We're treading into the land of censorship. As much as I dont like Alex Jones, I think this is wrong.
But if you succeed and it becomes a bastion of racism, insanity, and violent speech, I'll vote to stop you.
That said, these bans were righteous. Anyone getting on any platform and encouraging, iirc, people to act "legally... and illegally" with "battle rifles" to resist an unseen army of government oppressors, is saying civilization has broken down and the only thing left is civil war and revolution.
The fact that there has been no Jones-inspired violence means that there are literally zero people in his audience who take him seriously. Which is good.
That raises an interesting side issue, though. Granted, someone advocating violence like that needs to be de-platformed. However, since clearly none of his viewers take him seriously, maybe the main narrative about Infowars is wrong. Maybe his entire persona, and Infowars, are an undeclared comedy act that give people, mostly conservatives, an outlet for their frustrations without requiring them to agree with, or act on, any of the extreme shit he says, even if they might parrot it in conversation from time to time.
If this is a comedy act, I don't know where the line is between comedy and incitement to violence. These platforms probably don't (and can't afford to) have as nuanced a view of it, but if they did, they would still probably not want to take that chance. I think attempts to incite others to violence is a serious enough thing that if he is running a comedy show, he should still tone down direct incitement to violence. What if just the right kind of mentally unhinged person watches his videos? That could turn out badly, and there's no reason to take that risk. The impact to freedom of speech of prohibiting, even in comedy, incitement to violence, is minimal. I have a feeling if it were a government agency doing the censoring, the courts would find approximately the same thing: This kind of speech can properly be censored, even under strict scrutiny.
Alex Jones at least indirectly inspired a gunman to fire into a restaurant because he pushed the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.
One might be able to make the argument that Alex Jones doesn't directly call for violence, but he and people like him make a living out of talking around violence, and when someone pushes conspiracy theories about certain groups of people (jews, muslims, leftists, gays) belief in those conspiracies can create a higher likelihood of violence against those groups.
Some locations on earth the ability to communicate the need to stop violence is necessary. Ethnic cleansing being done by your government? Do you want the people to unite and stop that?
I really dont have a good answer and can see both sides, personally Id err on the side of letting people speak.
"mainstream media is the enemy, but now it's time to act on the enemy"
"legally and criminally its time to move against these people"
Context, satire, and meaning is extremely tough to convey over the internet and leads to a pretty wide margin for interpretation to suit your (or who ever it may concern) needs.
No easy answer
Funny thing is, it’s likely the people who never went looking for Jones saw less of him than the people who did.
Maybe the people looking for his kind of messaging were just waiting for a note like “ready your guns”.
And again maybe the real danger lies in the ones who are on the edge of that and start getting hints of it and what’s more, increasingly fall prey to it and so seek it out more and their curated window is all the more filled with it. Suddenly you have large swathes of people believing that the end is nigh, Obama is a reptile, men are under attack, and it’s time to ready their rifles against their neighbour.
More should probably be questioned about the curation process those companies employ.
I don't think they should be arrested or put in jail but what's the harm in booting some awful people? I know someone will respond to "what happens when they disagree with what you say"? Yeah, that could happen and I get pissed and life goes on. People get banned daily from all the platforms for really dumb things. Hell, you can't even have a female nipple on Instagram.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
edit: already downvoted. Wikipedias mundane standard definition is already too controversial for HN. :D
The reality is that private companies like Google, Twitter, etc. have more power than the government to restrict speech. In fairness, tech companies have been reluctant to wield that power and have been pushed into it.
Is it so wrong for them to think maybe this wasn't a universal good?
There's been plenty of examples of yellow journalism where the press incited the public into war, so there could be legitimate reasons private ink and paper companies wouldn't want those messages broadcast.
Nobody's taking down infowars.com, afaik.
Here's my perspective.
I remember the start of the second Iraq war very clearly. Something like 70% of Americans believed, falsely, that Sadam Hussein was behind 9/11. As someone that didn't believe that, it was almost surreal. It was like everyone had gone mad. Most MSM sources were basically de-facto propaganda arms for the US govt.
On that wave of public support, we ludicrously and tragically invaded Iraq.
I think if you replay that scenario with Twitter existing, there's a very good chance you don't hit that 70% number and a pretty good chance we don't go to war.
It's simply too easy now to be exposed to alternative narratives. And the false venere of infallibility that "the news" has historically had pretty much fades away when you see reporters duking it out on equal footing with everyone else on Tiwtter.
So! I think the banning of Alex Jones is just step 1 of a plan to "fix" this problem; it's an attempt to reassert the ability to control the narrative and what the public thinks.
I know that all might sound a bit conspiracy-theory-ish, but, well, how else to interpret things like this?
https://twitter.com/chrismurphyct/status/1026580187784404994
More broadly, it's surprising to me that so many people who believe in freedom of speech, democracy, etc in their governments, are so gung-ho for autocratic, censored governening structures in the online realms.
Twitter is more important than traditional press; shouldn't it have similar protections?
Why does no one call them out on their echo chambers that ban anyone who calls BS?
Even their "free speech" platforms do this. (i.e. Gab)
There is no private party that genuinely protects people's first amendment rights.
Re: "Conservatives have a far, far lower bar to censor people than Twitter, et al. (i.e. /r/The_Donald on Reddit)" This is a generalization with only one example for support.
Voat
Gab
16 Republican subreddits
Multiple GOP "news" sites
I can try to come up with a comprehensive list if it's really worth it?
The loophole used to "justify" my bans is almost always:
User who doesn't agree with conservative narrative posts facts viewed as damaging -> Conservatives report you as "spamming" -> powers that be ban you as a "spammer" due to moderation mechanisms based on N reports.
Sometimes it involves human intervention as well, sometimes not.
For instance:
https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/96h0dy/pc_case_...
> PC case maker CaseLabs says it has been 'forced into bankruptcy and liquidation' by US tariffs (Prices went up 80%!) -- Thanks Folks and I await your censorship ban.
I know they are going to do that after I posted that, even included it in the title, and was banned. :)
I was also banned for similar posts on a couple news sites.
-----
Pretty much any major "Conservative" subreddit has banned my account (or another one of my Reddit accounts) at this point. Voat/Gab, I'm banned platform wide.
Is that a bad thing?
The worst a company can do is drop your account - they can't even stop you from moving your content elsewhere. Governments can have you killed. Governments should be more restricted than the common citizen or even corporation.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And also, persons, including legal persons, will be compelled to provide a platform for persons inciting violence.
So, no.