try to consider how rules can backfire when such things come up. I shed no tears for Jones, but I'm also glad the issue wasn't easy.
Silencing should not be easy, even though speech empowers jerks and bullies, because speech also empowers so much that has improved the world.
Well, let’s see how deplatforming InfoWars turns out before trying to create general rules about it. I think it’ll work, but no sense in trying to generalize without any data. And maybe we don’t even need general rules, but can do it all on a case-by-case basis.
> and not have those rules turned against good disturbances of the status quo? [...] meanwhile I try to consider how rules can backfire when such things come up.
The people who would misuse rules against hate speech will ban good disturbances of the status quo anyway. Whether or not InfoWars and its ilk get banned will have no bearing on what they do. Trying to create good rules offers no defense against those who refuse to play by the rules.
We can act before we have figured it all out, but we shouldn't postpone thinking about the broader question of when to step in, because the answer won't be simple and we need to have it as good as we can get it BEFORE the next issue comes up, because:
> The people who would misuse rules against hate speech will ban good disturbances of the status quo anyway.
Sandy Hook deniers, Holocaust Deniers - these are terrible people doing terrible things. I don't want to say otherwise AT ALL.
Often an important claim is initially unproven, not generally believed, and _induces discomfort_. Are you suggesting that a colored person is my equal? A woman? A savage? Are you suggesting that the military conducted secret experiments on troops? That the FBI targeted MLK? That the US uses warrantless wiretaps on citizens? That humans can do to other humans what you describe from the concentration camps?
Now we know those claims to be true, but they were initially unpopular. Heck, MLK was disliked/distrusted by the _majority_ of Americans. Silencing the people making those unpopular and uncomfortable claims early would spread injustice.
That's why we want rules - not so that the bad actors can twist them against us, but so that we have a defense against the bad actors shutting down the good actors, and most importantly, so that we have a defense against ourselves being unwitting bad actors. How do I know Sandy Hook was not faked but the DDOS attack on the FCC was? Because both sides were allowed to be heard long enough for evidence to come together.
Saying "the solution is just to never silence anyone" is a popular solution, even though I think it's the wrong one. But "We should only silence those that are wrong" completely dodges how we know who is wrong. Finding a healthy middle ground between these extremes requires work and diligence. If we choose to err on the side of NOT silencing, as I would prefer to, it means the work and diligence becomes all the more important.
Just trusting our intuition as to who is the bad actor that should be silenced has a bad track record.
Except that doesn't work with trolls. Many of his followers are just in it for the lulz. Engagement just provides more fodder for trolling. You gotta just ignore trolls. And if you can, deny them a platform.
Furthermore, I also disagree with existing censorship of "illegal" stuff by governments. Not just social/political dissent in China, or ankle porn in Saudi Arabia. Also censorship by the United States, such as gambling, piracy, mail-order drugs, and so on.
However, there is arguably a place for government censorship of criminal activity that demonstrably causes harm. For example, child abuse (but not merely sharing of "child porn") or revenge porn, and so on. But not stuff that's racist, sexist, etc but doesn't directly advocate violence.
> He is an opportunity. By becoming a lightening rod and focal point for a large fraction of a country's misguided thinking, he has made that misguided thinking more fragile. Easier to dislodge. Because now you just need to find a combination of words that helps his followers see him for what he actually is.
His followers see themselves in him. Attack him and they will feel attacked. Attacked people don’t change their minds, they dig into their beliefs harder. The only way to change peoples minds is to realize that you can’t. You can only make it safe for them to change their own minds.
> And if you succeed, everyone who sees will get a lesson in thinking more clearly. They will be more resilient to a future charlatan.
Not without first accepting that they themselves were wrong. This is hard. People see them selves as right. To admit they are wrong is to destroy a little part of themselves (ego).
> So if Alex Jones makes your blood boil, then put that emotion to work. Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. Use whichever tools appeal to you. If youtube wants to help, then youtube algorithms should be tweaked to encourage people to view both sides of the debate.
Rational debate doesn’t change peoples minds unless they identify as rational people. Then being rationally coherent is important, more so than being right, so they can change their minds. Not everyone holds being rationally coherent that close to their identity.
People will often just dig in harder to avoid being wrong.
For every 100 people you expose him to, some N% find them selves agreeing. The more you talk about him, the more you share and “raise his platform” the more followers you get him.
Simple marketing funnels.
Persistent societal tolerance requires one thing, vehement intolerance of intolerant people.
It’s some prolog level recursive logic.
I'm curious where you heard that, it's an interesting perspective I have not considered before.
In the process i found that they very much so wanted to be a “well” person and going to the docotor was not something a “well” person does.
So instead of pushing then I just focussed on making it safe for them to be unwell. Through holding space, admitting my own vulnerabilities and issues, and by not reacting negatively to their psychosis symptoms.
I recognized the similarity with other instances of changing peoples minds.
Some people want control, and accepting your ideas reduces their perceived control, so you need to make it safe for them to accept the idea (change their mind) while still feeling in control.
Some people see them selves a good people and admitting their actions are biggoted and hurtful doesn’t fit with that so they rationalize the “others” as bad. To change their minds they need a way to feel like good people even though they’ve done biggoted, hurtful things.
Some people are scared and they will rationalize that fear in some mannor. To convince them that there is nothing to fear from that which they rationalised means making it safe for them to experience fear without that justification.
If you want to change opinions you have to change the underlying believes that form them. And you have to do it in a way that they feel they figured it out on their own.
If you do it in a "push down the throat" way it will just make it worse.
In that light i dont think the ban was a good idea...
How would you “debunk” Alex Jones? Certainly not with rational arguments, as if his viewers were at all receptive to reason, they wouldn’t be InfoWars viewers. I am not a regular viewer, but I have seen a few episodes and that I saw, Alex Jones makes no use logic, reasoning, verifiable evidence, or journalistic standards.
So what’s the plan? Counter Alex Jones with an equally unscrupulous manipulator from “our side?”
I think there are valid debates to be had about how much speech should or should not be regulated, even on non-government platforms. But the idea that Alex Jones could be “debunked” seems absurd to me.
The thing is that most of the web and the printed word is spam that will actively confuse you the more that you read it. Compare the newspaper to a cookbook. The cookbook, if it's good, can be tested for effectiveness quite readily even allowing for variations in things like your ingredients and how your oven functions as compared to the one in the author's test kitchen.
The news isn't all that different from Maury Pauvitch and it seems to get worse every year. You would probably at least learn a little about how small claims court works by watching daytime TV but you learn less than nothing from having poorly sourced propaganda piped into your brain at 1080p/60fps. People who watch Maury aren't under the impression that they're being elevated, but people addicted to the news are suffering from that delusion.
Infotainment outlets hire a couple dozen people to make shit up and put it on a web page and a Youtube video.
Sometimes reality gets tabloidy. Sometimes editors make decisions that optimize engagement and viewership over clarity. CNN and Fox both run pundit shows along with hard news and blur the lines by hosting their hard-news pro's on the pundit shows. But no matter what happens to make CNN seem like infotainment, it simply isn't, because the process that generates it is journalism.
There is far less fact checking than before, far fewer corespondents and almost all military reporting is through access-journalism: “our give us pretty footage, we’ll write nice things”
At which point I prefer Jones: so trashy that I know it’s BS
It's a good thing that I have a memory and can compare interpretations and predictions made by different outlets in the media with subsequent events to evaluate their reliability.
What an amazing claim! Surely you have examples of this? I'd love to read conspiracy theories coming from CNN or NYT that are in line with something as absurd as "Michelle Obama is actually a man" or "Sandy Hook was fake" or the absolutely insane birther movement.
There you go.
I hate the guy and he does sorround himself with scumbags, but this implied narrative sounds like fairly generic conspiracy. "Scandals" like Cambridge Analytica "confirming" this just underline the conspiracy tone.
Maybe it's just people reading NYT, maybe I'm misreading the implications, but imo the GP's claim is not that outlandish.
I'd be curious if any legal experts know of other laws that might apply in this case.
“Hostile environment” laws around workplace conduct are a good example of this; the strict interpretation of the first amendment might not allow the government to directly regulate such speech by employees, but the threat of EEOC lawsuits can compel companies to fire or discipline employees. I’m not sure how much this truly happens but I’ve seen some legal people on twitter talk about it. E.g. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/hostile.htm
No, what you have described is a free speech violation and US courts have already addressed this point many times.
And you clearly misunderstand why hostile environment laws have survived First Amendment lawsuits. The government cannot interfere with the content of what someone says. But saying (or doing) something isn't just a form of communication--it can also be an act with non-communicative results. The government can regulate behavior, so long as it is agnostic to the communicative content accompanying that behavior.
Courts cannot always address such issues anyway due to the doctrine of “standing”. For instance, government in the 90s pressured the video game industry to self regulate by establishing a rating system and prohibiting the sale of M rated games to minors in various chain stores. If the government themselves had passed such a law it would have been subject to lawsuit under the 1A, but because it was a voluntary action by the industry there is no one to sue (after all, by suing the industry who put these standards in place, one could say that you’re now violating their right to free speech and association!)
But to summarize it simply, the government cannot outlaw using a racial slur under common 1st amendment doctrine. However it can outlaw a company allowing an employee to use a racial slur in the workplace. While this is a good result (I don’t want to work somewhere where my coworkers use such slurs) it’s an interesting example of how the power of government is less limited by 1A than one might think at first.
Similarly, YouTube, Facebook, etc have been getting a lot of flack from the government lately over Russian bots, trolls, etc. Moves like these to boot InfoWars could be smart business to placate the Democrats who may soon be in power. Infowars has been awful trash for years, and plenty of awful stuff remains on their platforms after all.
Nope, you're still not understanding. The government can't do that either, because that law would target the content of a communication. However, the law can prohibit companies from allowing employees to create hostile environments, however such environments arise, such as by making racial slurs or by trying to lynch their coworkers. The content isn't what matters--the behavior of creating the hostile workplace is what matters and what the government can regulate.
As I said--speech can be both speech and an action. Government can't regulate speech, but it can regulate the action part of the speech. This is, simply put, the concept of whether you can ban people from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. (There are no laws against yelling fire in a crowded theater because that is of course illegal. There are laws against causing public panic, which is content-neutral, so it doesn't matter whether you yell FIRE, BOMB, or CARROTTOP.)
It can, because that communication would be considered to create a hostile work environment. The most recent nominee to the SCOTUS has noted he’d consider a single use of a particularly evil racial slur to qualify for the creation of said hostile environment. (“a single verbal (or visual) incident can likewise be sufficiently severe to justify a finding of a hostile work environment”)
Your response equates slurs (words) with lynching (an incredibly violent crime). Lynching is something the government can and does prohibit with laws directly, because it’s a violent action not covered by any interpretation of the 1A. Your example of “fire in a crowded theater” is another - a word directly designed to create violence and immediate physical damage to other people. Slurs, on the other hand, the government does not prohibit directly: judges would block jail or fines for speaking such as 1A violations. Instead, they order your company to take care of it by firing you under hostile environment laws.
If your argument equating hostile environments with behavior/action, not speech, were legally correct, then the government would be permitted by judges to regulate hostile environments directly by jailing citizens who create them by doing things like e.g. watching porn, speaking a racial slur, or discussing their sex lives. I doubt that a law doing such would pass constitutional muster in today’s courts (rightly or wrongly). Nevertheless the government has had success stamping out those behaviors by having the employer do it for them.
In general I’m wondering if we are simply speaking past each other. I thought I clearly recognized that hostile environment laws are considered OK by judges despite the 1A. My main point was to show that the government, when it can find such a legal justification, can generally exert more power than a naive understanding of the 1A might suggest.
That power cannot be underestimated. Consider how the leaders of both China and Russia have overwhelming popular support and poll better than any democratic leaders in the world. Google doesn't have anywhere near the influence over media that the CCP does, but its influence is considerable and its reach is nearly global.
I'm not saying private entities should be subject to the 1st Amendment, but we shouldn't give them a free pass to censor just because we happen to agree with their decision this time.
Perhaps you feel that it should guarantee more than it does, and perhaps you may be right, but as it stands it does not.
My point was "free speech" is not synonymous with "The 1st Amendment". The former is a general concept and the latter is one way we protect it in the United States.
Jones is free to create his own Facebook clone or jump to Twitter.
This push is coming from a desire to prevent Jones from being active in the 2018 midterms.
If a Republican files a complaint with the FEC and there are employee messages talking about how they have to ban Jones to stop Trump, then the tech companies could have a situation on their hands.
HN is a community. Obviously you don't have to use your real name, but if users don't have some consistent identity for others to relate to, we may as well have no usernames and no community at all. That would be a different kind of forum. Anonymity is fine, and throwaways for a specific purpose are ok—just not routinely.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Free speech zealots tend to slyly try equating systemic censorship with an individual's ability to censor others, thus taking events like this and pretending it is an offense against the principle. It is not, and don't be fooled.
Facebook, Spotify, and Apple realized that continuing to allow Alex Jones to remain on their platforms would result in substantial harm to the commercial viability of their platforms, as a result of boycotts, lawsuits, etc. by the 99% of people that Alex Jones spends his life spewing lies about.
It was an easy financial decision. Hell, they could have faced absolutely massive shareholder lawsuits if they hadn't kicked him off their platforms.
If in the days of the first amendment paper producers conspired en mass to censor we would have seen it dealt with then. Alas its a modern problem which is ours to solve.
As for making political affiliation a protected class...that wouldn't shield Jones. He's being kicked off for slander, lies, and acts of incitement, not his claim to be a conservative.
Alex Jones runs a website using DNS and internet infrastructure and gets 10 million monthly visitors. Where's the censorship?
That's it. It forbids Congress from making laws. Any ideal beyond that is fully imagined and does not exist as part of the Constitution.
And we've been doing fine for well over 200 years with that simple ideal alone. With the internet and the ability to easily create a website or blog, people have more means of expressing their opinion than at any time in history. Alex Jones still runs his own website last I checked. He hasn't been silenced. Not even close. Fifty years ago he would have been the kooky guy living at the end of your street and no one would know who he is.
Are you suggesting guys like him weren't famous, wealthy, and had popular speaking tours across the country? If so, you're sadly mistaken about the reach of even wrong ideas.
Quackery and supernatural stuff was extremely popular among the middle class America in the 1800s and well into the 1970s. The internet has given individuals a wider platform, but it hasn't changed the amount of individuals (ie, audience size) willing to consume this stuff...
We can't ban our way out of this problem. The risks/costs of doing so (false positives of anyone pushing what is considered 'fringe' at the moment) is far too high to go down this path. And if anything it increases the audience of these people who become martyrs and victims of the very 'conspiracies' they are pushing. It's far better to ignore them or fight them than to ban them.
Yes. I'm suggesting that far fewer of them had access to the potential to be heard. Every nut job and his brother now has a blog, website, YouTube channel, etc.
> The internet has given individuals a wider platform,
Yes. What I said above. A much wider platform. Instead of an obscure book hidden away on a bookshelf, these guys have a potential audience of the much of the globe. With cheap mobile that reach even extends to very poor countries with little access to education or even books.
> but it hasn't changed the amount of individuals (ie, audience size) willing to consume this stuff...
I'm not convinced that's true and to be convinced I'd have to see some actual numbers. There are LOADS of people these days willing to participate in confirmation bias and the internet makes that far easier. The very few conspiracy theorists I knew 30 years ago had to work hard at their research and I kind of respected the dedication. These days if you want to believe in chem trails it's just a simple search term, click, and copypasta away. We've automated the production of conspiracy theorists.
> We can't ban our way out of this problem.
We aren't. Alex Jones still has a website with 10 million monthly visitors. He has a radio show and publishes books. I'm assuming that if Facebook, YouTube, or even I wanted to publish something on Alex Jones' website, he would "censor" us.
I'm not even suggesting that we should try to "solve" the problem of conspiracy theorists. I'm suggesting that companies should have the right to free speech. If YouTube doesn't want to host the garbage ideas of Alex Jones, they should go right ahead and ban him. If Alex Jones' doesn't want to host Facebook's content or my content on his website, he should feel free to ban us. Where is the actual problem?
People are quick to point out that FB and Youtube are private entities and such but the reality is that they've become so ubiquitous in our lives that if they start censorship based on the company's preferred politics, beliefs, etc. than it will have an effect on all of us.
Can mobile apps (like WhatsApp) inspect messages and decide to boot users if they're saying things that aren't in line with the company's positions?
Can ISPs do that too?
ISPs should not do that, it violates net neutrality.
There's no reason WhatsApp shouldn't be treated as a "dumb pipe for messaging" just like an ISP is widely regarded as necessary to be treated as such for data in general.
Where's the difference? Both are companies that want to make profits and face competition. If ISPs were a public state service, then that would be where to draw the line.
If anything, this will enforce their persecution complex. Now Alex Jones will say, "See? Big media doesn't want you to know the things I'm telling you." And he'll be right.
And ignorance fights back with education. Removing Thomas Jefferson from textbooks for example. Or replacing evolution with creationism / intelligent design theory.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html
People rewrite education to suit their political slants. You ain't gonna win in education until you win at politics.
Unless politics doesn't control education... which is a direction we're fortunately slowly moving towards.
Without safe harbor they never would have been able to grow like they did, but they had remain neutral. Now that they aren't it's time to subject them to the regulations TV, Newspapers etc have... and watch their profitability decline.
And of course right now he's atop today's Google searches:
https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=...
This will not end the way silicon valley thinks.
Just a guess.
He'll simply create new accounts, and on this new account he'll toe right up to the line without going over it (until 2019).
The pressure from his many fans will have no effect, because they're not a market that any company wants to be associated with.
>The decision comes hours after Apple and Facebook made similar moves
So I guess Mr Jones will have to report on this particular conspiracy elsewhere. I for one would like to hear it...
Deplatforming is effective.
I think the answer is much simpler but equally pathetic. The center right and center left are both so vapid and devoid of vision that they are helpless to address the "alternative" of Alex Jones. It is our elite that have failed and left a vacuum to be filled with whatever happens to be loudest.
If we had real public intellectuals and a real media and real politicians with vision Jones would be completely marginalized. He only succeeds because the culture is so empty.
Jones is already mainstream. He is not going to get smaller if you give him bigger platforms.
Unrelated question.
Can somebody explain to me, how he went from "9/11 was inside job, police are jackbooted thugs, anti Bush, anti Obama" to being pro police, pro government?
I want to understand the logic behind this.
Unfortunately your question starts with an untenable premise ;)
Remember there's no conspiracy to control the narrative. It's totally a coincidence that Alex Jones got banned from Youtube, itunes, and Facebook simultaneously.
Last time I checked, my mother still thinks Obama is Muslim.
So no. Crackpot theories become more widespread once they hit mainstream. And they stay there forever.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/developer/infowars-magazine/id69...
I don't peruse the Podcast listings, or news about podcasts that much. Is Apple generally not as stringent about policing Podcasts as it is for iOS Apps?