> ...people who were on the fence maybe think he was right. It's clear that Twitter et al. are more interested in users who don't currently know who Alex Jones

> ...people who were on the fence maybe think he was right. It's clear that Twitter et al. are more interested in users who don't currently know who Alex Jones is; they clearly believe that the number of people who haven't been exposed to Jones is much larger than the number of people who have been exposed but are "on the fence". IMO Twitter et al. are probably correct at least on this point. Jones isn't exactly an "on the fence" kind of guy. Supposing we are purely concerned with the efficacy of these bans, as opposed to their moral/ethical/social implications, the question is: does banning Jones substantially reduce the number of people who see his content? I don't have an answer to that question, but IMO it's the right question to be asking (again, from a purely "supposing your goal is to shut down Jones, is this action effective?" viewpoint). > There seems to be a dumbing down of America, where we expect corporations to be the ones to decide things are right or wrong I see exactly the opposite. There seems to be a heightened awareness and importance of social/political issues, where we demand corporations implement our own notions of what is right and wrong. My hope is that the ultimate effect is that corporations effectively remind us that their property is private property and that this reminder renews interest in preserving the commons and enabling individual ownership.