9 ms·

From Wikipedia: "The InfoWars website receives approximately 10 million monthly visits, making it more visited than some mainstream news websites such as The E

From Wikipedia: "The InfoWars website receives approximately 10 million monthly visits, making it more visited than some mainstream news websites such as The Economist and Newsweek." This bothers me. Say what you like about his content, but it is not fringe. He is the preferred "thinker" of a significant fraction of the population. If you think the solution is to deplatform him, you're thinking about the problem wrong. He is an opportunity. By becoming a lightening rod and focal point for a large fraction of a country's misguided thinking, he has made that misguided thinking more fragile. Easier to dislodge. Because now you just need to find a combination of words that helps his followers see him for what he actually is. And if you succeed, everyone who sees will get a lesson in thinking more clearly. They will be more resilient to a future charlatan. So if Alex Jones makes your blood boil, then put that emotion to work. Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. Use whichever tools appeal to you. If youtube wants to help, then youtube algorithms should be tweaked to encourage people to view both sides of the debate.

rurounijones 8y ago
"Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. You use whichever tools appeal to you" You are assuming this would actually have an effect. Given recent history I am pretty sure people would A) Not see your debunking because it isn't in their little echo chamber of targeted fitlered online news and content. B) Wouldn't believe you or critically think about any debunking anyway. There is a reddit bot that tries to post alternative news sources to subreddits for a given story to encourage a balanced news diet which is a laudable step in this direction. https://www.reddit.com/user/alternate-source-bot https://www.reddit.com/user/alternate-source-bot Just have a look at it's log to see which subreddits it is banned from: https://www.reddit.com/r/alt_source_bot_log/ https://www.reddit.com/r/alt_source_bot_log/
- Tomminn 8y ago
  If you can't persuade his base, then I guess you're not the person whose job it is to persuade his base. Be patient. One will come.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - diego_moita 8y ago
    No, it is not that simple. Your argumentation rests on the assumption that people are convinced only through reason. There are several professions and industries that work just by considering that to be naive. Prejudices, herd mentality, fear, anger and a lot more biological drives are the main drivers of most people beliefs. "Reason" is just a make up and varnish they apply to make it less ugly.
  - Tomminn 8y ago
    @diego_moita I never actually said reason was the only tool in your kit. Rhetoric is broader than that.
  - lovehashbrowns 8y ago
    Wait patiently for the "chosen one" to come, while he continues to grow his fanbase, spread misinformation, participates in fear mongering, and is praised by the president of the United States? Yes, sure, great plan. We can also have a grand old time debunking each and every single one of the crackpot theories that come out of the show, which surprisingly nobody has ever tried before!
    - acct1771 8y ago
      No, you're right, inhibit freedom of expression. There's no way that can go wrong after a while.
      - lovehashbrowns 8y ago
        There's no way letting him have access to millions of people via these giant platforms can go wrong either. Gotta preserve that freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas.
      - whymauri 8y ago
        This is just the paradox of tolerance.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
https://datasociety.net/output/oxygen-of-amplification/ https://datasociety.net/output/oxygen-of-amplification/
deusofnull 8y ago
It's nigh impossible to rationally argue an opponent acting in bad faith out of their deeply held conspiratorial thinking.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Especially if they're just in it for the lulz.
  - pashamur 8y ago
    Not just lulz, he actually makes a sizable chunk of money from the things he promotes on the show.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      I was thinking of his supporters.
jimejim 8y ago
You have more faith in human rationality than I do at this point. Making his content harder to get will reduce his legitimacy. Con men and frauds should not be treated with respect or debated. Also, Jones specifically used his platform to abuse people, so this is not just about being full of shit all the time.
- iosDrone 8y ago
  "We only burn the bad books!"
  - vixen99 8y ago
    You sum it all up very nicely!
  - jimejim 8y ago
    You and others didn't read my last sentence and keep hiding behind childish free speech absolutism. Jones specifically used his platform to abuse people. He should have been banned a long time ago. This isn't just about his conspiracy theories.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  >Making his content harder to get will reduce his legitimacy. The hegemony trying to shut up someone's political speech only decreases legitimacy across people that were never going to believe him in the first place. For everyone else, the conspiracy theory that The Powers That Be don't want anyone to hear his message just became conspiracy fact thanks to YouTube, Apple et al.
  - jimejim 8y ago
    Jones is going to whine about being a victim regardless, since that's part of his character. He should be treated the same way nazi websites are and make it harder for him to make a profit off his bullshit. As I said though, he used his platform to abuse people and should have been banned a long time ago, regardless of his lame conspiracy theories.
- 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sidlls 8y ago
> Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas.... Why? He and his followers are "not even wrong". I wouldn't argue with any of them for any longer than I would any (other) anti-science person. It's simply not worth the effort (they aren't in reach of reason) and possibly harmful besides (it validates/confirms for them that their views have credibility enough to merit rebuttal).
sykhic 8y ago
Say what you like about his content, but it is not fringe. This is a man spouting off that there is evidence that Michelle Obama is a man [1]. If that's not a fringe idea I'd like to know what you think one is. To me a fringe idea is one that is so obviously wrong that it is not worth considering its merits. Doubtless there are many fools willing to consider the 'facts' surrounding Michelle Obama's gender but they are wackos. His ideas are not worth debunking. They are prima facie false. Discussing his punditry gives credence to the notion that his ideas are worthy of consideration. They are not. His followers will not see him for what he is. They are clearly impervious to facts and reasoning. Anyone willing to follow the rantings of a man spouting off Alex Jones' nonsense is beyond being able to be reasoned with. [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=alex+jones+says+michelle+obama+is+a+man&bext=msl&ia=videos https://duckduckgo.com/?q=alex+jones+says+michelle+obama+is+...
- joering2 8y ago
  Okay I feed the troll. So how much of the proof we got that Michelle Obama IS actually a women? Her look? Many transgander look much more womanish than she does. Same sex marriage? Could be? Have you seen her birth certificate (original, NOT the copy) that you can genuinely say she is a female? Yes I know she has the kids... okay so let me see their DNA test that actually they belong to Michelle as a parent. Exactly; you have none. I'm doing you a favor here cause this will get downvoted into oblivion, but your approach is PRECISELY what the problem is with the way our society digest news and facts these days. If you think that someone, anyone, is for example a male, just because they have male name, look male and have a male sounding voice, I'm sorry but sometimes is not sufficient as a definite proof! You have to give a better example if that's was your best shot to make Jones looks like a loon.
  - rurounijones 8y ago
    EDIT: dlp211 made the more succint point https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17702276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17702276 --- Donald Trump is a woman. By your definition this statement is not enough to make me a loon. Therefore... ---- > So how much of the proof we got that Donald Trump IS actually a man? His look? Many transgander look much more male than he does. Same sex marriage? Could be? Have you seen his birth certificate (original, NOT the copy) that you can genuinely say he is a male? Yes I know he has the kids... okay so let me see his DNA test that actually they belong to Donald. as a parent. Exactly; you have none. --- Are you suggesting that the above information should be provided to debunk me? (I mean, after all this is the President I am talking about rather than the First lady which means the fact he is secretly a woman is much more important!)
paxy 8y ago
InfoWars gets these 10 million visits because of platforms like YouTube and Facebook, so I don't see any reason why that privilege can't be taken away, especially for clearly flouting rules that other content creators have to follow.
mozumder 8y ago
You're making the mistake of thinking that Alex Jones and his followers are rational and good-faith actors - a pre-requisite for debate. The best thing to do is just silence their voices; no ifs, ands, or buts. Remember, these people are against the idea of democracy.
- whatyoucantsay 8y ago
  > The best thing to do is just silence their voices, no ifs, ands or buts. > Remember, these people are against the idea of democracy. Oh, the irony of following the one sentence with the other.
  - rurounijones 8y ago
    You cherry picked and forgot the first line which puts the rest in context. > You're making the mistake of thinking that Alex Jones and his followers are rational and good-faith actors - a pre-requisite for debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subreddit-banned-holocaust-deniers-and-facebook-should-too.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...
    - whatyoucantsay 8y ago
      > You cherry picked and forgot the first line which puts the rest in context. How uncharitable of you to write that. I didn't "forget" it. It wasn't relevant to my point. The first line was specific to this situation, but the final two I quoted represent a very universal and timeless position. In fact, ancient Athens suffered greatly when "silence the voices of the enemies of democracy" became the dominant position in their society: http://quillette.com/2018/01/25/free-speech-matters/ http://quillette.com/2018/01/25/free-speech-matters/
      - rurounijones 8y ago
        You're "point" was a snarky off the cuff one-liner. Universal and Timeless position is a stretch. It is not black and white, it is grey and the first line in OPs comment put context to that grey. While it would be lovely to have a democracy with an educated rational electorate resilent to hateful demagogues and other threats to the stability of that democracy, we are not there. In that situation you can let it fester or reduce the impact. Yes it can be abused and we have to be careful. But we are in a Paradox of Tolerance situation. Rather than state what has already been said: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17702464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17702464 is a good summary.
tmh79 8y ago
You are examining the world as a "marketplace of ideas", which is a good first order approximation to how the world works, but people like Alex Jones are market failures in the Market of ideas. Supporters of his are not using information to make rationally informed decisions, they are making post-hoc justifications for their pre-determined belief set that broadly includes a lot of hate.
tryitnow 8y ago
I don't think it's about ideas, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The article explicitly says he's banned because of TOS violations. The article is not clear about what those are, but I assume they fall under hate speech and harassment. Specifically, I am guessing this has something to do with Jones taking legal actions against parents whose child was murdered. I don't think this has anything to do with his "ideas" - that is a severe misunderstanding of the facts of the case. There are still plenty of people with horrible ideas on Youtube. This has everything to do with Jones using his media power to attempt to silence, discredit, and harass parents whose children have been murdered. I mean, seriously, you don't get much lower than that.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > The article explicitly says he's banned because of TOS violations. The article is not clear about what those are, but I assume they fall under hate speech and harassment. Not at all a fan of Mr Jones (the little I've seen makes him seem like a garden variety nutcase peddling inane conspiracy theories), but aren't we just a little bit concerned when someone is banned on the same day by all the major internet content shops due to some unspecified "TOS violations"? Did he violate all these various different TOS agreements on the same day? If so, how is it not extremely obvious which term he broke? I think this demonstrates the power of the internet's big content vendors. They can block anyone, at any time, for any reason. They're not accountable nor required to uphold any freedom of speech, yet it's how we all get our information now. There is still freedom of speech in physical public spaces, but a large and increasing share of our lives is spent on the privatized spaces of the internet, where corporations are the absolute arbitrators of our rights to express and consume speech. Jones is not a generally sympathetic figure, and few of us will be genuinely sorry to see him go. But what about the next guy marked for deletion? "First they came for the kooks..."
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Alex Jones has openly advocated for the murder of multiple people, including both our last president and his would-be party successor. He has openly incited violent acts against an innocent business, whilst also slandering their character and reputation, for profit. He has accused parents of murdered children of making it up, for profit. He hasn't just "said things", he's committed acts which have had resulted in significant harm to others. There's a very big difference between a blowhard who just says things and a blowhard who tries to have people killed. I really hope you can see that.
torpfactory 8y ago
I think many people lack the cognitive tools to think critically in general. Alex Jones type characters prey upon peoples’ fears and emotions. Debating his supporters is often nigh impossible - in order to become a supporter you must already lack the abilities that make reasonable debate possible.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  Critical thinking also takes critical facts.
mirimir 8y ago
> So if Alex Jones makes your blood boil, then put that emotion to work. Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. Except that doesn't work with trolls. Many of his followers are just in it for the lulz. Engagement just provides more fodder for trolling. You gotta just ignore trolls. And if you can, deny them a platform.
- vixen99 8y ago
  So presumably, had you sufficient power (in government), this is what you would do. Kind of you to check something out so that I don't have to? Is that the logic?
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I didn't say government. Private media have the freedom to choose their policies. And anyone has the right to self publish, if no private media will have them. Furthermore, I also disagree with existing censorship of "illegal" stuff by governments. Not just social/political dissent in China, or ankle porn in Saudi Arabia. Also censorship by the United States, such as gambling, piracy, mail-order drugs, and so on. However, there is arguably a place for government censorship of criminal activity that demonstrably causes harm. For example, child abuse (but not merely sharing of "child porn") or revenge porn, and so on. But not stuff that's racist, sexist, etc but doesn't directly advocate violence.
iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
Theres lots to unpack here. > He is an opportunity. By becoming a lightening rod and focal point for a large fraction of a country's misguided thinking, he has made that misguided thinking more fragile. Easier to dislodge. Because now you just need to find a combination of words that helps his followers see him for what he actually is. His followers see themselves in him. Attack him and they will feel attacked. Attacked people don’t change their minds, they dig into their beliefs harder. The only way to change peoples minds is to realize that you can’t. You can only make it safe for them to change their own minds. > And if you succeed, everyone who sees will get a lesson in thinking more clearly. They will be more resilient to a future charlatan. Not without first accepting that they themselves were wrong. This is hard. People see them selves as right. To admit they are wrong is to destroy a little part of themselves (ego). > So if Alex Jones makes your blood boil, then put that emotion to work. Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. Use whichever tools appeal to you. If youtube wants to help, then youtube algorithms should be tweaked to encourage people to view both sides of the debate. Rational debate doesn’t change peoples minds unless they identify as rational people. Then being rationally coherent is important, more so than being right, so they can change their minds. Not everyone holds being rationally coherent that close to their identity. People will often just dig in harder to avoid being wrong. For every 100 people you expose him to, some N% find them selves agreeing. The more you talk about him, the more you share and “raise his platform” the more followers you get him. Simple marketing funnels. Persistent societal tolerance requires one thing, vehement intolerance of intolerant people. It’s some prolog level recursive logic.
- thomk 8y ago
  "The only way to change peoples minds is to realize that you can’t. You can only make it safe for them to change their own minds." I'm curious where you heard that, it's an interesting perspective I have not considered before.
  - iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
    Helping my partner through depression. I realized I kept trying to excersize control over their recovery e.g. making them go to the doctor, making them do things. In the process i found that they very much so wanted to be a “well” person and going to the docotor was not something a “well” person does. So instead of pushing then I just focussed on making it safe for them to be unwell. Through holding space, admitting my own vulnerabilities and issues, and by not reacting negatively to their psychosis symptoms. I recognized the similarity with other instances of changing peoples minds. Some people want control, and accepting your ideas reduces their perceived control, so you need to make it safe for them to accept the idea (change their mind) while still feeling in control. Some people see them selves a good people and admitting their actions are biggoted and hurtful doesn’t fit with that so they rationalize the “others” as bad. To change their minds they need a way to feel like good people even though they’ve done biggoted, hurtful things. Some people are scared and they will rationalize that fear in some mannor. To convince them that there is nothing to fear from that which they rationalised means making it safe for them to experience fear without that justification.
jaredklewis 8y ago
> Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. Use whichever tools appeal to you. If youtube wants to help, then youtube algorithms should be tweaked to encourage people to view both sides of the debate. How would you “debunk” Alex Jones? Certainly not with rational arguments, as if his viewers were at all receptive to reason, they wouldn’t be InfoWars viewers. I am not a regular viewer, but I have seen a few episodes and that I saw, Alex Jones makes no use logic, reasoning, verifiable evidence, or journalistic standards. So what’s the plan? Counter Alex Jones with an equally unscrupulous manipulator from “our side?” I think there are valid debates to be had about how much speech should or should not be regulated, even on non-government platforms. But the idea that Alex Jones could be “debunked” seems absurd to me.

rurounijones 8y ago

"Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. You use whichever tools appeal to you" You are assuming this would actually have an effect. Given recent history I am pretty sure people would A) Not see your debunking because it isn't in their little echo chamber of targeted fitlered online news and content. B) Wouldn't believe you or critically think about any debunking anyway. There is a reddit bot that tries to post alternative news sources to subreddits for a given story to encourage a balanced news diet which is a laudable step in this direction. https://www.reddit.com/user/alternate-source-bot https://www.reddit.com/user/alternate-source-bot Just have a look at it's log to see which subreddits it is banned from: https://www.reddit.com/r/alt_source_bot_log/ https://www.reddit.com/r/alt_source_bot_log/

Tomminn 8y ago
If you can't persuade his base, then I guess you're not the person whose job it is to persuade his base. Be patient. One will come.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- diego_moita 8y ago
  No, it is not that simple. Your argumentation rests on the assumption that people are convinced only through reason. There are several professions and industries that work just by considering that to be naive. Prejudices, herd mentality, fear, anger and a lot more biological drives are the main drivers of most people beliefs. "Reason" is just a make up and varnish they apply to make it less ugly.
- Tomminn 8y ago
  @diego_moita I never actually said reason was the only tool in your kit. Rhetoric is broader than that.
- lovehashbrowns 8y ago
  Wait patiently for the "chosen one" to come, while he continues to grow his fanbase, spread misinformation, participates in fear mongering, and is praised by the president of the United States? Yes, sure, great plan. We can also have a grand old time debunking each and every single one of the crackpot theories that come out of the show, which surprisingly nobody has ever tried before!
  - acct1771 8y ago
    No, you're right, inhibit freedom of expression. There's no way that can go wrong after a while.
    - lovehashbrowns 8y ago
      There's no way letting him have access to millions of people via these giant platforms can go wrong either. Gotta preserve that freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas.
    - whymauri 8y ago
      This is just the paradox of tolerance.

InclinedPlane 8y ago

https://datasociety.net/output/oxygen-of-amplification/ https://datasociety.net/output/oxygen-of-amplification/

deusofnull 8y ago

It's nigh impossible to rationally argue an opponent acting in bad faith out of their deeply held conspiratorial thinking.

mirimir 8y ago
Especially if they're just in it for the lulz.
- pashamur 8y ago
  Not just lulz, he actually makes a sizable chunk of money from the things he promotes on the show.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I was thinking of his supporters.

jimejim 8y ago

You have more faith in human rationality than I do at this point. Making his content harder to get will reduce his legitimacy. Con men and frauds should not be treated with respect or debated. Also, Jones specifically used his platform to abuse people, so this is not just about being full of shit all the time.

iosDrone 8y ago
"We only burn the bad books!"
- vixen99 8y ago
  You sum it all up very nicely!
- jimejim 8y ago
  You and others didn't read my last sentence and keep hiding behind childish free speech absolutism. Jones specifically used his platform to abuse people. He should have been banned a long time ago. This isn't just about his conspiracy theories.
forgottenpass 8y ago
>Making his content harder to get will reduce his legitimacy. The hegemony trying to shut up someone's political speech only decreases legitimacy across people that were never going to believe him in the first place. For everyone else, the conspiracy theory that The Powers That Be don't want anyone to hear his message just became conspiracy fact thanks to YouTube, Apple et al.
- jimejim 8y ago
  Jones is going to whine about being a victim regardless, since that's part of his character. He should be treated the same way nazi websites are and make it harder for him to make a profit off his bullshit. As I said though, he used his platform to abuse people and should have been banned a long time ago, regardless of his lame conspiracy theories.
8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sidlls 8y ago

> Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas.... Why? He and his followers are "not even wrong". I wouldn't argue with any of them for any longer than I would any (other) anti-science person. It's simply not worth the effort (they aren't in reach of reason) and possibly harmful besides (it validates/confirms for them that their views have credibility enough to merit rebuttal).

sykhic 8y ago

Say what you like about his content, but it is not fringe. This is a man spouting off that there is evidence that Michelle Obama is a man [1]. If that's not a fringe idea I'd like to know what you think one is. To me a fringe idea is one that is so obviously wrong that it is not worth considering its merits. Doubtless there are many fools willing to consider the 'facts' surrounding Michelle Obama's gender but they are wackos. His ideas are not worth debunking. They are prima facie false. Discussing his punditry gives credence to the notion that his ideas are worthy of consideration. They are not. His followers will not see him for what he is. They are clearly impervious to facts and reasoning. Anyone willing to follow the rantings of a man spouting off Alex Jones' nonsense is beyond being able to be reasoned with. [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=alex+jones+says+michelle+obama+is+a+man&bext=msl&ia=videos https://duckduckgo.com/?q=alex+jones+says+michelle+obama+is+...

joering2 8y ago
Okay I feed the troll. So how much of the proof we got that Michelle Obama IS actually a women? Her look? Many transgander look much more womanish than she does. Same sex marriage? Could be? Have you seen her birth certificate (original, NOT the copy) that you can genuinely say she is a female? Yes I know she has the kids... okay so let me see their DNA test that actually they belong to Michelle as a parent. Exactly; you have none. I'm doing you a favor here cause this will get downvoted into oblivion, but your approach is PRECISELY what the problem is with the way our society digest news and facts these days. If you think that someone, anyone, is for example a male, just because they have male name, look male and have a male sounding voice, I'm sorry but sometimes is not sufficient as a definite proof! You have to give a better example if that's was your best shot to make Jones looks like a loon.
- rurounijones 8y ago
  EDIT: dlp211 made the more succint point https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17702276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17702276 --- Donald Trump is a woman. By your definition this statement is not enough to make me a loon. Therefore... ---- > So how much of the proof we got that Donald Trump IS actually a man? His look? Many transgander look much more male than he does. Same sex marriage? Could be? Have you seen his birth certificate (original, NOT the copy) that you can genuinely say he is a male? Yes I know he has the kids... okay so let me see his DNA test that actually they belong to Donald. as a parent. Exactly; you have none. --- Are you suggesting that the above information should be provided to debunk me? (I mean, after all this is the President I am talking about rather than the First lady which means the fact he is secretly a woman is much more important!)

paxy 8y ago

InfoWars gets these 10 million visits because of platforms like YouTube and Facebook, so I don't see any reason why that privilege can't be taken away, especially for clearly flouting rules that other content creators have to follow.

mozumder 8y ago

You're making the mistake of thinking that Alex Jones and his followers are rational and good-faith actors - a pre-requisite for debate. The best thing to do is just silence their voices; no ifs, ands, or buts. Remember, these people are against the idea of democracy.

whatyoucantsay 8y ago
> The best thing to do is just silence their voices, no ifs, ands or buts. > Remember, these people are against the idea of democracy. Oh, the irony of following the one sentence with the other.
- rurounijones 8y ago
  You cherry picked and forgot the first line which puts the rest in context. > You're making the mistake of thinking that Alex Jones and his followers are rational and good-faith actors - a pre-requisite for debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subreddit-banned-holocaust-deniers-and-facebook-should-too.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...
  - whatyoucantsay 8y ago
    > You cherry picked and forgot the first line which puts the rest in context. How uncharitable of you to write that. I didn't "forget" it. It wasn't relevant to my point. The first line was specific to this situation, but the final two I quoted represent a very universal and timeless position. In fact, ancient Athens suffered greatly when "silence the voices of the enemies of democracy" became the dominant position in their society: http://quillette.com/2018/01/25/free-speech-matters/ http://quillette.com/2018/01/25/free-speech-matters/
    - rurounijones 8y ago
      You're "point" was a snarky off the cuff one-liner. Universal and Timeless position is a stretch. It is not black and white, it is grey and the first line in OPs comment put context to that grey. While it would be lovely to have a democracy with an educated rational electorate resilent to hateful demagogues and other threats to the stability of that democracy, we are not there. In that situation you can let it fester or reduce the impact. Yes it can be abused and we have to be careful. But we are in a Paradox of Tolerance situation. Rather than state what has already been said: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17702464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17702464 is a good summary.

tmh79 8y ago

You are examining the world as a "marketplace of ideas", which is a good first order approximation to how the world works, but people like Alex Jones are market failures in the Market of ideas. Supporters of his are not using information to make rationally informed decisions, they are making post-hoc justifications for their pre-determined belief set that broadly includes a lot of hate.

tryitnow 8y ago

I don't think it's about ideas, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The article explicitly says he's banned because of TOS violations. The article is not clear about what those are, but I assume they fall under hate speech and harassment. Specifically, I am guessing this has something to do with Jones taking legal actions against parents whose child was murdered. I don't think this has anything to do with his "ideas" - that is a severe misunderstanding of the facts of the case. There are still plenty of people with horrible ideas on Youtube. This has everything to do with Jones using his media power to attempt to silence, discredit, and harass parents whose children have been murdered. I mean, seriously, you don't get much lower than that.

dunpeal 8y ago
> The article explicitly says he's banned because of TOS violations. The article is not clear about what those are, but I assume they fall under hate speech and harassment. Not at all a fan of Mr Jones (the little I've seen makes him seem like a garden variety nutcase peddling inane conspiracy theories), but aren't we just a little bit concerned when someone is banned on the same day by all the major internet content shops due to some unspecified "TOS violations"? Did he violate all these various different TOS agreements on the same day? If so, how is it not extremely obvious which term he broke? I think this demonstrates the power of the internet's big content vendors. They can block anyone, at any time, for any reason. They're not accountable nor required to uphold any freedom of speech, yet it's how we all get our information now. There is still freedom of speech in physical public spaces, but a large and increasing share of our lives is spent on the privatized spaces of the internet, where corporations are the absolute arbitrators of our rights to express and consume speech. Jones is not a generally sympathetic figure, and few of us will be genuinely sorry to see him go. But what about the next guy marked for deletion? "First they came for the kooks..."
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Alex Jones has openly advocated for the murder of multiple people, including both our last president and his would-be party successor. He has openly incited violent acts against an innocent business, whilst also slandering their character and reputation, for profit. He has accused parents of murdered children of making it up, for profit. He hasn't just "said things", he's committed acts which have had resulted in significant harm to others. There's a very big difference between a blowhard who just says things and a blowhard who tries to have people killed. I really hope you can see that.

torpfactory 8y ago

I think many people lack the cognitive tools to think critically in general. Alex Jones type characters prey upon peoples’ fears and emotions. Debating his supporters is often nigh impossible - in order to become a supporter you must already lack the abilities that make reasonable debate possible.

threatofrain 8y ago
Critical thinking also takes critical facts.

mirimir 8y ago

> So if Alex Jones makes your blood boil, then put that emotion to work. Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. Except that doesn't work with trolls. Many of his followers are just in it for the lulz. Engagement just provides more fodder for trolling. You gotta just ignore trolls. And if you can, deny them a platform.

vixen99 8y ago
So presumably, had you sufficient power (in government), this is what you would do. Kind of you to check something out so that I don't have to? Is that the logic?
- mirimir 8y ago
  I didn't say government. Private media have the freedom to choose their policies. And anyone has the right to self publish, if no private media will have them. Furthermore, I also disagree with existing censorship of "illegal" stuff by governments. Not just social/political dissent in China, or ankle porn in Saudi Arabia. Also censorship by the United States, such as gambling, piracy, mail-order drugs, and so on. However, there is arguably a place for government censorship of criminal activity that demonstrably causes harm. For example, child abuse (but not merely sharing of "child porn") or revenge porn, and so on. But not stuff that's racist, sexist, etc but doesn't directly advocate violence.

iovrthoughtthis 8y ago

Theres lots to unpack here. > He is an opportunity. By becoming a lightening rod and focal point for a large fraction of a country's misguided thinking, he has made that misguided thinking more fragile. Easier to dislodge. Because now you just need to find a combination of words that helps his followers see him for what he actually is. His followers see themselves in him. Attack him and they will feel attacked. Attacked people don’t change their minds, they dig into their beliefs harder. The only way to change peoples minds is to realize that you can’t. You can only make it safe for them to change their own minds. > And if you succeed, everyone who sees will get a lesson in thinking more clearly. They will be more resilient to a future charlatan. Not without first accepting that they themselves were wrong. This is hard. People see them selves as right. To admit they are wrong is to destroy a little part of themselves (ego). > So if Alex Jones makes your blood boil, then put that emotion to work. Raise his platform. Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. Use whichever tools appeal to you. If youtube wants to help, then youtube algorithms should be tweaked to encourage people to view both sides of the debate. Rational debate doesn’t change peoples minds unless they identify as rational people. Then being rationally coherent is important, more so than being right, so they can change their minds. Not everyone holds being rationally coherent that close to their identity. People will often just dig in harder to avoid being wrong. For every 100 people you expose him to, some N% find them selves agreeing. The more you talk about him, the more you share and “raise his platform” the more followers you get him. Simple marketing funnels. Persistent societal tolerance requires one thing, vehement intolerance of intolerant people. It’s some prolog level recursive logic.

thomk 8y ago
"The only way to change peoples minds is to realize that you can’t. You can only make it safe for them to change their own minds." I'm curious where you heard that, it's an interesting perspective I have not considered before.
- iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
  Helping my partner through depression. I realized I kept trying to excersize control over their recovery e.g. making them go to the doctor, making them do things. In the process i found that they very much so wanted to be a “well” person and going to the docotor was not something a “well” person does. So instead of pushing then I just focussed on making it safe for them to be unwell. Through holding space, admitting my own vulnerabilities and issues, and by not reacting negatively to their psychosis symptoms. I recognized the similarity with other instances of changing peoples minds. Some people want control, and accepting your ideas reduces their perceived control, so you need to make it safe for them to accept the idea (change their mind) while still feeling in control. Some people see them selves a good people and admitting their actions are biggoted and hurtful doesn’t fit with that so they rationalize the “others” as bad. To change their minds they need a way to feel like good people even though they’ve done biggoted, hurtful things. Some people are scared and they will rationalize that fear in some mannor. To convince them that there is nothing to fear from that which they rationalised means making it safe for them to experience fear without that justification.

jaredklewis 8y ago

> Discuss him. Debunk his ideas one by one. Use whichever tools appeal to you. If youtube wants to help, then youtube algorithms should be tweaked to encourage people to view both sides of the debate. How would you “debunk” Alex Jones? Certainly not with rational arguments, as if his viewers were at all receptive to reason, they wouldn’t be InfoWars viewers. I am not a regular viewer, but I have seen a few episodes and that I saw, Alex Jones makes no use logic, reasoning, verifiable evidence, or journalistic standards. So what’s the plan? Counter Alex Jones with an equally unscrupulous manipulator from “our side?” I think there are valid debates to be had about how much speech should or should not be regulated, even on non-government platforms. But the idea that Alex Jones could be “debunked” seems absurd to me.