Twitter needs to be more transparent about this stuff. Especially when banning one of the most influential conspiracy theorist in the world.
Not to mention a vague and/or arbitrary banning policy is always a bad idea.
From an outside observer, there is no way to distinguish between the claim that the ban is for "good reasons", or that the ban is a result of bias on the part of the company.
Perhaps this is fine in situations where the banned entity is a malicious actor, but it presumes a zero false-positive rate. My opinion is, if even one person is wrongly punished without recourse (other than rolling the dice with social media) then the whole system is unjust and should be reworked.
Why do you assume that it is integral to modern open communication? (hint: it's not, for plain reason that twitter does what's best for twitter)
For example, when it comes to publicly-available services such as this, we often hear about people referring to "Twitter's freedom of speech" in terms of censorship of its users, which boggles my mind. Twitter provides a publicly-accessible service that allows users to post short entries, and when they prevent someone else from posting something, it basically amounts to "Twitter's right to free speech is more important than the user's ability to speak" and that seems a bit counter-intuitive.
If Twitter's policies are unjust, then Twitter does not deserve the level of influence that it has. My opinion is that such a service could not have been foreseen by the writers of the Constitution. In their day, the greatest threat to freedom of speech was the government. Remember, they had just fought for their independence from England. I don't think they could have envisioned a world where the greatest threat to free speech would come from the private sector.
And if we're not careful, we're about to be making it worse. As it stands, platform operators are not generally liable for the things they automatically publish on behalf of their users, outside of certain highly egregious things (such as child abuse imagery), and even then only if they don't follow the proper procedure with regards to reporting to law enforcement, etc. If that ever changes, expect freedom of speech to be null and void in context of the Internet.
What transparency would you find acceptable? Do you hold other companies to that level? I dont know the books for my local grocery store, I dont know their justifications or reasonings for what they do or dont stock, when they decide to hire, or what rules they hire for.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic or dismissive - I am far from an "anything goes" libertarian (or a libertarian of any kind) but if rules about rules are arbitrary, then we're just doing what we complain about.
> Ironically, it was the initial CNN story—or rather, Jones' unhinged response to it—that proved his eventual undoing. On Wednesday, just before Dorsey was set to testify at his second congressional hearing of the day, Jones approached Darcy as he waited in line with media colleagues to be let into the hearing room. Jones, flanked by his entourage, cornered Darcy, jabbed a phone in his face, and harassed the reporter for more than 10 minutes about his work, his employer, and his looks, saying he has the "eyes of a rat." The entire ordeal streamed on Periscope, which is owned by Twitter.
https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-bans-alex-jones-infowars...
This is where he compared a journalist eyes to a rats, which I believe is what caused the ban?
Your line of reasoning is no different from blaming video games for mass shootings.
People know video games are fictional, and the worlds they portray aren't real. Alex Jones, meanwhile, doesn't present himself as a fictional character, rather he convinces people that what he says is true, and the world he describes is the real world, so he's more of a charlatan or demagogue. One doesn't have to directly and explicitly call for harassment to be responsible for having inspired it.
Why? Unless being opaque harms their bottom line, I don't see the business case.
> Important to note that tech platforms did not enforce their own rules and take action against Alex Jones / InfoWars on their own accord.
> It took media outlets to point out for weeks that InfoWars was skirting the rules on these tech platforms for them to enforce own standards.
Previous offenses include: "dehumanizing trans people". That looks very bad on paper, so you search for the video, and you see him discussing an over-the-top drag queen reading a book for children in a public library. To me, with the long nails and the thick make-up and the wig, the drag queen really looks demonic/ridiculous/freaky and he remarks on that. You should have the right to call that abnormal and refuse to want to see that normalized.
Look at what happened with Pewdiepie when a media company goes on a crusade with an agenda, it is very similar.
The bottom line for this decision is not harassment or abuse, it is the political preference of Twitter's employees. Maybe it is not a good idea to have a left-leaning workforce police online debate, even if it is their platform. For all the talk about diversity, SF companies sure could do with some more political diversity.
They should have banned Alex Jones from public discourse when he had this crazy conspiracy theory that high-ranking politicians and businessmen workship Moloch and child sacrifice. They should have banned Alex Jones when had the crazy conspiracy theory that chemicals and pesticides in the water change the sex of frogs. They should have banned Alex Jones for saying that Lady Gaga turns satanism into a performance and flirts with illuminati symbology. They should have banned Alex Jones for stating that weather manipulation is still a thing after the Environmental Modification Convention.
It also seems quite arbitrary when there are plenty of very abusive people on the other end of the spectrum.
And in general I see very virulent rants directed against pro-life people, with death threats and the like.