9 ms·

YouTube, Apple and Facebook Ban InfoWars, Which Decries 'Mega Purge'

54 points by parvenu74 8y ago

joering2 8y ago
It takes time to get on top social network radar, but its impossible to get on three at the same time, without some sort of coordinated effort. In other words - it obvious that getting banned by FB, YT and Apple altogether within 24 hours IS coordinated; the only question: what massages are there networks trying to send ? PS. I am not fan of Jones show, just like I am not fan of KKK that still existing in USA; but I do remember what Niemöller wrote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I don't think that quote applies to the people Jones represents. The quote is about quite literally the very same people Jones' supporters are pursuing. "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and Soil" are literally Nazi slogans. I don't think Niemöller was worried about the persecution of Nazis...
  - tudelo 8y ago
    " According to Marcuse, "Niemöller's original argument was premised on naming groups he and his audience would instinctively not care about... "
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Those groups also have to be innocent. Imagine how that refrain would sound if instead it was “first they came for the rapists....”
      - fwn 8y ago
        A political believe, even if violent in nature, is not the same as committing rape. It's not comparable since the one describes something you believe and the other something you have done. Rape comparisons should not be used as discussion jokers to win an argument.
        mikeash 8y ago
        I’m talking about actions, not beliefs. Believe that Sandy Hook was a hoax all you want, I don’t care. But when you cross the line into harassing and threatening the parents of the victims, it’s no longer a mere political belief.
    - 52-6F-62 8y ago
      In the context of the time, certainly. I'm not sure what your point is.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      Niemöller's quote is about indifference.
- themagician 8y ago
  You could re-write that quote to apply in this situation: First they came for the trolls, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a troll. Then they came for the shitposts, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a shitposter. Then they came for the memes, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Memer. Then they came for me—but there was no one left to like my posts.
wendy0x2 8y ago
Do we really want our tech companies to censor opposing viewpoints?
buboard 8y ago
Sounds great. It delegitimizes all 3 of them in the eyes of a lot of people. ( I've only seen occasional clips from his videos, but he seems like your typical half crazed conspiracist, not an ISIS-level propagandist deserving damnatio memoriae)
- oxide 8y ago
  I doubt they are concerned.
- danesparza 8y ago
  Apparently YouTube, Apple, and Facebook are all OK with that. Now what?
  - buboard 8y ago
    Now nothing. But it's good that people trust them a little less. Too much centralization is never a good thing.
    - simlevesque 8y ago
      I trust them more after that move.
      - buboard 8y ago
        hope that ends well for you
- cmurf 8y ago
  A typical conspiracy is that aliens are visiting earth and the government has known about this and is engaged in a 5 decade long coverup. And another typical conspiracy is the earth is flat and NASA is in on the coverup so nothing they say or their contractors say can be trusted, nor any of the tens of thousands of aerospace engineers hired by various governments and telecom businesses. Info Wars is not at all typical. Last week's delusional paranoid conspiracy from Info Wars was that Obama has been banging 10 dudes a day at taxpayer expense. Typical conspiracies for Info Wars and the POTUS, perhaps. But not typical among all conspiracists. These are well beyond fully crazy. More interesting to me is the number of people who believe this stuff and apologize for it. Fox News has multi-million dollar salaried entertainers who defend Alex Jones.
vonzeppelin 8y ago
Why all of a sudden?
- minimaxir 8y ago
  The impetus was Spotify adding Alex Jones's podcasts, which led to questions about Alex Jones's iTunes podcasts, and things snowballed from there.
- sp332 8y ago
  It's not that sudden. They already warned the pages that they were in violation of policy, and suspended Jones himself for 30 days as of two weeks ago. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/alex-jones-slammed-with-30-day-ban-from-facebook-for-hateful-videos/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/alex-jones-slammed-w...
tootie 8y ago
I know some people chafe at the thought of tech companies self-censoring their platforms but they should be allowed to prevent their platform from becoming a place decent people don't want to be. Jones isn't just an opposing viewpoint, he's a hateful lunatic. And no, that's not a slippery slope.
- Sniffnoy 8y ago
  > And no, that's not a slippery slope. I can't say I have any problem with this particular move, but man, you can't just assert that as if that's an obvious fact.
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    I’m not sure where exactly this particular Schelling fence stands, but it’s safe to say Alex Jones is on the other side of it.
  - zellyn 8y ago
    I thought they asserted it as if it were an obvious opinion. I guess you're asserting that they didn't…
  - themagician 8y ago
    He's right though, it is fact.
  - tootie 8y ago
    Alex Jones spreads absolute hateful nonsense with no journalistic value whatsoever. There isn't a clear border between a dissenting opinion and raving lunatic but there is a border and he is very far across it. Take the US criminal standard of evidence: beyond a reasonable doubt. He is a lying lunatic beyond a reasonable doubt.
    - buboard 8y ago
      Still , thats not a valid argument, it's complete red herring ['not a slippery slope' vs 'alex jones is bad' :L unrelated - i kinda lose faith when i see lack of basic logic here]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
parvenu74 8y ago
Don't get me wrong: Alex Jones is the snake-oil-selling, kayfabing carnival barker of the internet. My concern is what appears to be a coordinated take-down of his channels on the dominant social media/communications platforms with very few precise details explaining why. My biggest concern is that this crackdown on a crackpot will set off one of his high-functioning, mentally ill fans to pull a Timothy McVeigh type of vigilante response on one of the companies who have canned him in the last 24 hours. Is my concern unwarranted? EDIT: I presume the down-votes on this comment are because I referred to some of Alex Jones' fans as mentally ill. I don't say this lightly: I know a handful of people who are legitimately mentally ill who think Alex Jones is the lone truth-teller in the media. You should be very scared of what these people might do if they think their hero is being martyred.
- FLUX-YOU 8y ago
  >My concern is what appears to be a coordinated take-down of his channels on the dominant social media/communications platforms with very few precise details explaining why. Alex Jones could easily show the emails from these companies where he was warned multiple times.
- burnallofit 8y ago
  This is not a reason to not ban IW. If anything, it's a reason to ban it sooner.
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  Who cares about downvotes? >My biggest concern is that this crackdown on a crackpot will set off one of his high-functioning, mentally ill fans to pull a Timothy McVeigh type of vigilante response on one of the companies who have canned him in the last 24 hours. Is my concern unwarranted? It's not unwarranted. But nor should our society walk on eggshells for fear of upsetting these people. It would give a lot of power to a very extreme minority... and probably not a minority that can be expected to be responsible with any power...
aerodog 8y ago
What's interesting in all this coverage is how the actual content said wasn't so much as alluded to beyond "hate speech". Who was he hating on and how? Can we discuss hate without being hateful?
- lovehashbrowns 8y ago
  Not sure if you're serious--he hates on anybody that is considered "liberal" or "left" by his side. Hillary Clinton (especially), George Soros, the "Deep State," bankers, reptilians, "SJW's," Democrats, and so on. It's literal fear mongering.
  - a2tech 8y ago
    My brother is having a fit because he likes listening to Jones for 'conspiracy entertainment'. He's really upset that these companies are 'bullying' Jones.
  - tudelo 8y ago
    Wait, afaik Alex Jones would call himself a hardcore libertarian. Seems people think he is a right wing guy but I don't see that.
    - lovehashbrowns 8y ago
      That's probably what he identifies as, yeah. I'm not interested in the semantics of what he thinks he is or whatever. I'm just going by what he has ranted about on his show. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07/03/a-short-history-of-alex-jones-claiming-that-the-left-is-about-to-start-a-second-civil-war/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.972e37650b30 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07... And also by who views his show/content--e.g. the president, the right-wing, etc.
  - ngold 8y ago
    Which is hilarious considering he was a liberal screaming at the right only a decade ago. Hell he's even in Philip k dicks a scanner darkly screaming liberal values on a street corner.
pandasun 8y ago
Not an Infowars fan, but I see "hate speech" being used as a reason to ban alternative views a lot lately. Let's say he was indeed engaging in hate speech (I haven't verified this): hate speech is still speech, no? Edit: thanks for the downvotes, can we not have a discussion about this? Should we ban hateful books too? I happen to have learned a lot from historically hateful books.
- ianleeclark 8y ago
  There's no reason to pander to anti-semites like Jones and his ilk.
  - HyperTalk2 8y ago
    He's only ever married Jews... all of his children are Jews.
- jedberg 8y ago
  The best analogy I've seen is this: You have the right to say what you want, but I don't have to invite you into my living room to say it. These aren't public spaces -- they are private spaces that are available to the public.
  - aylmao 8y ago
    I think the ban is legal, yes, and in this case I also think it's correct. But correct on what terms? I'm not really sure where I draw the line between "hate speech" and not.
    - sgarman 8y ago
      The good news then is that you don't have to, each service has done so for you in the TOS that users sign.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech anywhere you'd like, nor is it freedom from consequences of speech. The notion that a private company has some obligation to uphold First Amendment rights at its own expense is ridiculous.
virtuexru 8y ago
The big three tech companies need to be broken up. Too much power in the hands of a few. Don't like what your opponents are saying? Label them "hate speech", close down their networks & move on. You can't be heard if you don't have a voice. They (the big three) should not be allowed to own our internet interactions anymore than the phone company could listen to and profit from our conversations or regulate what we talk about.
- Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
  > Don't like what your opponents are saying? Label them "hate speech" If you think people just simply didn't like what InfoWars would spew, you have another thing coming. Read up on Pizzagate. Someone went into a pizza parlor with a gun to investigate Alex Jones's claims that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex trafficking ring in the basement. Innocent lives could have been lost for bullshit InfoWars was spouting. This goes well beyond "I just don't like you." InfoWars is outright dangerous and is poisoning the minds of Americans. > They (the big three) should not be allowed to own our internet interactions They don't. You're still free to use other messaging platforms, or even make your own! The startup costs for creating a web site/app are astronomically low.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    You do realize that garbage spewed by the New York Times has caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives to be lost, right?
    - Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
      Do you have a concrete example of this?
      - mindslight 8y ago
        I guess it's considered history now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War
themagician 8y ago
Good. They should ban more people. They should ban whoever they feel like banning, for whatever reason or give no reason at all. They already ban you instantly if you show a nipple. We should stop pretending like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter et al. are some kind of public good or utility. They are private message boards. Message boards which already decide what you see by showing you an endless stream of content designed to optimize ad revenue.
- HyperTalk2 8y ago
  We should stop pretending they shouldn't be regulated like some kind of public good or utility.
  - nerfhammer 8y ago
    Donald Trump should not be allowed to regulate speech platforms of any kind.
  - themagician 8y ago
    They definitely shouldn't be. But if you really want to promote free speech on the Internet then you should support Net Neutrality and go a step further and support the re-nationalization of telecom as a public utility so that it gets first amendment protection.
- oh-kumudo 8y ago
  I didn't see how you see banning InfoWars is, for no reason. There is apparently a very grounded reason why InfoWars gets banned.
  - themagician 8y ago
    Oh no, I know. But they don't even need to give a reason.
- mikeash 8y ago
  You raise a great point. Everybody is freaking out about this censorship, but these platforms have always been censored. Why is censoring sex perfectly reasonable and nobody cares, but censoring a violent nutcase is suddenly a massive free speech issue?
throwawaymanbot 8y ago
Should be MAGA purge more like.
gnicholas 8y ago
Do the TOS that Jones violated have definitions of "hate speech"? Since there is no legal definition in the US, it would seem necessary for each TOS to create its own. If they have, I'd be curious to know how much they overlap, and how specific/vague they are. EDIT: why the downvotes? I am honestly asking a question about how specific and consistent the definitions are. I didn't realize I would be punished for doing so.
- mikhailt 8y ago
  You don't need such definitions but it would be nice to have them yes. Private entities do not need to have any TOS to justify banning anyone on their services. They can do so without a single reason. There is no expectation to have access to any private service.
  - fwn 8y ago
    > They can do so without a single reason. > There is no expectation to have access to any private service. Does that mean that people just expect to get banned from Facebook without reason? I'm not quite sure I get that.
- FLUX-YOU 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guidelines https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guideli... - Hateful Content http://itunespartner.apple.com/en/podcasts/faq http://itunespartner.apple.com/en/podcasts/faq ("Why was my podcast rejected or removed?") - Content depicting hate themes https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    Very useful, thanks! The TLDR on these hate speech definitions: YouTube: promotes violence against or incites hatred against protected groups Apple: content including hate themes Facebook: violent speech, dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion/segregation of people of protected classes So it seems like YouTube's definition is the narrowest. Facebook's definition is much broader because it includes "statements of inferiority", and Apple's definition is vague.
KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
Today the west learns that speech can be harmful even if not directly violent.
- InclinedPlane 8y ago
  Which is odd, because it's been long ingrained in the law. There are definite limits to speech. Additionally, InfoWars was admitted by Alex Jones to be fictional stories not news, so there isn't exactly a grave danger in banning it specifically.
- Tomte 8y ago
  Many western countries have always known that and incorporated that knowledge into their legal systems[1]. America is pretty alone in the lunacy that is the First Amendment. The worst part is when Americans claim that without all the extreme extent of the First Amendment there cannot be Free Speech. Many free western countries would disagree. Most of them are quite a bit higher in the Press Freedom Index (with press freedom as one part of free speech) than America. [1] the foremost idea other legal systems could borrow from the German constitution is that of "practical concordance", where no basic right is paramount to the others, but the legal system recognizes that there is a natural tension between all those basic rights and the goal should be to interpret them in such a way that a "global maximum" is reached. So no "free speech above all", but let's see where we can keep most of what free speech could maximally mean and still keep most of all the other basic rights.
  - gspetr 8y ago
    It's an appeal to authority. The Press Freedom Index's assessment cannot be taken seriously because it lists UK in the same tier as the US. I'm a citizen of neither so I don't have a horse in this race. The former regularly engages in thought policing the social networks with real prison sentences handed out to such "heinous" criminals like Tommy Robinson.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      Yours is blind patriotism. An index where America isn't on top must be wrong.
chatmasta 8y ago
Does anyone know someone at Google who can help me? I have been extremely offended by hate speech on their platform, written by literally Hitler. When will Google stop supporting Nazis by hosting a copy of Mein Kampf? [0] [0] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kJgpngAACAAJ&dq=Mein+kampf&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit-8e4jdncAhWmKMAKHVzNDA8Q6AEIKTAB https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kJgpngAACAAJ&dq=Mein+kam...
idbehold 8y ago
"Mega Purge!" RealNews tweeted on Monday morning. It's too bad they couldn't get Twitter on board.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" - attributed to Napoleon They just made Alex Jones in a sympathetic character, a martyr for free speech. And now the pressure to regulate social media platforms will increase. Can Alex Jones be banned from using toll roads, if those toll roads are operated by a private company?
- gnicholas 8y ago
  From the article, InfoWars' editor has already tweeted: > Spotify has now completely banned Infowars too. Apple, Facebook, Spotify all within 12 hours of each other. This isn't enforcement of [terms of service], it's coordinated big tech censorship. This is real election meddling. I'd guess this will increase his popularity among his followers, just as the NYT recently reported that "Goop's Haters Made Gwyneth Paltrow's company worth $250 million" [1]. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/magazine/big-business-gwyneth-paltrow-wellness.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/magazine/big-business-gwy...
virtuexru 8y ago
Interesting to note that this was removed off the front page of HN just now.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  It's now showing [dupe]. Perhaps this is in reference to the WSJ article whose title references Apple's removal? It's now on the second page.
barrkel 8y ago
To preserve a tolerant society, you need to be intolerant of intolerance. And yes, that's a paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Germany obviously has had a troubled past in this area. Another concept that may be useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie
- jhayward 8y ago
  > To preserve a tolerant society, you need to be intolerant of intolerance Precisely. This should be the beginning and end of every conversation about policy regarding the weaponized social media of today.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  The paradox of tolerance is based on equivocation between tolerance of speech and tolerance of action. Like most paradoxes, it disappears once you're precise in your wording. Jones, whatever you think of him, is not an existential threat to society, and using the "paradox of tolerance" to censor him is intellectual cowardice. I'm really sick of the so-called paradox of tolerance being used as a justification for arbitrary political censorship.
cubano 8y ago
As someone who believes in using a network of non-correlated news and information sources (much like a smart investment portfolio uses non-correlated investments to maximize risk/reward-based returns) to give me an well-rounded view on daily news events, I think that censorship like this should be examined very closely. I've enjoyed the rants of Alex Jones in the past, just like I've enjoyed Joe Scarborough at MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and even Art Bell, so I find this coordinated attack and take down of one of these outlets to be worrisome. Are we going to accept this current meme that "hate speech" (whatever the hell that is currently defined as) can only come from the Right? If so, I'll pass on that idea...it's totally political in nature if that's the case and the last thing that I believe is helpful to the world is to have one political viewpoint, Right or Left, to totally run the show. I think examples of Mr. Jones's banning "hate-speech" should be required if these companies are going to revoke his 1st Amendment protections and censor him, if nothing else then to warn others where the line is to be drawn.
- themagician 8y ago
  It's not a matter of left or right. If the content is stupid enough moderatos shouldn't hesitate to ban it. It should be completely up to those moderators to determine. The same way it's up to HN mods to determine what posts stay and what posts go. No justification has to be given.
- jhayward 8y ago
  The fact that you enjoy Alex Jones is damning enough to make one disregard any notion that you are actually interested in upholding the social norms of free speech and tolerance.
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    Your engaging in ad hominem runs counter to "upholding the social norms of free speech and tolerance". Try to avoid insulting someone's honesty and character based on their saying that they enjoy rants by people all over the map (some of which, based on the variety, he must disagree with). I have found that I can enjoy speeches by people I disagree with. While most of Alex Jones' rants are fantastical and accusatory not all of them are. Since you do not know which speeches/rants the OP comment found particularly enjoyable, there is not enough information to make a deductive conclusion.
guilhas 8y ago
At least we are not like China, we just censor for the good reasons.
- ryanwatkins_ 8y ago
  The left really are extremely Naive. Let me guess you belong to a heavily blue state. Pure rhetoric and no argument. I wonder why you guys are losing so badly...
se30b 8y ago
Alex Jones got banned for telling the truth.

54 points by parvenu74 8y ago

It takes time to get on top social network radar, but its impossible to get on three at the same time, without some sort of coordinated effort. In other words - it obvious that getting banned by FB, YT and Apple altogether within 24 hours IS coordinated; the only question: what massages are there networks trying to send ? PS. I am not fan of Jones show, just like I am not fan of KKK that still existing in USA; but I do remember what Niemöller wrote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

52-6F-62 8y ago
I don't think that quote applies to the people Jones represents. The quote is about quite literally the very same people Jones' supporters are pursuing. "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and Soil" are literally Nazi slogans. I don't think Niemöller was worried about the persecution of Nazis...
- tudelo 8y ago
  " According to Marcuse, "Niemöller's original argument was premised on naming groups he and his audience would instinctively not care about... "
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Those groups also have to be innocent. Imagine how that refrain would sound if instead it was “first they came for the rapists....”
    - fwn 8y ago
      A political believe, even if violent in nature, is not the same as committing rape. It's not comparable since the one describes something you believe and the other something you have done. Rape comparisons should not be used as discussion jokers to win an argument.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        I’m talking about actions, not beliefs. Believe that Sandy Hook was a hoax all you want, I don’t care. But when you cross the line into harassing and threatening the parents of the victims, it’s no longer a mere political belief.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    In the context of the time, certainly. I'm not sure what your point is.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Niemöller's quote is about indifference.
themagician 8y ago
You could re-write that quote to apply in this situation: First they came for the trolls, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a troll. Then they came for the shitposts, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a shitposter. Then they came for the memes, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Memer. Then they came for me—but there was no one left to like my posts.

wendy0x2 8y ago

Do we really want our tech companies to censor opposing viewpoints?

buboard 8y ago

Sounds great. It delegitimizes all 3 of them in the eyes of a lot of people. ( I've only seen occasional clips from his videos, but he seems like your typical half crazed conspiracist, not an ISIS-level propagandist deserving damnatio memoriae)

oxide 8y ago
I doubt they are concerned.
danesparza 8y ago
Apparently YouTube, Apple, and Facebook are all OK with that. Now what?
- buboard 8y ago
  Now nothing. But it's good that people trust them a little less. Too much centralization is never a good thing.
  - simlevesque 8y ago
    I trust them more after that move.
    - buboard 8y ago
      hope that ends well for you
cmurf 8y ago
A typical conspiracy is that aliens are visiting earth and the government has known about this and is engaged in a 5 decade long coverup. And another typical conspiracy is the earth is flat and NASA is in on the coverup so nothing they say or their contractors say can be trusted, nor any of the tens of thousands of aerospace engineers hired by various governments and telecom businesses. Info Wars is not at all typical. Last week's delusional paranoid conspiracy from Info Wars was that Obama has been banging 10 dudes a day at taxpayer expense. Typical conspiracies for Info Wars and the POTUS, perhaps. But not typical among all conspiracists. These are well beyond fully crazy. More interesting to me is the number of people who believe this stuff and apologize for it. Fox News has multi-million dollar salaried entertainers who defend Alex Jones.

vonzeppelin 8y ago

Why all of a sudden?

minimaxir 8y ago
The impetus was Spotify adding Alex Jones's podcasts, which led to questions about Alex Jones's iTunes podcasts, and things snowballed from there.
sp332 8y ago
It's not that sudden. They already warned the pages that they were in violation of policy, and suspended Jones himself for 30 days as of two weeks ago. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/alex-jones-slammed-with-30-day-ban-from-facebook-for-hateful-videos/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/alex-jones-slammed-w...

tootie 8y ago

I know some people chafe at the thought of tech companies self-censoring their platforms but they should be allowed to prevent their platform from becoming a place decent people don't want to be. Jones isn't just an opposing viewpoint, he's a hateful lunatic. And no, that's not a slippery slope.

Sniffnoy 8y ago
> And no, that's not a slippery slope. I can't say I have any problem with this particular move, but man, you can't just assert that as if that's an obvious fact.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  I’m not sure where exactly this particular Schelling fence stands, but it’s safe to say Alex Jones is on the other side of it.
- zellyn 8y ago
  I thought they asserted it as if it were an obvious opinion. I guess you're asserting that they didn't…
- themagician 8y ago
  He's right though, it is fact.
- tootie 8y ago
  Alex Jones spreads absolute hateful nonsense with no journalistic value whatsoever. There isn't a clear border between a dissenting opinion and raving lunatic but there is a border and he is very far across it. Take the US criminal standard of evidence: beyond a reasonable doubt. He is a lying lunatic beyond a reasonable doubt.
  - buboard 8y ago
    Still , thats not a valid argument, it's complete red herring ['not a slippery slope' vs 'alex jones is bad' :L unrelated - i kinda lose faith when i see lack of basic logic here]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

parvenu74 8y ago

Don't get me wrong: Alex Jones is the snake-oil-selling, kayfabing carnival barker of the internet. My concern is what appears to be a coordinated take-down of his channels on the dominant social media/communications platforms with very few precise details explaining why. My biggest concern is that this crackdown on a crackpot will set off one of his high-functioning, mentally ill fans to pull a Timothy McVeigh type of vigilante response on one of the companies who have canned him in the last 24 hours. Is my concern unwarranted? EDIT: I presume the down-votes on this comment are because I referred to some of Alex Jones' fans as mentally ill. I don't say this lightly: I know a handful of people who are legitimately mentally ill who think Alex Jones is the lone truth-teller in the media. You should be very scared of what these people might do if they think their hero is being martyred.

FLUX-YOU 8y ago
>My concern is what appears to be a coordinated take-down of his channels on the dominant social media/communications platforms with very few precise details explaining why. Alex Jones could easily show the emails from these companies where he was warned multiple times.
burnallofit 8y ago
This is not a reason to not ban IW. If anything, it's a reason to ban it sooner.
Brockenstein 8y ago
Who cares about downvotes? >My biggest concern is that this crackdown on a crackpot will set off one of his high-functioning, mentally ill fans to pull a Timothy McVeigh type of vigilante response on one of the companies who have canned him in the last 24 hours. Is my concern unwarranted? It's not unwarranted. But nor should our society walk on eggshells for fear of upsetting these people. It would give a lot of power to a very extreme minority... and probably not a minority that can be expected to be responsible with any power...

aerodog 8y ago

What's interesting in all this coverage is how the actual content said wasn't so much as alluded to beyond "hate speech". Who was he hating on and how? Can we discuss hate without being hateful?

lovehashbrowns 8y ago
Not sure if you're serious--he hates on anybody that is considered "liberal" or "left" by his side. Hillary Clinton (especially), George Soros, the "Deep State," bankers, reptilians, "SJW's," Democrats, and so on. It's literal fear mongering.
- a2tech 8y ago
  My brother is having a fit because he likes listening to Jones for 'conspiracy entertainment'. He's really upset that these companies are 'bullying' Jones.
- tudelo 8y ago
  Wait, afaik Alex Jones would call himself a hardcore libertarian. Seems people think he is a right wing guy but I don't see that.
  - lovehashbrowns 8y ago
    That's probably what he identifies as, yeah. I'm not interested in the semantics of what he thinks he is or whatever. I'm just going by what he has ranted about on his show. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07/03/a-short-history-of-alex-jones-claiming-that-the-left-is-about-to-start-a-second-civil-war/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.972e37650b30 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07... And also by who views his show/content--e.g. the president, the right-wing, etc.
- ngold 8y ago
  Which is hilarious considering he was a liberal screaming at the right only a decade ago. Hell he's even in Philip k dicks a scanner darkly screaming liberal values on a street corner.

pandasun 8y ago

Not an Infowars fan, but I see "hate speech" being used as a reason to ban alternative views a lot lately. Let's say he was indeed engaging in hate speech (I haven't verified this): hate speech is still speech, no? Edit: thanks for the downvotes, can we not have a discussion about this? Should we ban hateful books too? I happen to have learned a lot from historically hateful books.

ianleeclark 8y ago
There's no reason to pander to anti-semites like Jones and his ilk.
- HyperTalk2 8y ago
  He's only ever married Jews... all of his children are Jews.
jedberg 8y ago
The best analogy I've seen is this: You have the right to say what you want, but I don't have to invite you into my living room to say it. These aren't public spaces -- they are private spaces that are available to the public.
- aylmao 8y ago
  I think the ban is legal, yes, and in this case I also think it's correct. But correct on what terms? I'm not really sure where I draw the line between "hate speech" and not.
  - sgarman 8y ago
    The good news then is that you don't have to, each service has done so for you in the TOS that users sign.
bobthepanda 8y ago
Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech anywhere you'd like, nor is it freedom from consequences of speech. The notion that a private company has some obligation to uphold First Amendment rights at its own expense is ridiculous.

virtuexru 8y ago

The big three tech companies need to be broken up. Too much power in the hands of a few. Don't like what your opponents are saying? Label them "hate speech", close down their networks & move on. You can't be heard if you don't have a voice. They (the big three) should not be allowed to own our internet interactions anymore than the phone company could listen to and profit from our conversations or regulate what we talk about.

Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
> Don't like what your opponents are saying? Label them "hate speech" If you think people just simply didn't like what InfoWars would spew, you have another thing coming. Read up on Pizzagate. Someone went into a pizza parlor with a gun to investigate Alex Jones's claims that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex trafficking ring in the basement. Innocent lives could have been lost for bullshit InfoWars was spouting. This goes well beyond "I just don't like you." InfoWars is outright dangerous and is poisoning the minds of Americans. > They (the big three) should not be allowed to own our internet interactions They don't. You're still free to use other messaging platforms, or even make your own! The startup costs for creating a web site/app are astronomically low.
- mindslight 8y ago
  You do realize that garbage spewed by the New York Times has caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives to be lost, right?
  - Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
    Do you have a concrete example of this?
    - mindslight 8y ago
      I guess it's considered history now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War

themagician 8y ago

Good. They should ban more people. They should ban whoever they feel like banning, for whatever reason or give no reason at all. They already ban you instantly if you show a nipple. We should stop pretending like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter et al. are some kind of public good or utility. They are private message boards. Message boards which already decide what you see by showing you an endless stream of content designed to optimize ad revenue.

HyperTalk2 8y ago
We should stop pretending they shouldn't be regulated like some kind of public good or utility.
- nerfhammer 8y ago
  Donald Trump should not be allowed to regulate speech platforms of any kind.
- themagician 8y ago
  They definitely shouldn't be. But if you really want to promote free speech on the Internet then you should support Net Neutrality and go a step further and support the re-nationalization of telecom as a public utility so that it gets first amendment protection.
oh-kumudo 8y ago
I didn't see how you see banning InfoWars is, for no reason. There is apparently a very grounded reason why InfoWars gets banned.
- themagician 8y ago
  Oh no, I know. But they don't even need to give a reason.
mikeash 8y ago
You raise a great point. Everybody is freaking out about this censorship, but these platforms have always been censored. Why is censoring sex perfectly reasonable and nobody cares, but censoring a violent nutcase is suddenly a massive free speech issue?

throwawaymanbot 8y ago

Should be MAGA purge more like.

gnicholas 8y ago

Do the TOS that Jones violated have definitions of "hate speech"? Since there is no legal definition in the US, it would seem necessary for each TOS to create its own. If they have, I'd be curious to know how much they overlap, and how specific/vague they are. EDIT: why the downvotes? I am honestly asking a question about how specific and consistent the definitions are. I didn't realize I would be punished for doing so.

mikhailt 8y ago
You don't need such definitions but it would be nice to have them yes. Private entities do not need to have any TOS to justify banning anyone on their services. They can do so without a single reason. There is no expectation to have access to any private service.
- fwn 8y ago
  > They can do so without a single reason. > There is no expectation to have access to any private service. Does that mean that people just expect to get banned from Facebook without reason? I'm not quite sure I get that.
FLUX-YOU 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guidelines https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guideli... - Hateful Content http://itunespartner.apple.com/en/podcasts/faq http://itunespartner.apple.com/en/podcasts/faq ("Why was my podcast rejected or removed?") - Content depicting hate themes https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech
- gnicholas 8y ago
  Very useful, thanks! The TLDR on these hate speech definitions: YouTube: promotes violence against or incites hatred against protected groups Apple: content including hate themes Facebook: violent speech, dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion/segregation of people of protected classes So it seems like YouTube's definition is the narrowest. Facebook's definition is much broader because it includes "statements of inferiority", and Apple's definition is vague.

KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago

Today the west learns that speech can be harmful even if not directly violent.

InclinedPlane 8y ago
Which is odd, because it's been long ingrained in the law. There are definite limits to speech. Additionally, InfoWars was admitted by Alex Jones to be fictional stories not news, so there isn't exactly a grave danger in banning it specifically.
Tomte 8y ago
Many western countries have always known that and incorporated that knowledge into their legal systems[1]. America is pretty alone in the lunacy that is the First Amendment. The worst part is when Americans claim that without all the extreme extent of the First Amendment there cannot be Free Speech. Many free western countries would disagree. Most of them are quite a bit higher in the Press Freedom Index (with press freedom as one part of free speech) than America. [1] the foremost idea other legal systems could borrow from the German constitution is that of "practical concordance", where no basic right is paramount to the others, but the legal system recognizes that there is a natural tension between all those basic rights and the goal should be to interpret them in such a way that a "global maximum" is reached. So no "free speech above all", but let's see where we can keep most of what free speech could maximally mean and still keep most of all the other basic rights.
- gspetr 8y ago
  It's an appeal to authority. The Press Freedom Index's assessment cannot be taken seriously because it lists UK in the same tier as the US. I'm a citizen of neither so I don't have a horse in this race. The former regularly engages in thought policing the social networks with real prison sentences handed out to such "heinous" criminals like Tommy Robinson.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Yours is blind patriotism. An index where America isn't on top must be wrong.

chatmasta 8y ago

Does anyone know someone at Google who can help me? I have been extremely offended by hate speech on their platform, written by literally Hitler. When will Google stop supporting Nazis by hosting a copy of Mein Kampf? [0] [0] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kJgpngAACAAJ&dq=Mein+kampf&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit-8e4jdncAhWmKMAKHVzNDA8Q6AEIKTAB https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kJgpngAACAAJ&dq=Mein+kam...

idbehold 8y ago

"Mega Purge!" RealNews tweeted on Monday morning. It's too bad they couldn't get Twitter on board.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" - attributed to Napoleon They just made Alex Jones in a sympathetic character, a martyr for free speech. And now the pressure to regulate social media platforms will increase. Can Alex Jones be banned from using toll roads, if those toll roads are operated by a private company?

gnicholas 8y ago
From the article, InfoWars' editor has already tweeted: > Spotify has now completely banned Infowars too. Apple, Facebook, Spotify all within 12 hours of each other. This isn't enforcement of [terms of service], it's coordinated big tech censorship. This is real election meddling. I'd guess this will increase his popularity among his followers, just as the NYT recently reported that "Goop's Haters Made Gwyneth Paltrow's company worth $250 million" [1]. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/magazine/big-business-gwyneth-paltrow-wellness.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/magazine/big-business-gwy...

virtuexru 8y ago

Interesting to note that this was removed off the front page of HN just now.

gnicholas 8y ago
It's now showing [dupe]. Perhaps this is in reference to the WSJ article whose title references Apple's removal? It's now on the second page.

barrkel 8y ago

To preserve a tolerant society, you need to be intolerant of intolerance. And yes, that's a paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Germany obviously has had a troubled past in this area. Another concept that may be useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie

jhayward 8y ago
> To preserve a tolerant society, you need to be intolerant of intolerance Precisely. This should be the beginning and end of every conversation about policy regarding the weaponized social media of today.
quotemstr 8y ago
The paradox of tolerance is based on equivocation between tolerance of speech and tolerance of action. Like most paradoxes, it disappears once you're precise in your wording. Jones, whatever you think of him, is not an existential threat to society, and using the "paradox of tolerance" to censor him is intellectual cowardice. I'm really sick of the so-called paradox of tolerance being used as a justification for arbitrary political censorship.

cubano 8y ago

As someone who believes in using a network of non-correlated news and information sources (much like a smart investment portfolio uses non-correlated investments to maximize risk/reward-based returns) to give me an well-rounded view on daily news events, I think that censorship like this should be examined very closely. I've enjoyed the rants of Alex Jones in the past, just like I've enjoyed Joe Scarborough at MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and even Art Bell, so I find this coordinated attack and take down of one of these outlets to be worrisome. Are we going to accept this current meme that "hate speech" (whatever the hell that is currently defined as) can only come from the Right? If so, I'll pass on that idea...it's totally political in nature if that's the case and the last thing that I believe is helpful to the world is to have one political viewpoint, Right or Left, to totally run the show. I think examples of Mr. Jones's banning "hate-speech" should be required if these companies are going to revoke his 1st Amendment protections and censor him, if nothing else then to warn others where the line is to be drawn.

themagician 8y ago
It's not a matter of left or right. If the content is stupid enough moderatos shouldn't hesitate to ban it. It should be completely up to those moderators to determine. The same way it's up to HN mods to determine what posts stay and what posts go. No justification has to be given.
jhayward 8y ago
The fact that you enjoy Alex Jones is damning enough to make one disregard any notion that you are actually interested in upholding the social norms of free speech and tolerance.
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Your engaging in ad hominem runs counter to "upholding the social norms of free speech and tolerance". Try to avoid insulting someone's honesty and character based on their saying that they enjoy rants by people all over the map (some of which, based on the variety, he must disagree with). I have found that I can enjoy speeches by people I disagree with. While most of Alex Jones' rants are fantastical and accusatory not all of them are. Since you do not know which speeches/rants the OP comment found particularly enjoyable, there is not enough information to make a deductive conclusion.

guilhas 8y ago

At least we are not like China, we just censor for the good reasons.

ryanwatkins_ 8y ago
The left really are extremely Naive. Let me guess you belong to a heavily blue state. Pure rhetoric and no argument. I wonder why you guys are losing so badly...

se30b 8y ago

Alex Jones got banned for telling the truth.