4 ms·

We're treading into the land of censorship. As much as I dont like Alex Jones, I think this is wrong.

• cobythedog 8y ago
  Twitter is a not a government entity, so how is this censorship or leading to it?
  • ProAm 8y ago
    It really just allows the tech giants to determine what messages should be said. Its not the government, but still entities that largely rule the internet. I see your point, its just murky waters.
    • cobythedog 8y ago
      What is the alternative? Should the government step in and prevent Twitter from banning its users who are voluntarily using the platform?
      • ProAm 8y ago
        Personally I would say let people speak. Leave it up to the individual to filter messages they dont want to read. Twitter (FB, Google, etc) are fighting a PR battle these days, and are being leaned on by the gov as well. No easy answer.
        • cobythedog 8y ago
          What about if the speech involves inciting violence? Is there a line that is drawn?
          • ProAm 8y ago
            Context is very important here. Alex Jones was punished for "he tweeted out a link to a video in which he calls for his supporters to get their "battle rifles" ready for the media and others." which is not really trying to incite actual violence. Some locations on earth the ability to communicate the need to stop violence is necessary. Ethnic cleansing being done by your government? Do you want the people to unite and stop that? I really dont have a good answer and can see both sides, personally Id err on the side of letting people speak.
            • cobythedog 8y ago
              I'm not legal expert so I can't be certain, but to a layperson like me it sounds like he is asking people to commit violence: "mainstream media is the enemy, but now it's time to act on the enemy" "legally and criminally its time to move against these people"
              • ProAm 8y ago
                I agree, but the inverse is the the tech companies and government use this type of punishment to silence and quell dissenters or stop any type of change it doesnt like. Context, satire, and meaning is extremely tough to convey over the internet and leads to a pretty wide margin for interpretation to suit your (or who ever it may concern) needs. No easy answer
        • 52-6F-62 8y ago
          I think there’s probably an argument in there that those services are so curated by their algorithms that it’s not so easy as people filtering what they read, especially users not so well educated in how those platforms shape the window they look through. Funny thing is, it’s likely the people who never went looking for Jones saw less of him than the people who did. Maybe the people looking for his kind of messaging were just waiting for a note like “ready your guns”. And again maybe the real danger lies in the ones who are on the edge of that and start getting hints of it and what’s more, increasingly fall prey to it and so seek it out more and their curated window is all the more filled with it. Suddenly you have large swathes of people believing that the end is nigh, Obama is a reptile, men are under attack, and it’s time to ready their rifles against their neighbour. More should probably be questioned about the curation process those companies employ.
        • lancesells 8y ago
          Personally, I think there's a some sort of line there where you have to use some sense and say this person shouldn't be allowed to say or use our platform. There's got to be a line somewhere for hateful, terrible people. It's not about different viewpoints or opinions when you get to the point of something like White Nationalists or Islamic fundamentalists. I don't think they should be arrested or put in jail but what's the harm in booting some awful people? I know someone will respond to "what happens when they disagree with what you say"? Yeah, that could happen and I get pissed and life goes on. People get banned daily from all the platforms for really dumb things. Hell, you can't even have a female nipple on Instagram.
          • ProAm 8y ago
            I agree those are horrible people, but I just ignore them. I'd rather be the one to make that choice for myself than let people at Twitter, Google, FB, etc... who have a monetary invested interest make the choice.
            • lancesells 8y ago
              I get that and 99% percent agree with you but I also don't think there's harm in limiting the influence of these people. You and I might be able to ignore it or parse it in a rational manner but some disaffected teenager might buy into it.
        • scarface74 8y ago
          He can speak all he wants to. No one stopped him from publishing on his own website.
    • scarface74 8y ago
      The tech giants didn't take his website down, the RSS feed is still live and can still be subscribed to in the podcast of your choice. How did the tech giants determine anything?
  • Kenji 8y ago
    Censorship doesn't necessarily mean censorship by government. If an entity is powerful enough (Google, Facebook, etc.) they can engage in censorship just as well.
  • fwn 8y ago
    Because censorship does not necessarily need to have anything to do with a government. See sentence one, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship edit: already downvoted. Wikipedias mundane standard definition is already too controversial for HN. :D
  • toomim 8y ago
    Although censorship is particularly abhorrent when it's done by the government, it's still censorship, even when it's done by private entities.
  • WisNorCan 8y ago
    It is worth separating out the (less interesting) legal argument around the 1st amendment from the practical reality. The reality is that private companies like Google, Twitter, etc. have more power than the government to restrict speech. In fairness, tech companies have been reluctant to wield that power and have been pushed into it.
    • majormajor 8y ago
      What if you flip this around: private companies like Twitter, etc, have provided a mass-media platform to far more people than who could ever broadcast globally in the past. Is it so wrong for them to think maybe this wasn't a universal good?
      • influx 8y ago
        A thought experiment, what if in the past the ink and paper makers had banded together and prevented a newspaper from being able to publish? Is that OK because the ink and paper companies are private and not the government? There's been plenty of examples of yellow journalism where the press incited the public into war, so there could be legitimate reasons private ink and paper companies wouldn't want those messages broadcast.
        • pixelbath 8y ago
          The difference being that in this case, ink, paper and even printing presses are readily available to everyone. The free private one-stop platform they were using before is stopping them from publishing, but for negligible cost almost anybody can publish what they like using their own private platform. Nobody's taking down infowars.com, afaik.
      • dilap 8y ago
        It's a valid question to ask. To me, it's clear that the answer is it's better not to censor. But there are, of course, plusses and minuses... Here's my perspective. I remember the start of the second Iraq war very clearly. Something like 70% of Americans believed, falsely, that Sadam Hussein was behind 9/11. As someone that didn't believe that, it was almost surreal. It was like everyone had gone mad. Most MSM sources were basically de-facto propaganda arms for the US govt. On that wave of public support, we ludicrously and tragically invaded Iraq. I think if you replay that scenario with Twitter existing, there's a very good chance you don't hit that 70% number and a pretty good chance we don't go to war. It's simply too easy now to be exposed to alternative narratives. And the false venere of infallibility that "the news" has historically had pretty much fades away when you see reporters duking it out on equal footing with everyone else on Tiwtter. So! I think the banning of Alex Jones is just step 1 of a plan to "fix" this problem; it's an attempt to reassert the ability to control the narrative and what the public thinks. I know that all might sound a bit conspiracy-theory-ish, but, well, how else to interpret things like this? https://twitter.com/chrismurphyct/status/1026580187784404994 https://twitter.com/chrismurphyct/status/1026580187784404994 More broadly, it's surprising to me that so many people who believe in freedom of speech, democracy, etc in their governments, are so gung-ho for autocratic, censored governening structures in the online realms. Twitter is more important than traditional press; shouldn't it have similar protections?
• burkaman 8y ago
  Why?
• untog 8y ago
  It's certainly a difficult topic, but I can see a pretty strong argument that the likes of Alex Jones make Twitter a worse place. It's not in their interests to keep him on the platform, and I'm not really sure what would compel them to do so.
  • ProAm 8y ago
    While I agree overall it makes me uncomfortable there are people that choose who makes it a 'worse' place. I dont have a good answer though.
    • archontes 8y ago
      Build your own Twitter. Nothing is stopping you. But if you succeed and it becomes a bastion of racism, insanity, and violent speech, I'll vote to stop you.
      • belltaco 8y ago
        Already exists as described, gab.ai.
        • rbanffy 8y ago
          And since they run on Azure, Microsoft is pressuring them to remove the worst nazi stuff.
• harshreality 8y ago
  I like guns. I think conspiracy theories are fun (just not Alex Jones's presentation of them), even when they're false, as they almost always are. I hate the censorship these platforms are engaged in. That said, these bans were righteous. Anyone getting on any platform and encouraging, iirc, people to act "legally... and illegally" with "battle rifles" to resist an unseen army of government oppressors, is saying civilization has broken down and the only thing left is civil war and revolution. The fact that there has been no Jones-inspired violence means that there are literally zero people in his audience who take him seriously. Which is good. That raises an interesting side issue, though. Granted, someone advocating violence like that needs to be de-platformed. However, since clearly none of his viewers take him seriously, maybe the main narrative about Infowars is wrong. Maybe his entire persona, and Infowars, are an undeclared comedy act that give people, mostly conservatives, an outlet for their frustrations without requiring them to agree with, or act on, any of the extreme shit he says, even if they might parrot it in conversation from time to time. If this is a comedy act, I don't know where the line is between comedy and incitement to violence. These platforms probably don't (and can't afford to) have as nuanced a view of it, but if they did, they would still probably not want to take that chance. I think attempts to incite others to violence is a serious enough thing that if he is running a comedy show, he should still tone down direct incitement to violence. What if just the right kind of mentally unhinged person watches his videos? That could turn out badly, and there's no reason to take that risk. The impact to freedom of speech of prohibiting, even in comedy, incitement to violence, is minimal. I have a feeling if it were a government agency doing the censoring, the courts would find approximately the same thing: This kind of speech can properly be censored, even under strict scrutiny.
  • krapp 8y ago
    >The fact that there has been no Jones-inspired violence means that there are literally zero people in his audience who take him seriously. Which is good. Alex Jones at least indirectly inspired a gunman to fire into a restaurant because he pushed the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. One might be able to make the argument that Alex Jones doesn't directly call for violence, but he and people like him make a living out of talking around violence, and when someone pushes conspiracy theories about certain groups of people (jews, muslims, leftists, gays) belief in those conspiracies can create a higher likelihood of violence against those groups.
• BLanen 8y ago
  Yes, it's right there in the first ammendment. >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And also, persons, including legal persons, will be compelled to provide a platform for persons inciting violence. So, no.