Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars
thedailybeast.com
thedailybeast.com
> Today, we permanently suspended @RealAlexJones and @infowars from Twitter and Periscope. We took this action based on new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to the accounts’ past violations. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/abusive-behav...
Is there a form somewhere?
Are you a private individual or corporation? Yes, you can, that ability to moderate is protected free speech.
Being a racist jackass is not a protected class of individual.
But to think there are people who believe his crazy sh*t is really scary. Like the guy shooting up a pizza shop because of Pizzagate.
I compare him to the World Weekly News (next to the People magazines) from way back where they'd show a picture of space aliens shaking hands with the president.
Why does anyone believe this crap?
Their kids are drug addicts.
Their towns look like war zones.
They have no ability to earn a living.
They seek to be recognized and valued.
They seek to matter to someone.
In Alex Jones they find a leader who understands their issues and makes it easy to understand who to blame.
If we want to disarm Alex we need to recognize there are real problems in America outside of the coastal areas.
And inside the coastal areas as well.
Still, none of this stress and anxiety condemns a reasonable human being to become a psychotic racist caricature (or a follower of the same). Desperation just turns up the dial on a person's fundamental system of values. It exposes the prejudice; it doesn't create it.
Solving the problems listed would calm their rage to the benefit of all, but let's not kid ourselves that it would change any hearts or minds.
Do we really want social media monopolists and search engines to decide on what is truth and what isn't? What makes them the authority?
Obviously Twitter, as a private company, is allowed to ban whoever they want. I just find it sad that people don't find it grounds enough to switch to a more open network.
Maybe in part because such networks don't really exist atm, perhaps in part because of government regulation?
Let's not just hand-wave our blame for the government.
There have been many, many, many attempts to create a more open, decentralized version of Twitter, Facebook, and various Blogs. But they've all failed because there just simply wasn't enough incentive for people to leave these popular sites to go to a random site, for a value proposition that most don't really care to understand (open and federated vs run by one company)
Maybe a decentralized Twitter, with some kind of magic anonymization that is usable for normal people, could work around that. But then I guess decentralized approaches never achieved a good performance so far?
A decentralized alternative seems like the only hope, but it might be very difficult or impossible to implement.
Not having to see Alex Jones as often is a feature, not a bug.
Judging by HN and reddit threads, this is exactly what people want. In fairness, it's human nature. The vast majority of people are okay with censoring media that they personally find disgusting.
> I just find it sad that people don't find it grounds enough to switch to a more open network.
They don't have many other options, and the ones that are available are likely to follow suit. I don't know if I'd go so far as to call Twitter/Facebook non-competitive, but there really aren't great alternatives. The community is the draw, and that takes time to build. Also, it really isn't much of an exaggeration to say you're not truly a full member of society without social media. A startling number of people I know basically don't recognize that you exist without Facebook.
Regardless of what actions they take, many parties will feel slighted, and rightfully so, as anyone will be able to cherry-pick correct examples about why various platforms are not fair with their bans, because complete fairness is impossible. So we can have many equally valid "They banned X but not Y, this is unfair" from one side, but also "They banned A but not B, this is unfair" from an opposing side, with both complaints being valid examples that demonstrate some type of bias or inconsistency.
Everyone is welcome to create their own "free-er" Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit.
I firmly believe LGBT people should be a protected class like race, and sex, but ultimately we need to have a ruling on that.
Yes, I believe it’s okay for any business to refuse service to people who desire to damage that business.
Twitter may be their own company but we all know how large of an influence they are for public discourse, including important public and private conversations such as that between politicians and the citizens of their country, so suggesting that there cannot be an issue because there are no laws being violated is shotrt-sighted. As a thought experiment, imagine if Twitter decided to post fake tweets with any content they want from any Twitter account they wanted to. Is that 'okay'? After all, it's Twitter's platform, they can do whatever they want. I would argue it is not. You could easily construct much worse versions of this thought experiment if this one wasn't sufficient.
Although it's nice that with a free economy one is allowed to create alternative platforms, in practice this has been shown to be much more difficult than in theory, with many attempts being denied service at every level of their operations (banned from their cdn, domain proivder, payment provider, banks, all social media paltforms, etc). A lot of people hate Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Google, etc, but there are many reasons why these companies are still in complete control.
I'm glad to see Alex John's go, but I'm shocked by the lack of concern many people have on this issue. More and more communication relies on social media, and I'm terrified by the implications of ceding public discorse to any large organization. Yes there technically are other options, but we're talking about mainstream channels with sizeable audiences, which tend towards oligarchies. People are just happy that speach they find deplorable will be censored; conservatives were happy to have homosexuality censored. Obviously, in this case Twitter is being much more reasonable.
Censorship, in small doses, can be good for society. You act like banning Alex Jones from Twitter is going to bring in Fahrenheit 451.
Like I said above: Alex Jones is bad for Twitters business. Bottom line. If you owned a business, and man routinely came into that business, every day, and shouted through his megaphone that he has video evidence that Michelle Obama is a transvestite hooker, would you not ban him from your property as well?
1) Someone creates a "truly free" social media platform, and it is invaded by people who wish to mold it to reduce freedom for "toxicity"
2) Someone creates a "truly free" social media platform, and the only people to use it are those disallowed from using the mainstream platforms, creating a feedback cycle that eventually results in the free platform either shutting down or being branded "toxic" in and of itself, at which point they'll just go after the company that hosts the platform.
We're becoming so worried about "offending" people that we're literally giving away all our freedom of speech in the process. And yet, if we create such a restricted environment, and political sensibilities change dramatically, suddenly those in control become authoritarian dictators.
There's also the argument of "perhaps it's not a good idea to drive these people underground, where they can ultimately do far more long-term damage, than leaving their content available for all to mock"
“Accounts like Jones' can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors, so it’s critical journalists document, validate, and refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions,” Dorsey tweeted. “This is what serves the public conversation best.”
Wow. Putting the burden of proof on anyone but the person making a claim is ridiculous.
Any video with John or Joan Q. Qanon will have someone saying something to the effect of, “Well, you don’t have any proof that it’s not true!”
Also, Jack Dorsey is a closet believer in the Tooth Fairy. He’s been known to dress up as the Tooth Fairy and to participate in Tooth Fairy-related rituals.
I encourage anyone to disprove that.
Will not shed a tear when Q makes Alex Jones look like a lame mainstream reporter and his audience, seeking the "truth", moves on from him to the latest, greatest purveyor of utter nonsense.
Not only do I have less time wasters around, but I noticed that the internet is far less angry of a place as a result.
> I noticed that the internet is far less angry of a place as a result
I would think it would be quite the opposite: the likelihood of being censored creates inhibition.
Hacker news, like basically anything, is trivial in size compared to Twitter.
Despite that hacker news, like MANY other sites, moderate the content it gets posted in an attempt to maintain some level of decorum/sanity/functioning community.
Why would a larger site need LESS of that? I think would be the other way around. In smaller sites very basic social norms seem to be strong enough to prevent problematic behavior. Once a site gets big enough that other users are seen as “other people” as opposed to “one of us” things go downhill fast if you don’t start doing something.
I suspect that it's due to general interest social media sites being unhappy places. For example, I was definitely exposed to a constant stream of negativity when actively using Twitter. That might be because both sides see them as the front lines in culture and political wars.
He should've been kicked off long ago, but I fear that having this particular example be the "final straw" is only going to strengthen the alt-right's persecution complex.
Interestingly enough, that’s probably why Twitter feels comfortable ignoring the screams of outrage from the “this is censorship, and the internet is now dooooomed” crowd. When the only thing a group has to stand on is a slippery slope of their own invention, ignoring them is a safe option. People who can only accept their own rigid interpretations at the direct expense of everyone else are impossible to engage with, and a global megacorporation simply doesn’t have the luxury to try.
The banning of Alex Jones from one platform doesn’t spell the end of freedom, or the rise of unfettered censorship, it’s just the application of the most bedrock, basic standards of both intellectual honesty and human decency. The idea that freedom can only exist if we require something like Twitter to lend their platform to the likes of Jones is intellectually bankrupt. It’s also ironic on Hacker News, which explicitly exists as the result of strong curation and moderation. Having standards isn’t censorship, and just as a newspaper doesn’t owe you and everyone else their own page, no other outlet does either.
The next step is to prevent DNS resolution working.
I assume that like myself you would see that as a step too far. The problem is that the average millennial will not see a meaningful distinction between being blocked on plaform X and being prevented from using a protocol.
There is a good chance of that happening I think - it's a matter of time before somebody develops a 'fake news' list and the wrongthinkers are effectively not part of the web for nearly everybody.
What will happen then is a big expansion of that other portion of the internet, and eventually citizens will go there to 'find out what really happened' on event x.
Then you open with a slippery slope, “Suppose a schism opens... the next step...”
If that next step ever begins to materialize that would be the time to worry. Paralysis of decency and standards out of fear of a possible slippery slope is the miserable status quo, and not desirable. If this... then maybe that... and possibly later... isn’t an argument, it’s a fallacy.
If you make ban lists (the Silicon Valley companies are operating in near sync with each other) - then the public expectation won't just be that level of moderation/censorship within the walled garden - but also outside of it.
We're already at the point of materialization, Stormfront and a socialist organization I can't recall (World Socialist something) are prevented from using domain names and other services like turning up in Google Search, Cloudfront or GoDaddy - effectively banning them from the web. They have then migrated to more censorship resistant networks. Legitimacy to the political persecution (by liberals) narrative has solidified in far right and far left circles - even the ones who aren't affiliated with the two organizations - it is now taken for granted in parts of mainstream web, parts of Reddit that organizations like DW are outright lying.
The trend is consistent, and I don't believe either of those two organizations were accused of being law breakers - and next to go down it will be Alex Jones - a watershed moment and advertising for censorship resistant networks because Jones is more famous than either. In the case of Jones his brand will be bolstered by this. China and Russia will say he is a ideological refugee, a political dissident and they will be able to make a great argument for that.
This is how censorship looks like from the inside perspective - it's just that you're on the inside. The Chinese feel the same way when being told off by the West on the subject of reeducation camps. You'll scoff at that I expect - but at least the Chinese are able to say these people needed handling because of real terrorism and illegal activity - where you've nothing to stand on.
If you're on the right, then I'd say look at the Presidency, look at the Congress, look at the Supreme Court, look at most of state and local governments and stop crying.
If you aren't on the right, why do you care how they feel? Do they spend time worrying about the suppressed people they victimize? Or do they mock them and deride them?
I was really thinking that your crazies on the right simply make up that "intellectual left that looks down on them", but boyyy, HN discussions have convinced me that the US left is quite rotten too (I assume people here are actually friendlier and more likely to try to convince the other side than general population).
It's a shame, this stupid polarization.
If you have watched Alex Jones before you will know he happily speaks his mind and is not afraid to come across as offensive or crazy.
It is not in his character to hide secret meanings in his content.
Always a strong argument :)
That's just an ideological step that is unwise to adopt. Taking that as a philosophy, anything you say is an intolerable statement because of who might get offended by it. This is antithetical to free speech as prior restraint. I don't know why anyone would subscribe to such a viewpoint. Every philosophy has boons and banes, but that doesn't mean the philosophy is absolute nor moral.
"This is antithetical to free speech as prior restraint"
No, it isn't. Free Speech doesn't mean you get to ignore context, and it doesn't mean you don't face consequences for your speech.
That isn't what OP said though. I believe they were commenting that all words are not the same to every group of people and cultural and historical context matters.
Similarly, Trump is mocked as an orangutan. Is that racist against his European heritage (red/orange hair of Irish/Scottish/German)?
The next step is simply to point at the myriad of other times anyone called someone a rat on Twitter and Twitter is left to defend a position of shutting people down over what they were thinking when they wrote something.
They should have used one of the many better reasons they had for this this case.
It's pretty clear that the difference is context, but I also don't think there can be clear guidelines if Twitter is expected to delve into the context for each tweet its users make.
In fairness, context typically doesn't provide smoking guns as pungent as this one. I'd still say it's not beyond reasonable doubt (and I'd guess most would be ok with that for a Twitter ban -- it's not prison or death).
So, sure, everyone should call it a dog whistle on the preponderance of evidence, but there were almost certainly better grounds for the ban. I doubt there will ever be a good ban target whose only giveaway is dog whistles.
Yeah, that’s the complex part of all of this. As you said context is king here, and Jones is very well known for making implicit or explicit derogatory remarks about Jewish people. There really isn’t room for him to claim “I didn’t know that“.
> there were almost certainly better grounds for the ban
I think you’re right that this was sort of a cherry pick.
He’s done way more than enough stuff in the past to earn him a ban but they never acted on it.
After the hearing and his behavior immediately after I’m guessing they were tired of defending him and having to answer these questions AGAIN.
But it would seem especially strange/capricious just say “that thing you did three months ago that we gave you a pass on? Now you’re out.“
So I think they just chose the latest thing as their “instigating” incident and said that plus the totality of his previous behavior meant a total ban.
Even though the most recent thing is not as bad (relative to his previous ‘highs’).
Did you listen to the hearing?
Jack was being questioned for unfairly silencing conservatives.
And then after the hearing: Jones went up to a reporter from CNN, screamed in his face, made anti-Semitic remarks about him, AND POSTED IT TO TWITTER.
They was supposed to continue to let the TOS violations go? He probably chose the worst possible time/place to misbehave.
The only thing that would make any sense is that he PURPOSEFULLY did this to get kicked off as “proof” he’s being censored. I’m sure that’s the narrative he’s pushing.
Did he know the end was coming anyway and decided to make the best of it? Did he think they were “losing“ the hearing and he needed to provide “proof”?
Or is he just that incapable of controlling himself/behaving?
Doesn’t matter. He explicitly chose to shoot himself in the foot. I don’t see how Twitter had a choice.
“Do we want all the Democrats mad at us over Jones plus all the Republicans over ‘censorship’... or do we want to enforce our TOS, say he didn’t give us a choice, and be no worse off than yesterday (slightly better with Ds)?“
And then they go and silence Alex Jones the very next day...
> Jones went up to a reporter from CNN, screamed in his face, made anti-Semitic remarks about him, AND POSTED IT TO TWITTER.
He confronted one of the key people responsible for deplatforming him.
He wasn’t screaming and he didn’t make anti-Semitic remarks.
He did get in the guys face and was making a lot of offensive comments.
> The only thing that would make any sense is that he PURPOSEFULLY did this to get kicked off as “proof” he’s being censored
Of course he did.
Now all conservatives have to do is document all the offensive left-leaning tweets over the next few weeks and Congress will drag Jack right back to explain his clear bias against conservatives.
Or alternatively Twitter will be forced to start applying its rules equally to the left (fat chance). I’ve reported 3 significantly more offensive tweets already today.
If Jones did nothing then smaller less popular conservative voices would continue to be unfairly silenced and in the long term he would surely be banned as well.
If this kind of behavior is against the platform rules, should the rules only apply if someone can prove that the person didn’t make a mistake in who they were targeting?
In fact I suspect you have it backward. Jones will be intimately aware of (some of) the far left and (some of) far right anti-semite culture - it takes some character to see the big picture and in my personal exhaustive experience with that world most people exposed to those cultures would become anti-semites fast.
Jone's nemesis is altogether more abstract - he sees himself as crusader against a modern meme similar to communism or fascism.
I think it's possible many people don't have much experience with anti-semitism so it seems unrelated (as for me) but given Jones' track record and other clips I've seen of him, it's pretty clear he plays with anti-semitism.
Alex Jones is influential enough that he could, to use the parlance 'name the jew' and most of his followers would follow along with it or he would get new ones. If you think that he would find himself marginalized you are absolutely wrong - that would only occur at one level of society and the polite part isn't close to being meaningful - there is a huge market for this.
Throwing all people you find objectionable into one bucket is an error.
He is quite correct in the assessment that he's being persecuted on ideological grounds, unless he says "by the government". Why would you deny that ?
And let's face facts here. If you held an alt-right viewpoint in San Francisco ... would you tell your employer ? Would you tell your friends ? Would you tell a police agent ? Would you tell city hall ?
Because I'd sure be afraid as hell to tell anyone. Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened. They, of course, will not change their opinion or their vote, and will give more power if this movement does grow to the point they can get enough politicians elected.
The really sad part is that it really looks to me like neither Damore nor Eich had an alt-right worldview when they got screwed, but ... let me ask you ... if they held one now, because of what happened to them, would you find that surprising ? Would you blame them ? I wouldn't.
So let's just say that I REALLY think this is the wrong tactic. Engaging with them is the only way things might happen. That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults. Yep. Absolutely. Censorship, aside from being an act of desperation, mostly strengthens the hand of the people being censored, and convinces new people that what is being censored is true. I mean, just the act of censorship by itself does that. Plus, it won't stop them, Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically.
This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. Or at least, he has a lot more arguments against those.
Let's face facts here. These bans, takedowns, ... they make most of us feel better. They make the situation worse, but they make us feel better. That by itself is dangerous as hell.
I find it incredible how many people are more upset that those two got called out for their crappy views, and don't care at all what the actions of those two meant to the groups they targeted. Suppose you were a gay person working at Mozilla. How would you feel if you found out that your boss thought that you were not deserving of basic human rights?
"Would you blame them ?"
Yes, I absolutely would. Because they're adults, fully capable of taking responsibility for their own actions.
"Engaging with them is the only way things might happen."
No, it isn't. Because they do not engage in good faith. They do not debate in good faith.
"That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults"
The fact that you refer to what they're saying as merely "insults" says a lot. They are questioning the very right of these people to exist. They are questioning the ability of these people to be in public. They are questioning the idea that these people are entitled to basic human dignity. That is not just an insult to be sustained.
"Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically."
Then they don't need the megaphone of Twitter.
"This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. "
This is directly contrary to your previous point, which was that they still have their own websites to get their message out.
> They are questioning the ability of these people to be in public
Can you provide evidence that Damore or Eich were questioning the right of certain groups to exist?
Are you seriously going to claim Damore was saying women don’t have the right to exist?
I am tired of people using 'human rights' as a flag for moral uprightness.
There are good arguments against human rights from all parts of the political spectrum.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-agains...
That's right, an argument against the received wisdom on human rights from the Guardian.
1) a state has the right to deny marriage on any grounds other than religion, race or nationality. So a state has the right to impose conditions on marriage that have to do with gender. Hell, the treaty almost says that a state has to impose some limits (without specifying what those limits are)
Article 16 UDHR (paragraph 3)
2) You DO NOT have the right to treat either adult different because of their political opinion EVEN IF IT DID VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS.
Article 1 and 2 UDHR
So not only did both of these individuals not violate human rights, you did.
I’d say no matter what you think of Jones you should be celebrating this as it means Twitter is holding to their own published policies.
The nonsense of banning people for X, unless they famous, unless they’re the wrong KIND of famous, or are being attacked by someone and asking “Why do they get to say X to me” stuff is a mess.
How can anyone run a platform if the rules are in constant flux on a per day/user/reason/moon phase basis?
Half the problem over the last few years is the quicksand of rules. Punishments applied unevenly start to look an awful lot favoritism even when there isn’t any there.
Have they banned the racist New York Times editor yet?
I’m not sure who you’re talking about or what they did but I’ve always gotten the feeling that Twitter is very careful about messing with people who have any amount of power/fame.
My position? Apply the rules to everyone who violates them no matter what.
Twitter has shown that won’t do that. But I’ll take 40% enforcement over 5% enforcement.
A politically motivated 40% is far worse than a completely open forum.
Now, the crazy annoying right-winger Candance Owens just copied the same tweets and replaced white with black. What followed? Banned.
Twitter does not uphold their now standard independent from political affiliation. They can do that, it's a private company, but they should not LIE about it.
It’s even worse than simply defending her - the NYT admitted they knew about the tweets when they hired her!
So in a competitive market like journalism where dozens of qualified candidates would have applied for the job the NYT deliberately chose the candidate who openly hates white people.
And shortly before hiring her they ran an article stating it was good that Roseanne Barr was driven from the workplace because of a single racist joke she made.
Alex Jones has more integrity than the NYT.
https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong...
The usual differences apply: she was making obvious jokes in the style of right-wing rhetoric (e.g. joking about how white people can’t handle the sun and need to live underground) about a group which has never been seriously threatened rather than repeating slurs which have serious history behind them, there was no sign of capacity or intent to do real harm, etc. Twitter doesn’t do nuance well but it’s about as accurate as thinking Swift made a serious proposal to eat poor children.
So making dozens of anti-white comments over a sustained period of time is just a joke?
Yet Alex Jones calling a specific person a rat without any generalization when that person has been targeting him for harassment and deplatforming is anti-Semitic?
This is why the right and center have a growing distrust for the left.
> making obvious jokes in the style of right-wing rhetoric
Except right wing people don’t talk like that.
Please don’t waste time assuming you’re talking to people who are completely unaware of his history and unable to check Wikipedia. If you want to defend Alex Jones, justify pizzagate, harassing the parents of massacre victims, or calling for armed uprising — i.e. the things which actually got him banned.
I know why you aren’t, of course, because it would make the false equivalence of trying to compare him to Jeong a complete farce, not to mention raising some uncomfortable questions about your shared values. You clearly like to present yourself as speaking for some relatively mainstream group but that’s incompatible with defending extremists like Jones.
> Except right wing people don’t talk like that.
You seriously expect everyone to have forgotten the blood and soil guys? The birthers and other racists — like the figurehead of your party?
So twitter was lying when they said he was banned for his video with the CNN guy?
> false equivalence of trying to compare him to Jeong a complete farce
Exactly - he clearly is not as bigoted, racist, and hateful as Jeong.
A more similar comparison would be Sarah Jeong and Richard Spencer.
> but that’s incompatible with defending extremists like Jones.
Why? I don’t need to agree with everything you say to defend your right to speak.
Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut but he’s also brought up lots of interesting topics worth discussing.
There is no need to spread malicious lies about him like saying he has called for armed uprisings.
> blood and soil guys
Ah yes the fringe fake right who want socialism and open borders but only for whites.
Maybe you should put down the fake news and go out and meet some conservatives. There are millions of us in California.
> The birthers
The birthers belong in the same category as the 9/11 truthers and the current Trump-Russia conspiracy theorists.
You can hardly compare them with hardcore racists like Jeong.
Alex Jones seems seriously unwell. That being said, apart from acting like a complete jackass and harassing that man it was not exactly a racist rant and not 'as bad' as some of his other comments.
Not sure why he got banned specifically for this to be honest.
Edit: not sure how that link got mixed up with another video...
In previous centuries, one could have credibly challenged him to a duel after just a few seconds of this. I wonder if we can find some other similar escape valve in the modern age.
There's no way they can ban him for saying that yet still claim to enforce the rules equally for all political affiliations.
There have been thousands (maybe more) tweets by people with blue verification checkmarks calling Trump an orange oompa loopa and much worse. No one has been banned for that (rightfully so imo).
There's been a ton of pressure on Twitter to ban Jones but using this tweet as an excuse shows they are in no way politically neutral.
This comes one day after Dorsey stood in front of congress and said they don't have a political agenda and previous examples of right wing censorship were "a mistake".
Ironically, one of the only places you can see actual footage of Dorsey saying this is on Infowars:
https://www.infowars.com/watch-rep-markwayne-mullin-reads-sa...
This is not an Infowars endorsement, it's seriously the only place I can find this video aside from Breitbart.
The problem I have is how subjective all of this is, and while they say they are trying to increase transparency I don't see it.
This action suggests they keep tabs on accounts and there's some threshold they can reach over a period of time that will flip a ban on even if the actual action that causes the ban wouldn't be bannable in isolation.
I've not seen this policy discussed around any of their other bans.
The timing is also very suspicious as all the other big social media platforms banned Jones recently. That suggests that there's some level of coordination and/or Twitter is caving to outside pressure and not actually acting on their own internal policy in a consistent manner.
They have rules. Before they were enforced randomly.
Was that fovoritism? Who was at the button for that particular complaint? Who knows!
It doesn’t really matter what their rules or definitions of the terms they use are. Or how subjective people claim they are.
People will choose to use the service or not based on what they see happening.
But for the past few years, it want a question of what the terms meant exactly. People could say things that were blatant violations under the most charitable readings of the rules and nothing would happen.
Or it would.
Or they would show that someone else said thing X the rules forbid and the complainer would get banned and person who actually said it would be fine.
Now we may get some consistency (I’m not holding my breath though). That can only be a good thing.
This looks like just another arbitrary (and possibly politically motivated) ban to me. If they start removing other accounts of their "friends" who engage in behavior such as commenting on other's appearance, then I'd say we're starting to see consistency.
That hasn't happened yet though, and banning Jones for such a mild tweet seems to suggest it's unlikely we'll see the same scrutiny applied to others as many people would get kicked off the platform for this level of vitriol.
No it doesn't. Twitter has a reporting function and whenever content offends a bunch of people then a wave of reports is a predictable outcome. Keeping a record of previous actions on an account is not the same as monitoring it.
They didn't ban him for saying only that. Here's a part of their official statement on the matter.
>Today, we permanently suspended @realalexjones and @infowars from Twitter and Periscope. We took this action based on new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to the accounts’ past violations.
https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1037804427992686593
https://www.c-span.org/video/?450990-1/foreign-influence-soc...
They've got the whole thing.
Comparing facial features, particularly eyes, to those of a rat is a well-known anti-Semitic smear.
Commenting on Trump's horrible spray tan is not the same kind of thing.
> There's been a ton of pressure on Twitter to ban Jones but using this tweet as an excuse shows they are in no way politically neutral.
Well, yeah, targeting racist harassment isn't politically neutral: institutionalized racism is very much a political position.
>Commenting on Trump's horrible spray tan is not the same kind of thing.
Definitely not the same thing, but still potentially in violation of Twitter's rules against harassment.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/abusive-behav...
It's not the government, they absolutely can ban people for anything they want and they don't have to be consistent about it. There's nothing you can do about this it than deleting your account, complaining about them on the internet, and/or acquiring a seat on their board of directors and effecting change from within. I suppose a hostile takeover of the entire company should be mentioned, too.
Furthermore, "neutrality" is a figment of your imagination.
Neutral is what Dorsey claimed in the video I linked to. I'm saying here is direct evidence, the next day, that they are not actually neutral.
It is entirely fair to criticize private parties for censorship even though there may be no legal recourse. It is in turn almost never a good idea to demand the censorship of ideas you don't like.
> This seems to be a common trope lately.
Maybe because those kinds of tweets about Trump aren't anti-Semitic.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/abusive-behav...
(I do checkout a few sites... hence this post.)
Wake up, it's 1984, and everybody is at the party. (left and right, liberals and conservatives..etc...)
It just looks a little different than what you read.
Thankfully, I can think for myself.
Bit bizzare thing to remove him for regardless of the person when you consider how much just total grbage exists on twitter in general.