5 ms·

Is this really bad though? If people like Alex Jones have bad ideas, it will be evident when they discuss them. I don't see how censorship is a better alternati

Is this really bad though? If people like Alex Jones have bad ideas, it will be evident when they discuss them. I don't see how censorship is a better alternative.

dkdk8283 6y ago
Censorship is not a viable alternative. Even if someone holds extreme views they have the right to talk about it. Views shift and change over time. Change is good.
- Wistar 6y ago
  Perhaps I am misunderstanding but, I think being choosy about the guests one hosts is not censorship.
  - banads 6y ago
    Alex Jones was censored (deplatformed) by all the major platforms, which acted in unison against him. Joe Rogan bringing him on his podcast helped break that veil of censorship.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Alex Jones was rightly ignored by major platforms. He voices far out opinions to take advantage of his audience and doesn't have anything actually interesting to say.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - banads 6y ago
        He wasn't ignored, he was deplatformed. >He voices far out opinions to take advantage of his audience and doesn't have anything actually interesting to say. Agreed, though corporate mass media in general also takes advantage of their audience and likewise has nothing interesting to say.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        Sure, but plenty of other people find him entertaining. He's no different in that regard than any number of vulgar comedic acts. The 2nd episode with Joe, Alex and Eddie was some of the best content from JRE.
      - CapricornNoble 6y ago
        >>doesn't have anything actually interesting to say. I listened to a clip of Alex Jones on the subject of drugs and how they are used to fracture communities. He drew parallels between the crack epidemic in the black community in the 70s/80s and the opium epidemic that is mostly affecting the white community now. He argued that crack was a "beta test" so to speak of techniques to create a permanent underclass of malleable serfs, with the "production environment" rollout being opioids and prescription abuse. I think he also argued other methods of controlling slaves went back to chattel slavery in the US and even the Roman Empire. That might sound kooky but around the same time I also read about this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Doihara#Criminal_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Doihara#Criminal_activit... Doihara waged a deliberate campaign to undermine the social and political cohesion of Manchuria, and he did it with opium. People understood these methods of breaking communities as far back as the 1930s (and into the 1800s, depending on how deliberate the Brits were leading up to the Opium War). Are there lessons that can be learned from Doihara that can shed light on malicious people in power from the 1970s to the present? Especially since many of America's politicians and business leaders cover both US epidemics (example: the Sacklers). Alex Jones argued that the parallels between America's drug epidemics are too similar to be coincidence. The guy has a VERY low signal-to-noise ratio but if you ignore EVERYTHING he says you will miss out on some thought-provoking gems that are rarely discussed by anyone else.
    - sanderjd 6y ago
      I think it is probably true that a bunch of platforms acted in unison against Alex Jones, but it is also possible for someone to have no platform at all without there being any "veil of censorship". For instance, I have fewer (zero, rather than a few) large platforms available to me. But I'm not being censored by all the platforms, there's just no reason for them to think I have anything interesting to say. The people invited onto any mass market platform are a tiny tiny minority of humanity. Nobody has a right to have their views magnified by such platforms, being included is the exception, not a common thing.
      - banads 6y ago
        Why do you have so few platforms available to you?
        sanderjd 6y ago
        I am talking about platforms with audiences, like Joe Rogan's show, other podcasts, and more traditional competitors like talk radio and cable news. Alex Jones has much more access to platforms like this than the vast majority of no-name people. I can shout into the void all I want here or on twitter or youtube without getting invited onto a big show. And that's not because they are censoring me, it's because they can only invite on a tiny number of people.
        banads 6y ago
        Yep, if you don't have anything interesting to say, people won't be interested in listening to you. If you get deplatformed, then you're even further shit out of luck, because even if you did have something interesting to say, there is a small group of extremely powerful anonymous people actively working to silence you.
        sanderjd 6y ago
        You have now introduced this "interesting things to say" metric as if that is an objective thing. But it isn't. Alex Jones doesn't have more interesting things to say than I do, the difference is that he seeks an audience, and I don't. But just because someone seeks an audience, does not mean that platforms that have audiences must oblige them.
lalos 6y ago
It’s bad in a world where we prefer admiring idols instead of critical thinking. Just see anti-vaccination, or heck how people get so passionate about their JS framework and silo themselves missing the trees for the forest.
maxerickson 6y ago
There's a difference between censorship and discernment. Like if some equally famous podcaster didn't find some Joe Rogan guest as "interesting" as Joe Rogan does, it isn't censorship when they don't invite that guest on. Of course, "Joe Rogan has bad taste" is a different criticism than the one made up thread.

Is this really bad though? If people like Alex Jones have bad ideas, it will be evident when they discuss them. I don't see how censorship is a better alternative.

dkdk8283 6y ago

Censorship is not a viable alternative. Even if someone holds extreme views they have the right to talk about it. Views shift and change over time. Change is good.

Wistar 6y ago
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but, I think being choosy about the guests one hosts is not censorship.
- banads 6y ago
  Alex Jones was censored (deplatformed) by all the major platforms, which acted in unison against him. Joe Rogan bringing him on his podcast helped break that veil of censorship.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Alex Jones was rightly ignored by major platforms. He voices far out opinions to take advantage of his audience and doesn't have anything actually interesting to say.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - banads 6y ago
      He wasn't ignored, he was deplatformed. >He voices far out opinions to take advantage of his audience and doesn't have anything actually interesting to say. Agreed, though corporate mass media in general also takes advantage of their audience and likewise has nothing interesting to say.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Sure, but plenty of other people find him entertaining. He's no different in that regard than any number of vulgar comedic acts. The 2nd episode with Joe, Alex and Eddie was some of the best content from JRE.
    - CapricornNoble 6y ago
      >>doesn't have anything actually interesting to say. I listened to a clip of Alex Jones on the subject of drugs and how they are used to fracture communities. He drew parallels between the crack epidemic in the black community in the 70s/80s and the opium epidemic that is mostly affecting the white community now. He argued that crack was a "beta test" so to speak of techniques to create a permanent underclass of malleable serfs, with the "production environment" rollout being opioids and prescription abuse. I think he also argued other methods of controlling slaves went back to chattel slavery in the US and even the Roman Empire. That might sound kooky but around the same time I also read about this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Doihara#Criminal_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Doihara#Criminal_activit... Doihara waged a deliberate campaign to undermine the social and political cohesion of Manchuria, and he did it with opium. People understood these methods of breaking communities as far back as the 1930s (and into the 1800s, depending on how deliberate the Brits were leading up to the Opium War). Are there lessons that can be learned from Doihara that can shed light on malicious people in power from the 1970s to the present? Especially since many of America's politicians and business leaders cover both US epidemics (example: the Sacklers). Alex Jones argued that the parallels between America's drug epidemics are too similar to be coincidence. The guy has a VERY low signal-to-noise ratio but if you ignore EVERYTHING he says you will miss out on some thought-provoking gems that are rarely discussed by anyone else.
  - sanderjd 6y ago
    I think it is probably true that a bunch of platforms acted in unison against Alex Jones, but it is also possible for someone to have no platform at all without there being any "veil of censorship". For instance, I have fewer (zero, rather than a few) large platforms available to me. But I'm not being censored by all the platforms, there's just no reason for them to think I have anything interesting to say. The people invited onto any mass market platform are a tiny tiny minority of humanity. Nobody has a right to have their views magnified by such platforms, being included is the exception, not a common thing.
    - banads 6y ago
      Why do you have so few platforms available to you?
      - sanderjd 6y ago
        I am talking about platforms with audiences, like Joe Rogan's show, other podcasts, and more traditional competitors like talk radio and cable news. Alex Jones has much more access to platforms like this than the vast majority of no-name people. I can shout into the void all I want here or on twitter or youtube without getting invited onto a big show. And that's not because they are censoring me, it's because they can only invite on a tiny number of people.
        banads 6y ago
        Yep, if you don't have anything interesting to say, people won't be interested in listening to you. If you get deplatformed, then you're even further shit out of luck, because even if you did have something interesting to say, there is a small group of extremely powerful anonymous people actively working to silence you.
        sanderjd 6y ago
        You have now introduced this "interesting things to say" metric as if that is an objective thing. But it isn't. Alex Jones doesn't have more interesting things to say than I do, the difference is that he seeks an audience, and I don't. But just because someone seeks an audience, does not mean that platforms that have audiences must oblige them.

lalos 6y ago

It’s bad in a world where we prefer admiring idols instead of critical thinking. Just see anti-vaccination, or heck how people get so passionate about their JS framework and silo themselves missing the trees for the forest.

maxerickson 6y ago

There's a difference between censorship and discernment. Like if some equally famous podcaster didn't find some Joe Rogan guest as "interesting" as Joe Rogan does, it isn't censorship when they don't invite that guest on. Of course, "Joe Rogan has bad taste" is a different criticism than the one made up thread.