4 ms·

I do agree that if all banks want to cut off infowars that is their choice. I also agree that all platforms can ban who they want on their private platforms.

I do agree that if all banks want to cut off infowars that is their choice. I also agree that all platforms can ban who they want on their private platforms. It still doesn't make it the correct action as it just emboldens their audience. If what they are saying is truly so horrible and shocking the public would be able to see this and easily make the choice to ignore them. Also what has infowars done that has caused real world harm other than the example everyone uses with Sandy Hook. Not that I'm again endorsing or defending him, but Alex Jones did retract and apologize for his coverage during that time. What makes his apology any weaker than that of CNN's apology for the harassment the Covington kids had to endure?

ineedasername 7y ago
What he did for Sandy Hook is just the most visible example of what he does for many things. He's pulled the same trick for the Parkland shooting and other attacks. He also promotes anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, arguably more damaging than any "crisis actor" claim he makes. Most of the public does recognize this as horrible and ridiculous, and ignore him. Deplatforming is the corporate version of ignoring him.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  Where should the line that ends free speech be? I imagine it's somewhere between deceptively yelling fire in a crowded theatre and expressing genuine, if provably false, concerns about vaccines. Deplatforming from social sites and banks is the least we can do when it's not clear where the law should step in and claims dispute overwhelming evidence. As someone whose had a comprised immune system I'd prefer to err on the side of stopping the spread of false medical information.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    > genuine, if provably false, concerns about vaccines. Does not compute. Genuine, but provably false statements are negligence at best, fraud at worse. Not just lies, because the homeopatic suplements he peddles on the store.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      And in the case of anti-vax, while many people may be genuine in their sentiment, it is primarily based on a piece of research that was, by the author, acknowledged to be fraudulent with fabricated facts. [0] Maybe the rise of the internet would have given birth to the anti-vax movement anyway, but my recollection is that Wakefield's fraudulent research was the catalyst that got that ball rolling. Prior, there had been an anti-vax movement in response to the first ever vaccine (for small pox) around the 1800's. It took society time accept the idea of vaccination. Regrettable, albeit understandable. For most of 100 years there wasn't much anti-vax sentiment until DTP faced criticism for a limited time in the late 70's early 80's. The things were calm again until Wakefield's fraud, and the rise of the internet has sustained it since. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Agreed. I would be extremely worried if speech like that coming from Alex Jones was actually made illegal. Deplatforming, however, is not much different than a site like Inforwars failing to include nuanced opinions that differ from their narratives. They've "deplatformed" dissenting voices by never allowing them to begin with. The fact that their soap box happens to be smaller than google or facebook doesn't really change that.
tim333 7y ago
I'm not expert on this but I think CNN apologised pretty quickly after it seemed they'd made an error. Jones's seems to have kept on and not apologised till years later when facing a lawsuit that may bankrupt him.

ineedasername 7y ago

What he did for Sandy Hook is just the most visible example of what he does for many things. He's pulled the same trick for the Parkland shooting and other attacks. He also promotes anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, arguably more damaging than any "crisis actor" claim he makes. Most of the public does recognize this as horrible and ridiculous, and ignore him. Deplatforming is the corporate version of ignoring him.

paulryanrogers 7y ago
Where should the line that ends free speech be? I imagine it's somewhere between deceptively yelling fire in a crowded theatre and expressing genuine, if provably false, concerns about vaccines. Deplatforming from social sites and banks is the least we can do when it's not clear where the law should step in and claims dispute overwhelming evidence. As someone whose had a comprised immune system I'd prefer to err on the side of stopping the spread of false medical information.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  > genuine, if provably false, concerns about vaccines. Does not compute. Genuine, but provably false statements are negligence at best, fraud at worse. Not just lies, because the homeopatic suplements he peddles on the store.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    And in the case of anti-vax, while many people may be genuine in their sentiment, it is primarily based on a piece of research that was, by the author, acknowledged to be fraudulent with fabricated facts. [0] Maybe the rise of the internet would have given birth to the anti-vax movement anyway, but my recollection is that Wakefield's fraudulent research was the catalyst that got that ball rolling. Prior, there had been an anti-vax movement in response to the first ever vaccine (for small pox) around the 1800's. It took society time accept the idea of vaccination. Regrettable, albeit understandable. For most of 100 years there wasn't much anti-vax sentiment until DTP faced criticism for a limited time in the late 70's early 80's. The things were calm again until Wakefield's fraud, and the rise of the internet has sustained it since. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Agreed. I would be extremely worried if speech like that coming from Alex Jones was actually made illegal. Deplatforming, however, is not much different than a site like Inforwars failing to include nuanced opinions that differ from their narratives. They've "deplatformed" dissenting voices by never allowing them to begin with. The fact that their soap box happens to be smaller than google or facebook doesn't really change that.

tim333 7y ago

I'm not expert on this but I think CNN apologised pretty quickly after it seemed they'd made an error. Jones's seems to have kept on and not apologised till years later when facing a lawsuit that may bankrupt him.