Jump to content

Facebook, Apple and Spotify ban Infowars' Alex Jones. UPDATE: Twitter PERMANENTLY suspends him


Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/06/apple-removes-podcasts-infowars-alex-jones

 

Quote

Facebook has banned four pages run by American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for “repeated violations of Community Standards”, the company said on Monday.

 

The removal of the pages – the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the InfoWars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page – comes after Facebook imposed a 30-day ban on Jones personally “for his role in posting violating content to these Pages”.

 

Following that suspension, a Facebook spokesperson said, “more content from the same Pages has been reported to us — upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies”.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not a fan of this. I know Alex Jones is a fucking moron...but suppressing freedom of speech is a slippery slope.

 

maybe create a category called "Conspiracy Theory Entertainment" and throw him and other like him in there. Maybe even add a disclaimer of some sort too, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, atom631 said:

not a fan of this. I know Alex Jones is a fucking moron...but suppressing freedom of speech is a slippery slope.

 

They're not suppressing freedom of speech. As a private company, they have no obligation to host people who think the kids in Sandy Hook didn't die and were just actors. That's like saying firing someone for cussing out the boss is an infringement of first amendment rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

They're not suppressing freedom of speech. As a private company, they have no obligation to host people who think the kids in Sandy Hook didn't die and were just actors. That's like saying firing someone for cussing out the boss is an infringement of first amendment rights.

 

technically they are publicly traded companies and to a degree i feel that should make a difference. 

 

I'm certainly not justifying what he said. As a father of two, he can get hit by a truck today and I would praise his death. He should be held accountable for it. Force him to apologize and pay damages, etc.... but as I mentioned this is a slippery slope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, atom631 said:

 

technically they are publicly traded companies and to a degree i feel that should make a difference. 

 

I'm certainly not justifying what he said. As a father of two, he can get hit by a truck today and I would praise his death. He should be held accountable for it. Force him to apologize and pay damages, etc.... but as I mentioned this is a slippery slope. 

 

That doesn't make a difference. Anybody can get banned for any reason -- harassment, hate speech, conspiracy theories, promoting violence -- as posts and pages can be reported on Facebook, Twitter and any social media.

 

This isn't a slippery slope; it's objectively not related to the Constitution and has everything to do with Alex Jones being a waste of flesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the same reason that, lets say an ISP decides its going to block all domains that host pornography because they believe it adds to the moral decay of society (or some other nonsensical reason). Im a big boy, I can make the decision on my own as to what content I chose to view. And I understand no platform is required to host it if it goes against their views. On the other side of the argument, I firmly agree that a company should have the right to ban/block/Not serve cake if its what they chose. 

 

However, this wont suddenly make AJ/IW followers go away or stop believing his lies.  This in fact  will only further to strengthens their narrative. Also, so long as Youtube doesn't ban him, it wont matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

That's not a 1st amendment issue if an ISP blocks porn. There's also a big difference between porn and harassing the parents of dead children.

 

This greatly reduces their social media influence, and it matters. Youtube needs to block them next.

 

it is if they use religion as the reason. 

 

ask an evangelical conservative if they agree with you on porn. 

 

this is why I am not a fan. I understand they can, Im ok with them doing it bc its within their right. But I feel I'd rather keep this kooks where I can see them, then where I cant. 

 

As I said above, Id rather they be categorized as "Conspiracy Theory Entertainment" and require a very stern, non-skippable disclaimer  before every episode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, atom631 said:

 

it is if they use religion as the reason. 

 

ask an evangelical conservative if they agree with you on porn. 

 

this is why I am not a fan. I understand they can, Im ok with them doing it bc its within their right. But I feel I'd rather keep this kooks where I can see them, then where I cant. 

 

As I said above, Id rather they be categorized as "Conspiracy Theory Entertainment" and require a very stern, non-skippable disclaimer  before every episode. 

 

Evangelicals do agree with me on porn; they just do it in secret. :p 

 

But this isn't based on religious reasons either. I'd rather limit their ability to spread their nonsense; they only easily spread their kooky conspiracy theories by being unfettered on social media, and their influence on harassing parents of dead children only has spread due to it. Make it as hard as possible for these scumbags to do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Evangelicals do agree with me on porn; they just do it in secret. :p 

 

But this isn't based on religious reasons either. I'd rather limit their ability to spread their nonsense; they only easily spread their kooky conspiracy theories by being unfettered on social media, and their influence on harassing parents of dead children only has spread due to it. Make it as hard as possible for these scumbags to do anything.

 

This is my problem with it. Look,  as I said... hit him hard on the Sandy Hook thing. Make an example out of him. Force regulation that requires him to personally make a statement that his followers should not take action, its entertainment only, etc.... but this is basically saying "we dont agree with your rhetoric, so we are going to ban you". Which you can applaud if you agree with the verdict, but there may be a day where your views are being banned and my feeling is you might sing a different tune. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no slippery slope to banning conspiracy theorists who harass parents of dead children. Just simply none. The only slope is that more bad people will be banned for shitty views if many people tire of their toxicity. A private company doing this is more feasible than forcing legislation which actually might be in conflict with actual rights of his.

 

The premise is simple: don't be a dangerous conspiracy theorist. It's very easy to be OK with that and not OK with banning someone for being a regular person and not having any logical contradiction between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, atom631 said:

For the same reason that, lets say an ISP decides its going to block all domains that host pornography because they believe it adds to the moral decay of society (or some other nonsensical reason). Im a big boy, I can make the decision on my own as to what content I chose to view. And I understand no platform is required to host it if it goes against their views. On the other side of the argument, I firmly agree that a company should have the right to ban/block/Not serve cake if its what they chose. 

 

However, this wont suddenly make AJ/IW followers go away or stop believing his lies.  This in fact  will only further to strengthens their narrative. Also, so long as Youtube doesn't ban him, it wont matter. 

 

I don't think the ISP analogy would be pushed though because law and regulation of ISP is more from the lens of the internet as a utility. Regardless of how prolific Facebook (et al.) is, I don't think there is any reason to conceptualize it as a utility and therefore generalize the law across. 

 

This would, however, generalize to say, Youtube and Twitter. And I'm also okay with a world where they block content for the same reason I'm okay with a world in which cable channels choose their content and can kick shows off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

I don't think the ISP analogy would be pushed though because law and regulation of ISP is more from the lens of the internet as a utility. Regardless of how prolific Facebook (et al.) is, I don't think there is any reason to conceptualize it as a utility and therefore generalize the law across. 

 

This would, however, generalize to say, Youtube and Twitter. And I'm also okay with a world where they block content for the same reason I'm okay with a world in which cable channels choose their content and can kick shows off.

 

as of now the internet is not a utility, and that's certainly a different argument on whether or not it should become one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, atom631 said:

 

as of now the internet is not a utility, and that's certainly a different argument on whether or not it should become one.

 

Understood; my point is that legislation and the way people conceptualization it is more of utility than something like Facebook. For that reason, I don't think we have to worry about a slippery slope. There's a pretty clear difference between them.

 

Ultimately, we shouldn't feel compelled to put everything in a pre-determined set of boxes anyway, though I understand legally it is often necessary to do so, which is why I raised it as "through the lens."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

That's not a 1st amendment issue if an ISP blocks porn. There's also a big difference between porn and harassing the parents of dead children.

 

This greatly reduces their social media influence, and it matters. Youtube needs to block them next.

He's mostly wrong, but it could be argued that as a defacto (or even dejur) monopoly, this may not be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, atom631 said:

You take down IW and 6 more sites will pop up just like it spewing the same nonsense. Keep him in plan sight where he can be heavily scrutinized and called out. 

 

Absolutely nobody knows any of this. I do know that his reach is high due to social media and a lack of action to ban his ideas. Keeping him in plain sight has allowed him to spread misinformation easily and more easily harass parents of dead children. It didn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Absolutely nobody knows any of this. I do know that his reach is high due to social media and a lack of action to ban his ideas. Keeping him in plain sight has allowed him to spread misinformation easily and more easily harass parents of dead children. It didn't work.

see my above comments about regulating, disclaimers, categories, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, atom631 said:

see my above comments about regulating, disclaimers, categories, etc...

 

I did. The regulation idea is the one that doesn't even seem feasible. I don't see how eliminating their reach on the most popular media sites somehow feeds into their narrative but forcing a disclaimer does. What's better is to eliminate their reach on the most popular social media platforms and decimate their way of reaching people. Torch these fuckers to the ground as putting them "out in the open" has been a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I did. The regulation idea is the one that doesn't even seem feasible. I don't see how eliminating their reach on the most popular media sites somehow feeds into their narrative but forcing a disclaimer does. What's better is to eliminate their reach on the most popular social media platforms and decimate their way of reaching people. Torch these fuckers to the ground as putting them "out in the open" has been a failure.

youre not going torch them to the ground though. thats the problem. do you really believe these naive people are suddenly going to be "oh, well the gov ruled alex jones is wrong and MSM is removing him from their sites. they must be right. i no longer support alex jones".  

 

never.going.to.happen. this only strengthens their fantastical suspicions. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, atom631 said:

youre not going torch them to the ground though. thats the problem. do you really believe these naive people are suddenly going to be "oh, well the gov ruled alex jones is wrong and MSM is removing him from their sites. they must be right. i no longer support alex jones".  

 

never.going.to.happen. this only strengthens their fantastical suspicions. 

 

 

 

I feel like you're arguing something completely different and misrepresenting me entirely.

 

This isn't about swaying the world's opinion. This is about torching their ease of communication. Letting them be has been a failure; severely hindering their ability to spread their shit it far superior to the status quo. The idea that letting them be is what's actually going to weaken them is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jones has his fanatical supporters that will follow him on whatever platform, self hosted or not, but what getting him off of Facebook and Apple Podcasts and (hopefully) Youtube does is dramatically limit his reach. These platforms extend his audience far beyond what it would otherwise be and it legitimizes him in a way that he cannot achieve by himself. When his podcast or his video or his story gets recommended by some algorithm because other Fox News viewers also liked that content, it pushes his narratives to people that aren't die hard Infowars followers. His content ends up in feeds of people that don't necessarily know who he is, and when these platforms push his headlines and thumbnails it only serves to push his false narratives well beyond his existing fanbase. This isn't about extinguishing his voice or taking away his rights, it's about treating him like the cancer he is and limiting his ability to spread.

 

These platforms don't need to take responsibility for every bit of content that they host, but they should be responsible for their loudest bad actors. Everyone draws a line, and if Jones hasn't crossed it for your platform, I have a hard time imagining who would.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atom631 said:

youre not going torch them to the ground though. thats the problem. do you really believe these naive people are suddenly going to be "oh, well the gov ruled alex jones is wrong and MSM is removing him from their sites. they must be right. i no longer support alex jones".  

 

never.going.to.happen. this only strengthens their fantastical suspicions. 

 

 

Nah but by not giving him a platform you can minimizing his influence from spreading and causing more havoc. It's like when people get banned from here for violating the TOS. Is it gonna change their attitude and stance in life? Probably not but at least we don't have to deal with it anymore and less people will be dicks cuz of it. 

 

Also being banned from Facebook, Twitter or any social media platform is not suppressing freedom of speech. He broke their rules and has to suffer the consequences. He can still say what he wants on his website and anywhere he wishes where he doesn't violate the terms of service. I got banned when I was younger because of something I said on Xbox live for a day. MS did not violate my 1st admendment. They flexed theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...