3 ms·
The concern isn’t that his “followers” would find him more credible. Those followers will follow him to the ends of the earth, regardless if he was banned. Cons
by nemothekid 8y ago
The concern isn’t that his “followers” would find him more credible. Those followers will follow him to the ends of the earth, regardless if he was banned. Conspiracy theorists never needed to be right - so operating on a model that giving him hard ammo for his theories is worthless. Alex Jones can’t be wrong in the eyes of his followers, so that he can’t be proven right either.
What his removal on these platforms does is limit his reach. He’s completely allowed to, in the confines of the law, to say whatever he wants. That doesn’t also mean he is owed a loudspeaker to blast his asinine message to the entire world. This is about limiting the reach of a deranged individual. If you don’t believe this works - look at what happened to Milo after he was banned from Twitter. The near weekly Milo articles simply dropped off the face of the earth. And it’s likely Alex Jones’ limited reach will prevent from amassing new followers who choose to harass the parents of the “false flag” sandy hook shooting. That, to me, is more than reason enough to ban him.
There’s a huge line between the confusing, but relatively safe flat earth conspiracy theorists and the the one that actively riling up people to harass parents grieving over children.
- creaghpatr 8y ago>There’s a huge line between the confusing, but relatively safe flat earth conspiracy theorists and the the one that actively riling up people to harass parents grieving over children. How about anti-vaxxers...are they somewhere in the middle?
- joel_ms 8y agoI think weakening herd immunity and resurrecting deadly diseases in areas where they were previously erradicated puts them in the 'harmful conspiracy' category.
- hkai 8y agoYou are correct that banning them from platforms limits their exposure, but why do you think it's desirable? Why defacto monopolies should decide who is allowed to exercise speech and who must be silenced? Do you feel this practice will never be turned against you? Do you disagree with the idea that if crazy people don't have freedom of speech, then nobody has freedom of speech? And I know the common argument that sure, they can just start their own Twitter or move to another platform. It's similar to how Republicans close all but one abortion clinic in a state and claim that whatever, you're still allowed to have abortions, but only in this one remote clinic and only on certain conditions.
- nemothekid 8y ago>but why do you think it's desirable? For the same reason I'm not allowed to post porn on hacker news. Why aren't we talking about how Y Combinator infringes on my freedom of speech by deleting my posts on Big Wet Asses 7? >Why defacto monopolies should decide who is allowed to exercise speech and who must be silenced? You should brush up on your definition of monopoly. What is the monopoly that is deciding who is silenced, and what market do they have a monopoly over? >Do you feel this practice will never be turned against you? Do you disagree with the idea that if crazy people don't have freedom of speech, then nobody has freedom of speech? This is a very tired and poor argument. If you have "crazy" ideas, like for example, if you believe the earth is flat, you are fully welcome on Twitter/Facebook. What Alex Jones and his ilk are accused of is harassment and inciting violence. The day I start using Twitter to incite violence is the day this "power" will turn against me. Until then, I have nothing to worry about.