6 ms·

Good work Twitter. Alex Jones is a liar and a nut but free speech is more important than preventing a liar and a nut from having a platform.

by xupybd 8y ago

sdenton4 8y ago
There are plenty of other platforms that would love to have him. Like, say, Stormfront. And the advantage of pushing this crap to those margins is that it denies them legitimacy. Push it out to stormfront (or equivalent) and it's real clear where it sits in the marketplace of ideas. Leave it on the big platforms and you make it clear that bad behavior is tolerated and rewarded.
- everdev 8y ago
  Exactly. Governments shouldn't be drawing these lines but someone needs to and corporations are a good choice. If people don't like it they can vote with their dollars. If companies make the wrong move their business will suffer, so they're incentivized to do the popular thing at least. If the wrong thing becomes popular to the majority, then we're all screwed anyway.
  - slowmovintarget 8y ago
    > ...corporations are a good choice. Wow is that not true. Corporate entities only have a profit incentive. They are by their nature divorced from morality and the philosophy and ethics of freedom. When unrestricted, corporations force people into indentured servitude. Corporations used child labor, until they were forced not to. The freedom to exchange ideas is the most extraordinary and valuable freedom humans have. This is why we absolutely do not trust it to popular opinion either. Corporations handed control of that freedom would filter and twist expression until only those ideas that profit the corporations are left. We've already seen this in action. The mildest examples are gag orders from lawsuit settlements, suppression of medical research, suppression of safety testing... It's why we have whistle-blower laws. Corporations would be a terrible choice.
    - everdev 8y ago
      Well let's look at our options: 1. Government - Not a great track record on limiting fringe speech, it seems to descend into totalitarian objectives 2. Institutions/Churches - Not a great track record of tolerating logical speech that is inconsistent with their beliefs 3. Corporations - Capitalism is the best process we've found for spreading freedom of choice. Nothing is ever perfect, but when 1 & 2 fail to do it right it's catastrophic. When 3 messes up, they lose their own shirts and the damage is more contained.
      - slowmovintarget 8y ago
        "Limiting fringe speech" is censorship. I'd rather no one did it. Instead, air it out, discredit it if it is wrong. When people are forced to stop talking they resort to violence, in the same manner that other species in the animal kingdom handle their disputes. Let people talk.
        inawarminister 8y ago
        There's a great quote about this from POTUS JFK "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Wasn’t Stormfront banned by every DNS / Hosting provider after Cloudflare banned them? I really don’t know what happened to them.
agildehaus 8y ago
Twitter is under no obligation to provide him that platform.
aplummer 8y ago
I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre. Does a newspaper publish everyone’s comments? If I call you and ask you to repeat what I say to ten friends will you do it? Alex jones’s right to talk garbage != his “faux-right” to have platforms publish it.
- xupybd 8y ago
  Very true, he has no right to use these platforms what so ever. But by allowing him to remain they are remaining impartial. If these large platforms make the free choice to remain impartial I think that improves freedom of speech. But you are correct the strict definition involves only the Governments involvement in speech.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre I find it interesting how so many people are unable to stop their mind from automatically, and without their awareness, narrowing the very broad topic of the principle of free speech in general, to narrower and more specific topics like the first amendment, or obligation (by force!) to distribute unsavory ideas (neither of which were mentioned in the comment to which you are replying). Can we agree that the network effect has reduced the majority of public, mass online communication to a relatively small number of players, most of whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to describe themselves as centrists on the political spectrum? Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future? I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away when everyone starts thinking the same way, exposing their minds to only one flavor of opinions, and perhaps harming their ability to think critically. Some people might say we're living within that very scenario right now. No, this doesn't necessarily mean Alex Jones specifically has any redeeming qualities whatsoever, but can you at least see that there is at least something to be said for the general principle of free speech and diversity of ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction." EDIT: Downvoters, care to share the thinking behind your disagreement? Do you think I'm wrong in thinking that the principle of free speech exists independent of the first amendment, and can be discussed with or without the existence of force being exerted on publishing platforms? Is the very idea of a conversation with those whom you may not completely agree old fashioned or unrealistic?
everdev 8y ago
Yeah, I'd be shocked if the coordinated banning at other companies doesn't trigger a lawsuit. I'm sure it's in the ToS that they can ban you anytime for any reason though. But still, where do you draw the line? Tons of hateful content on every platform. The root problem is that blame and poor reasoning is still seductive to many people. If our first instinct was to ask "How do I know this is true?" until we got to something we could verify outside of the main source itself sensationalists wouldn't have quite the voice they do.
JohnTHaller 8y ago
Yeah, gotta make sure you provide him his global platform so he can have his minions continue to harass parents who lost their children in Sandy Hook so they are forced to move far away from their children's graves. Oh, sorry, 'crisis actors'. /s

Good work Twitter. Alex Jones is a liar and a nut but free speech is more important than preventing a liar and a nut from having a platform.

by xupybd 8y ago

Good work Twitter. Alex Jones is a liar and a nut but free speech is more important than preventing a liar and a nut from having a platform.

sdenton4 8y ago

There are plenty of other platforms that would love to have him. Like, say, Stormfront. And the advantage of pushing this crap to those margins is that it denies them legitimacy. Push it out to stormfront (or equivalent) and it's real clear where it sits in the marketplace of ideas. Leave it on the big platforms and you make it clear that bad behavior is tolerated and rewarded.

everdev 8y ago
Exactly. Governments shouldn't be drawing these lines but someone needs to and corporations are a good choice. If people don't like it they can vote with their dollars. If companies make the wrong move their business will suffer, so they're incentivized to do the popular thing at least. If the wrong thing becomes popular to the majority, then we're all screwed anyway.
- slowmovintarget 8y ago
  > ...corporations are a good choice. Wow is that not true. Corporate entities only have a profit incentive. They are by their nature divorced from morality and the philosophy and ethics of freedom. When unrestricted, corporations force people into indentured servitude. Corporations used child labor, until they were forced not to. The freedom to exchange ideas is the most extraordinary and valuable freedom humans have. This is why we absolutely do not trust it to popular opinion either. Corporations handed control of that freedom would filter and twist expression until only those ideas that profit the corporations are left. We've already seen this in action. The mildest examples are gag orders from lawsuit settlements, suppression of medical research, suppression of safety testing... It's why we have whistle-blower laws. Corporations would be a terrible choice.
  - everdev 8y ago
    Well let's look at our options: 1. Government - Not a great track record on limiting fringe speech, it seems to descend into totalitarian objectives 2. Institutions/Churches - Not a great track record of tolerating logical speech that is inconsistent with their beliefs 3. Corporations - Capitalism is the best process we've found for spreading freedom of choice. Nothing is ever perfect, but when 1 & 2 fail to do it right it's catastrophic. When 3 messes up, they lose their own shirts and the damage is more contained.
    - slowmovintarget 8y ago
      "Limiting fringe speech" is censorship. I'd rather no one did it. Instead, air it out, discredit it if it is wrong. When people are forced to stop talking they resort to violence, in the same manner that other species in the animal kingdom handle their disputes. Let people talk.
      - inawarminister 8y ago
        There's a great quote about this from POTUS JFK "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
dogma1138 8y ago
Wasn’t Stormfront banned by every DNS / Hosting provider after Cloudflare banned them? I really don’t know what happened to them.

agildehaus 8y ago

Twitter is under no obligation to provide him that platform.

aplummer 8y ago

I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre. Does a newspaper publish everyone’s comments? If I call you and ask you to repeat what I say to ten friends will you do it? Alex jones’s right to talk garbage != his “faux-right” to have platforms publish it.

xupybd 8y ago
Very true, he has no right to use these platforms what so ever. But by allowing him to remain they are remaining impartial. If these large platforms make the free choice to remain impartial I think that improves freedom of speech. But you are correct the strict definition involves only the Governments involvement in speech.
mistermann 8y ago
> I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre I find it interesting how so many people are unable to stop their mind from automatically, and without their awareness, narrowing the very broad topic of the principle of free speech in general, to narrower and more specific topics like the first amendment, or obligation (by force!) to distribute unsavory ideas (neither of which were mentioned in the comment to which you are replying). Can we agree that the network effect has reduced the majority of public, mass online communication to a relatively small number of players, most of whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to describe themselves as centrists on the political spectrum? Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future? I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away when everyone starts thinking the same way, exposing their minds to only one flavor of opinions, and perhaps harming their ability to think critically. Some people might say we're living within that very scenario right now. No, this doesn't necessarily mean Alex Jones specifically has any redeeming qualities whatsoever, but can you at least see that there is at least something to be said for the general principle of free speech and diversity of ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction." EDIT: Downvoters, care to share the thinking behind your disagreement? Do you think I'm wrong in thinking that the principle of free speech exists independent of the first amendment, and can be discussed with or without the existence of force being exerted on publishing platforms? Is the very idea of a conversation with those whom you may not completely agree old fashioned or unrealistic?

everdev 8y ago

Yeah, I'd be shocked if the coordinated banning at other companies doesn't trigger a lawsuit. I'm sure it's in the ToS that they can ban you anytime for any reason though. But still, where do you draw the line? Tons of hateful content on every platform. The root problem is that blame and poor reasoning is still seductive to many people. If our first instinct was to ask "How do I know this is true?" until we got to something we could verify outside of the main source itself sensationalists wouldn't have quite the voice they do.

JohnTHaller 8y ago

Yeah, gotta make sure you provide him his global platform so he can have his minions continue to harass parents who lost their children in Sandy Hook so they are forced to move far away from their children's graves. Oh, sorry, 'crisis actors'. /s