7 ms·

Alex Jones' personal account has almost 10 times the twitter following of "the New York Times tech editor" who's name I've actually never heard before. I think

Alex Jones' personal account has almost 10 times the twitter following of "the New York Times tech editor" who's name I've actually never heard before. I think Alex Jones' active disparagement of the parents of mass shooting victims is more actively harmful than what you're linking here.

colordrops 8y ago
"active disparagement" does not constitute a very high bar for censorship. A US platform with with an emphasis on free speech should leverage the work put into US legal precedent as closely as possible. There has been a massive amount of thought put into the reasoning behind legal limitations on speech.
- tomlock 8y ago
  And after that "massive amount of thought" there was no legal restriction put on companies that "deplatform" users like Alex Jones. Go figure.
  - colordrops 8y ago
    It feels to me that you are intentionally misunderstanding my comment. I was suggesting that the platform claiming to support free speech would be true to their word by opening up as much as legally possible, rather than do anything they want just because it's legal.
    - tomlock 8y ago
      Do you feel like I would have gained anything from your observation that thought has been put into the American legal system? That legal system deliberately doesn't place restrictions on platforms like twitter - might I similarly suggest that you should consider that there was a great deal of thought put into that deliberate omission. If a platform like twitter supports free speech as thoughtfully considered by the American legal system, they are acting consistently with that if they deplatform people like Alex Jones. An example of them not acting consistently with that would be taking government direction on silencing users.
      - colordrops 8y ago
        You are arguing with a straw man. I said nothing about their ability to act arbitrarily within the legal bounds. I also said nothing about them taking government direction on silencing users. The crux of my statement is about how a platform that claims to emphasize free speech should behave. Don't get confused and think I'm talking about how a company is legally required to behave, or the degrees of freedom a company has within the legal system.
        tomlock 8y ago
        Don't worry, there's no danger of me becoming confused here. When you condescended to me about how much thought was put into the American legal system surrounding free speech, and then related that to a private company, I knew you were confused. Its quite clear that these thoughtful legal decisions contain no advice for a private company.
        colordrops 8y ago
        You change the nature of your argument with every comment. No point in chasing a moving target.
        tomlock 8y ago
        Incorrect. You're just having difficulty understanding that the legal precedent surrounding free speech is not applicable to this situation.
        colordrops 8y ago
        Maybe you should explain why it is not applicable, rather than persist in loquacious but insubstantial contradiction. I am stating an opinion of how a company that claims to greatly value free speech should operate. To simply state that I am wrong without any reasoning behind it is a waste of everyone's time.
dominotw 8y ago
> active disparagement of the parents of mass shooting victims is more actively harmful Its vile and stupid but how is it harmful?
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  It has led to people harassing, threatening, and assaulting various people who suffered from the shooting. Even the original disparagement is borderline harassment, regularly being told your greif is a lie and that you should be ashamed of sounds traumatic to experience.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    > It has led to people harassing, threatening, and assaulting various people who suffered from the shooting. Really hard to google for this due to so much media coverage. Do you have a citation? I am not defending A.Jones but ppl say this but I've never found any evidence to this.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories#Harassment_by_conspiracy_theorists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_s...
      - dominotw 8y ago
        thanks. > He was arrested on May 30, and the signs were found in his home.[59] Truelove was convicted of the theft and sentenced to 12 months in prison.[60] > Mills entered an Alford plea and was thus found guilty; he was given a suspended sentence of one year in jail and two years' probation. > Lucy Richards, a 57-year-old woman from Tampa, was charged with four counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce for sending death threats to Lenny Pozner, So system is working as designed. no? Is this not enough deterrent for people to not harass people ? Do you think these three incidents from 4 years ago warrant killing free speech. Do you think these are instances serious enough to sacrifice free speech? They don't even look that much of a big deal based on the sentences given out.
downandout 8y ago
So you are saying that banning should not be based on whether or not tweets are clearly hate speech, but rather on how many people see them? That doesn’t sound like a good plan.
- tomlock 8y ago
  Are you saying that we shouldn't complain about Alex Jones because there are still unbanned bad people on the internet?
  - downandout 8y ago
    Absolutely not, and yours is a disingenuous response because you couldn’t have reasonably inferred that I was saying that from my response. You are just trying to stir things up. Both examples should have been banned. One was just as bad as the other - one of them just had less reach. However, only one was suspended. The other was actually rewarded for her racist tweets, both with new followers among those who agreed with her racist views on her never-suspended Twitter account, and with a shiny new job at the NYT. On what planet is that a reasonable, unbiased outcome?
    - tomlock 8y ago
      Ok so you think Alex Jones should be banned, we agree.
      - downandout 8y ago
        I do, yes. I also think Sarah Jeong and her ilk should be both banned from Twitter and fired from the NYT. If her comments were directed at any other race, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion - she would have been banned and never hired. That is an extraordinary double standard. The bottom line is, nobody should be giving those that wish to spew hate speech a large platform with which to do it - regardless of who that hate is directed at. Edit: The fact that a comment with this sentiment has been downvoted says everything one needs to know about how toxic HN has become.

colordrops 8y ago

"active disparagement" does not constitute a very high bar for censorship. A US platform with with an emphasis on free speech should leverage the work put into US legal precedent as closely as possible. There has been a massive amount of thought put into the reasoning behind legal limitations on speech.

tomlock 8y ago
And after that "massive amount of thought" there was no legal restriction put on companies that "deplatform" users like Alex Jones. Go figure.
- colordrops 8y ago
  It feels to me that you are intentionally misunderstanding my comment. I was suggesting that the platform claiming to support free speech would be true to their word by opening up as much as legally possible, rather than do anything they want just because it's legal.
  - tomlock 8y ago
    Do you feel like I would have gained anything from your observation that thought has been put into the American legal system? That legal system deliberately doesn't place restrictions on platforms like twitter - might I similarly suggest that you should consider that there was a great deal of thought put into that deliberate omission. If a platform like twitter supports free speech as thoughtfully considered by the American legal system, they are acting consistently with that if they deplatform people like Alex Jones. An example of them not acting consistently with that would be taking government direction on silencing users.
    - colordrops 8y ago
      You are arguing with a straw man. I said nothing about their ability to act arbitrarily within the legal bounds. I also said nothing about them taking government direction on silencing users. The crux of my statement is about how a platform that claims to emphasize free speech should behave. Don't get confused and think I'm talking about how a company is legally required to behave, or the degrees of freedom a company has within the legal system.
      - tomlock 8y ago
        Don't worry, there's no danger of me becoming confused here. When you condescended to me about how much thought was put into the American legal system surrounding free speech, and then related that to a private company, I knew you were confused. Its quite clear that these thoughtful legal decisions contain no advice for a private company.
        colordrops 8y ago
        You change the nature of your argument with every comment. No point in chasing a moving target.
        tomlock 8y ago
        Incorrect. You're just having difficulty understanding that the legal precedent surrounding free speech is not applicable to this situation.
        colordrops 8y ago
        Maybe you should explain why it is not applicable, rather than persist in loquacious but insubstantial contradiction. I am stating an opinion of how a company that claims to greatly value free speech should operate. To simply state that I am wrong without any reasoning behind it is a waste of everyone's time.

dominotw 8y ago

> active disparagement of the parents of mass shooting victims is more actively harmful Its vile and stupid but how is it harmful?

boomboomsubban 8y ago
It has led to people harassing, threatening, and assaulting various people who suffered from the shooting. Even the original disparagement is borderline harassment, regularly being told your greif is a lie and that you should be ashamed of sounds traumatic to experience.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > It has led to people harassing, threatening, and assaulting various people who suffered from the shooting. Really hard to google for this due to so much media coverage. Do you have a citation? I am not defending A.Jones but ppl say this but I've never found any evidence to this.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories#Harassment_by_conspiracy_theorists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_s...
    - dominotw 8y ago
      thanks. > He was arrested on May 30, and the signs were found in his home.[59] Truelove was convicted of the theft and sentenced to 12 months in prison.[60] > Mills entered an Alford plea and was thus found guilty; he was given a suspended sentence of one year in jail and two years' probation. > Lucy Richards, a 57-year-old woman from Tampa, was charged with four counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce for sending death threats to Lenny Pozner, So system is working as designed. no? Is this not enough deterrent for people to not harass people ? Do you think these three incidents from 4 years ago warrant killing free speech. Do you think these are instances serious enough to sacrifice free speech? They don't even look that much of a big deal based on the sentences given out.

downandout 8y ago

So you are saying that banning should not be based on whether or not tweets are clearly hate speech, but rather on how many people see them? That doesn’t sound like a good plan.

tomlock 8y ago
Are you saying that we shouldn't complain about Alex Jones because there are still unbanned bad people on the internet?
- downandout 8y ago
  Absolutely not, and yours is a disingenuous response because you couldn’t have reasonably inferred that I was saying that from my response. You are just trying to stir things up. Both examples should have been banned. One was just as bad as the other - one of them just had less reach. However, only one was suspended. The other was actually rewarded for her racist tweets, both with new followers among those who agreed with her racist views on her never-suspended Twitter account, and with a shiny new job at the NYT. On what planet is that a reasonable, unbiased outcome?
  - tomlock 8y ago
    Ok so you think Alex Jones should be banned, we agree.
    - downandout 8y ago
      I do, yes. I also think Sarah Jeong and her ilk should be both banned from Twitter and fired from the NYT. If her comments were directed at any other race, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion - she would have been banned and never hired. That is an extraordinary double standard. The bottom line is, nobody should be giving those that wish to spew hate speech a large platform with which to do it - regardless of who that hate is directed at. Edit: The fact that a comment with this sentiment has been downvoted says everything one needs to know about how toxic HN has become.