6 ms·

Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or pers

Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, and that there is nothing of interest or value to learn from his rants. Those who ignore the obvious signs and still choose to listen to it do so for their own, identity-driven or emotional reasons. This is the same process that causes humans to rally behind demagogues of all kinds. When uncensored, Jones' folly is obvious and can be easily evaluated and dismissed. But when it's censored, those inclined toward conspiracy theories will assume that Jones is speaking some kind of truth to power, etc. So Apple's move strengthens Jones in all the worst ways and does a great disservice to American civil society. The only way to prevent dark ages beliefs is to shine light on them.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
eksemplar 8y ago
Maybe, or maybe he’s just making a lot of money selling hatred.
Eric_WVGG 8y ago
> The only way to prevent dark ages beliefs is to shine light on them. This is the sort of principled belief I used to hold that I’m no longer sure holds up to scrutiny. There's always been a fringe that was willing to believe anything. But how do you call something like Infowars “fringe” when it’s on the same “network” as NPR and CNN podcasts? Placement like that legitimizes Infowars. That “light shining” on Infowars was a spotlight. You’re probably right that this will galvanize the true believers, but what was going to turn their beliefs around? The flipside is that this move may cauterize a growing infection.
- nailer 8y ago
  I like CNN a lot more than InfoWars, but there's a few instances - the Trump fish feeding video editing incident, and claiming the Obama admin rep said they didn't seperate children when they just recorded him doing so - where CNN has deliberately and demonstrably lied / misrepresented the truth. Would you support banning them? FB has a strong 'anti fake news' stance. Jones is an asshole, but we should have specific ToS violations, not "we banned you because we've decided glorifying violence is the same as graphic violence now" (which, logically, it is not) and then apply them consistently. We currently have people seeming banning anything they don't like, and allowing ToS violations by people they do like (not just on FB, but also Twitter recently). FB should have said: "we're taking action because we believe your video on this date harassed the Sandy Hook survivors". And they should punish fake news wherever they see it, in the same way Twitter should punish racist trolls.
  - mrguyorama 8y ago
    Trying to put CNN on the same (low) level as InfoWars is disgusting and a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.
    - resters 8y ago
      To avoid a flamewar about the parent of your comment, I think it's appropriate to interpret it as a broad observation about the decline in journalistic standards and the shift in focus of news organizations into content farms for like-minded people.
    - nailer 8y ago
      Good thing I didn't - read the very first sentence of the comment you're replying to. Then read the rest of it, which is about wanting specific consistently enforced ToS violation handling, regardless of where they're needed or the magnitude of the violation, or how much of an asshole they are. Infowars are trash. CNN is trashy, but not as trashy as Infowars. I make that abuntantly clear. I think you're smart enough to know that, so it seems as if you're deliberately misreading the comment in order to either get attention or deflect criticism of ToS violations you support. Which indeed is a disgusting and deliberate misrepresentation of fact. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - mrguyorama 8y ago
        Why does facebook need an excuse to remove something you describe as trash? Spreading trash on their platform reduces its value. Do you claim that spreading CNN on their platform ALSO reduces its value?
        nailer 8y ago
        1. Because having a consistent set of rules ensures everyone follows them. 2. Yes, demonstrably false news reduces the value of Facebook. That anyone would think it doesn't illustrates the need for 1.
- resters 8y ago
  > ... but what was going to turn their beliefs around? Educating people about morally correct beliefs is a separate undertaking that is typically what members of the clergy undertake with worshipers. I don't think there is any need for such a role in secular society. If you disagree, don't just downvote this, explain what level of moral education and policing is appropriate in a free society. > ...this move may cauterize a growing infection. I understand the point you are making, but I would like to add that I think it's a bit dangerous to use nazi-style rhetoric like "infection" or "infestation" to describe people we oppose politically.
  - Eric_WVGG 8y ago
    > explain what level of moral education and policing is appropriate in a free society. The problem, as I currently perceive it, is not how society performs moral education or policing on adults, but rather how we teach critical thinking skills to children. For a related example, there was an excellent article recently where someone visited a “flat earth” convention and interviewed various participants. What he found was that adherents didn’t exactly disbelieve in a globe; they were instead embracing rejection of factual authority. https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-on-a-flat-earth https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-... I don’t see Infowars types as those I “oppose politically.” Their beliefs are not merely “right-wing” — their worldview is simply craziness. If I’m right that this is a problem of rubber-stamping students through graduation who are unable to think coherently, then "moral policing" is a post-facto treatment, and what’s really necessary is prevention. (These ideas are mostly spread through memes, for crying out loud; the term is literally defined as an infection.) (I didn't downvote you, incidentally.)
    - resters 8y ago
      Interesting thoughts. I agree that students should learn critical thinking in school, but I'd argue that Alex Jones has not gained popularity by appealing to untrained minds, but by appealing to human emotional needs. I take solace in the realization that humans are extraordinarily hypocritical. Consider the massive engagement numbers from Youporn in the most religious counties in the US. Belief has virtually nothing to do with action, so there is no reason to be concerned about anyone's beliefs. People act for emotional reasons that are beneath the level of belief. Jones appeals to people for those reasons, and I fear that censoring him only strengthens the emotional meaning of his existence for his followers, and will motivate them to share his messages more actively now that the content isn't as easy to find by accident.
mcphage 8y ago
> Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, and that there is nothing of interest or value to learn from his rants. If that were the case, he wouldn't have the popularity that he has, he would be just another rando ranting on a street corner. But that's not the case—the fact is, there are many people who spend time listening to him, who think that there is something of value to learn from his rants. So just shining a light on him isn't sufficient. Sometimes, when you have an injury, you can just ignore it and let your body heal itself. And sometimes, when you have an injury, you need to be more proactive about recovery.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  About half the population has a below-average IQ. If we use it as a proxy for "intelligence", that leaves Jones with roughly a 100 million potential adult listeners, only in the US. That's enough to make him wildly popular.
  - resters 8y ago
    OK then consider it with 1 standard deviation of average. That was the intended meaning. The big hump of the normal distribution.
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      As Richard Feynman would say, there's plenty room at the bottom.
  - mcphage 8y ago
    I have absolutely no data to back this up, but I'd be surprised if Alex Jones's listeners are especially unintelligent to a statistically significant degree.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
amerkhalid 8y ago
No, you don’t always need to shine light on all nastiness on the web to fight it. Do you remember YouTube’s comment section or any other forum without decent moderators? I remember YouTube comments being highly nasty. Many people had installed browser plugins solely to hide YouTube comments. Google finally started to remove nasty comments. And now I rarely ever see horrible comments. In fact, you can actually get useful info from some comments and threads. And this is not a free speech issue but a hate issue. Almost all platform forbid hate and violent content. I don’t understand why so many people are equating this with freedom of speech instead of TOS violation.
- resters 8y ago
  What if someone argued that killing food animals is murder and must be due to hate, and wanted a youtube channel about grilling meats to be taken down due to a TOS violation. The problem with the whole idea of hate speech (which I think is a foolish idea) is that it classifies certain ideas as abhorrent. Ideas cannot be abhorrent, only actions can be. If ideas were abhorrent, than we would all be guilty just for considering them, even if we decide for now to reject them. Not sure why you would assume that anyone holds non-provisional, permanent beliefs. That's just not how human consciousness works. Actions can be harassing, inappropriate, etc. But someone simply publishing a private channel that others can encounter only through voluntary choices is not harassing. Content platforms have the perverse incentive of appealing to society's moral leaders (these days usually politicians). We should resist the idea of legitimizing platform level censorship of content, and instead insist upon the higher standard of enforcing conduct guidelines. If a user harasses other users, that's a problem. If a user self-publishes opinions that are simply expressed as opinions, we should not view that as a problem unless the world we idealize is one in which views not held by moral leaders are always considered abhorrent.
jhayward 8y ago
This comment makes several errors, the most severe of which is the category error of thinking Alex Jones, et. al. are about discussion and dialogue. He is not. He and his ilk are about weaponizing the norms of society to destroy society. They are at war, not having a discussion. It is a fatal error to misunderstand this as a norms vs views issue. It is not. It is war.
- resters 8y ago
  > It is war. This brings to mind the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. Typically war is used when we are meant to take sides in support of drastic action without too much thought getting in the way. > He and his ilk are about weaponizing the norms of society to destroy society. I'm honestly not sure from this comment if you are deliberately trolling/baiting or if you just feel a tremendous amount of righteous indignation and emotion about Alex Jones. In my view, if we start to assume that all content on the internet has somehow been vetted by responsible elders who know what's best for us, we lose the (essential) ability to filter out the garbage for ourselves. In today's world, people seem to flock toward authority figures of all kinds and wish to wield authority against others (by suppressing their speech, etc.). So your comment strikes me as an appeal to authoritarianism and a call to authoritarian action to crack down on morally objectionable content. Some people think that a picture of two men holding hands is morally objectionable content, and they seek authority to make their view dominate the public discourse. How is your goal different from theirs other than in the small detail of which content is objectionable?
  - jhayward 8y ago
    > This brings to mind the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. Typically war is used when we are meant to take sides in support of drastic action without too much thought getting in the way. No, it isn't meant to dull anyone's thinking or whatever you are implying. It's quite straightforward. Recognize when war is being waged upon you, and act accordingly. Thus the category error attributed to your earlier comment. > I'm honestly not sure from this comment if you are deliberately trolling/baiting No, I'm being quite literal. You don't need to do any interpretation, or look for some deep motivation. Recognize when war is being waged. Simple. > Some people think that a picture of two men holding hands is morally objectionable content, and they seek authority to make their view dominate the public discourse. How is your goal different from theirs other than in the small detail of which content is objectionable? The fact that you draw an equivalence between a picture of men holding hands and Alex Jone's incitement says that you aren't really engaged in any meaningful discussion. This isn't a classroom, you aren't Plato or Socrates. You aren't interested in debate, you're just trolling.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

eksemplar 8y ago

Maybe, or maybe he’s just making a lot of money selling hatred.

Eric_WVGG 8y ago

> The only way to prevent dark ages beliefs is to shine light on them. This is the sort of principled belief I used to hold that I’m no longer sure holds up to scrutiny. There's always been a fringe that was willing to believe anything. But how do you call something like Infowars “fringe” when it’s on the same “network” as NPR and CNN podcasts? Placement like that legitimizes Infowars. That “light shining” on Infowars was a spotlight. You’re probably right that this will galvanize the true believers, but what was going to turn their beliefs around? The flipside is that this move may cauterize a growing infection.

nailer 8y ago
I like CNN a lot more than InfoWars, but there's a few instances - the Trump fish feeding video editing incident, and claiming the Obama admin rep said they didn't seperate children when they just recorded him doing so - where CNN has deliberately and demonstrably lied / misrepresented the truth. Would you support banning them? FB has a strong 'anti fake news' stance. Jones is an asshole, but we should have specific ToS violations, not "we banned you because we've decided glorifying violence is the same as graphic violence now" (which, logically, it is not) and then apply them consistently. We currently have people seeming banning anything they don't like, and allowing ToS violations by people they do like (not just on FB, but also Twitter recently). FB should have said: "we're taking action because we believe your video on this date harassed the Sandy Hook survivors". And they should punish fake news wherever they see it, in the same way Twitter should punish racist trolls.
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  Trying to put CNN on the same (low) level as InfoWars is disgusting and a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.
  - resters 8y ago
    To avoid a flamewar about the parent of your comment, I think it's appropriate to interpret it as a broad observation about the decline in journalistic standards and the shift in focus of news organizations into content farms for like-minded people.
  - nailer 8y ago
    Good thing I didn't - read the very first sentence of the comment you're replying to. Then read the rest of it, which is about wanting specific consistently enforced ToS violation handling, regardless of where they're needed or the magnitude of the violation, or how much of an asshole they are. Infowars are trash. CNN is trashy, but not as trashy as Infowars. I make that abuntantly clear. I think you're smart enough to know that, so it seems as if you're deliberately misreading the comment in order to either get attention or deflect criticism of ToS violations you support. Which indeed is a disgusting and deliberate misrepresentation of fact. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mrguyorama 8y ago
      Why does facebook need an excuse to remove something you describe as trash? Spreading trash on their platform reduces its value. Do you claim that spreading CNN on their platform ALSO reduces its value?
      - nailer 8y ago
        1. Because having a consistent set of rules ensures everyone follows them. 2. Yes, demonstrably false news reduces the value of Facebook. That anyone would think it doesn't illustrates the need for 1.
resters 8y ago
> ... but what was going to turn their beliefs around? Educating people about morally correct beliefs is a separate undertaking that is typically what members of the clergy undertake with worshipers. I don't think there is any need for such a role in secular society. If you disagree, don't just downvote this, explain what level of moral education and policing is appropriate in a free society. > ...this move may cauterize a growing infection. I understand the point you are making, but I would like to add that I think it's a bit dangerous to use nazi-style rhetoric like "infection" or "infestation" to describe people we oppose politically.
- Eric_WVGG 8y ago
  > explain what level of moral education and policing is appropriate in a free society. The problem, as I currently perceive it, is not how society performs moral education or policing on adults, but rather how we teach critical thinking skills to children. For a related example, there was an excellent article recently where someone visited a “flat earth” convention and interviewed various participants. What he found was that adherents didn’t exactly disbelieve in a globe; they were instead embracing rejection of factual authority. https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-on-a-flat-earth https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-... I don’t see Infowars types as those I “oppose politically.” Their beliefs are not merely “right-wing” — their worldview is simply craziness. If I’m right that this is a problem of rubber-stamping students through graduation who are unable to think coherently, then "moral policing" is a post-facto treatment, and what’s really necessary is prevention. (These ideas are mostly spread through memes, for crying out loud; the term is literally defined as an infection.) (I didn't downvote you, incidentally.)
  - resters 8y ago
    Interesting thoughts. I agree that students should learn critical thinking in school, but I'd argue that Alex Jones has not gained popularity by appealing to untrained minds, but by appealing to human emotional needs. I take solace in the realization that humans are extraordinarily hypocritical. Consider the massive engagement numbers from Youporn in the most religious counties in the US. Belief has virtually nothing to do with action, so there is no reason to be concerned about anyone's beliefs. People act for emotional reasons that are beneath the level of belief. Jones appeals to people for those reasons, and I fear that censoring him only strengthens the emotional meaning of his existence for his followers, and will motivate them to share his messages more actively now that the content isn't as easy to find by accident.

mcphage 8y ago

> Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, and that there is nothing of interest or value to learn from his rants. If that were the case, he wouldn't have the popularity that he has, he would be just another rando ranting on a street corner. But that's not the case—the fact is, there are many people who spend time listening to him, who think that there is something of value to learn from his rants. So just shining a light on him isn't sufficient. Sometimes, when you have an injury, you can just ignore it and let your body heal itself. And sometimes, when you have an injury, you need to be more proactive about recovery.

rbanffy 8y ago
About half the population has a below-average IQ. If we use it as a proxy for "intelligence", that leaves Jones with roughly a 100 million potential adult listeners, only in the US. That's enough to make him wildly popular.
- resters 8y ago
  OK then consider it with 1 standard deviation of average. That was the intended meaning. The big hump of the normal distribution.
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    As Richard Feynman would say, there's plenty room at the bottom.
- mcphage 8y ago
  I have absolutely no data to back this up, but I'd be surprised if Alex Jones's listeners are especially unintelligent to a statistically significant degree.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

amerkhalid 8y ago

No, you don’t always need to shine light on all nastiness on the web to fight it. Do you remember YouTube’s comment section or any other forum without decent moderators? I remember YouTube comments being highly nasty. Many people had installed browser plugins solely to hide YouTube comments. Google finally started to remove nasty comments. And now I rarely ever see horrible comments. In fact, you can actually get useful info from some comments and threads. And this is not a free speech issue but a hate issue. Almost all platform forbid hate and violent content. I don’t understand why so many people are equating this with freedom of speech instead of TOS violation.

resters 8y ago
What if someone argued that killing food animals is murder and must be due to hate, and wanted a youtube channel about grilling meats to be taken down due to a TOS violation. The problem with the whole idea of hate speech (which I think is a foolish idea) is that it classifies certain ideas as abhorrent. Ideas cannot be abhorrent, only actions can be. If ideas were abhorrent, than we would all be guilty just for considering them, even if we decide for now to reject them. Not sure why you would assume that anyone holds non-provisional, permanent beliefs. That's just not how human consciousness works. Actions can be harassing, inappropriate, etc. But someone simply publishing a private channel that others can encounter only through voluntary choices is not harassing. Content platforms have the perverse incentive of appealing to society's moral leaders (these days usually politicians). We should resist the idea of legitimizing platform level censorship of content, and instead insist upon the higher standard of enforcing conduct guidelines. If a user harasses other users, that's a problem. If a user self-publishes opinions that are simply expressed as opinions, we should not view that as a problem unless the world we idealize is one in which views not held by moral leaders are always considered abhorrent.

jhayward 8y ago

This comment makes several errors, the most severe of which is the category error of thinking Alex Jones, et. al. are about discussion and dialogue. He is not. He and his ilk are about weaponizing the norms of society to destroy society. They are at war, not having a discussion. It is a fatal error to misunderstand this as a norms vs views issue. It is not. It is war.

resters 8y ago
> It is war. This brings to mind the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. Typically war is used when we are meant to take sides in support of drastic action without too much thought getting in the way. > He and his ilk are about weaponizing the norms of society to destroy society. I'm honestly not sure from this comment if you are deliberately trolling/baiting or if you just feel a tremendous amount of righteous indignation and emotion about Alex Jones. In my view, if we start to assume that all content on the internet has somehow been vetted by responsible elders who know what's best for us, we lose the (essential) ability to filter out the garbage for ourselves. In today's world, people seem to flock toward authority figures of all kinds and wish to wield authority against others (by suppressing their speech, etc.). So your comment strikes me as an appeal to authoritarianism and a call to authoritarian action to crack down on morally objectionable content. Some people think that a picture of two men holding hands is morally objectionable content, and they seek authority to make their view dominate the public discourse. How is your goal different from theirs other than in the small detail of which content is objectionable?
- jhayward 8y ago
  > This brings to mind the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. Typically war is used when we are meant to take sides in support of drastic action without too much thought getting in the way. No, it isn't meant to dull anyone's thinking or whatever you are implying. It's quite straightforward. Recognize when war is being waged upon you, and act accordingly. Thus the category error attributed to your earlier comment. > I'm honestly not sure from this comment if you are deliberately trolling/baiting No, I'm being quite literal. You don't need to do any interpretation, or look for some deep motivation. Recognize when war is being waged. Simple. > Some people think that a picture of two men holding hands is morally objectionable content, and they seek authority to make their view dominate the public discourse. How is your goal different from theirs other than in the small detail of which content is objectionable? The fact that you draw an equivalence between a picture of men holding hands and Alex Jone's incitement says that you aren't really engaged in any meaningful discussion. This isn't a classroom, you aren't Plato or Socrates. You aren't interested in debate, you're just trolling.