Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-06-2018, 05:38 PM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,334
Twitter bans Alex Jones and infowars

after Youtube and Apple and Facebook banned him last month

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/06/tec...ars/index.html
  #2  
Old 09-06-2018, 05:42 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,811
Guess he'll have to try carrier pigeons.
  #3  
Old 09-06-2018, 05:57 PM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,334
he still has his own website so I don't think it matters that much who else bans him
  #4  
Old 09-06-2018, 05:57 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
Moderating

I am going to move this to Great debates, temporarily, until the OP can be fleshed out with an actual discussion point. If no such presentation of an opinion is provided, it will probably be closed.
1 This is really not an Elections issue.
2. We really prefer that threads in either GD or Elections are begun with more than a link. They are debate fora, provide a thesis to debate.

[ /Moderating ]
  #5  
Old 09-06-2018, 06:01 PM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,334
Does he have any fans on this site? Probably not many but maybe a few ? He's not exactly loved by liberals (who are the vast majority here) to put it mildly.
  #6  
Old 09-06-2018, 06:03 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Does he have any fans on this site? Probably not many but maybe a few ? He's not exactly loved by liberals (who are the vast majority here) to put it mildly.
So what?
Is there an actual discussion, here?
  #7  
Old 09-06-2018, 06:07 PM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,334
I was wondering if anyone likes him and disagrees with the ban? Or if anyone thinks the ban is a good idea? People can add whatever they want to about him. What else would people talk about in this thread?
  #8  
Old 09-06-2018, 06:24 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,777
He's free to provide his own platform to spew nonsense, 'Murica, dammit. Bootstraps and stuff.
  #9  
Old 09-06-2018, 06:36 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 11,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I was wondering if anyone likes him and disagrees with the ban? Or if anyone thinks the ban is a good idea? People can add whatever they want to about him. What else would people talk about in this thread?
I don't like him. He's a terrible person. Probably even more terrible because I doubt he even believes the nonsense he spews.

I'm no fan of twittter. (I wish they would ban everyone) However, they are a private business and they can ban people who are assholes without complaint from me.
  #10  
Old 09-06-2018, 06:37 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
I am going to move this to Great debates, temporarily, until the OP can be fleshed out with an actual discussion point. If no such presentation of an opinion is provided, it will probably be closed.
1 This is really not an Elections issue.
2. We really prefer that threads in either GD or Elections are begun with more than a link. They are debate fora, provide a thesis to debate.

[ /Moderating ]
Elections is not (solely) a debate forum, though. And I don't think the OP was trying for a debate. I think that, if Elections is not the appropriate place, then moving it to somethign like IMHO or MPSIMS or even Cafe Society (since he's an entertainer) would be more appropriate if no debate comes out.

That said, a debate can be had here: Twitter went all out saying they wouldn't ban the guy. What about the head of Twitter going on Hannity to defend not taking Jones off its platform? Is there a defense for this change of heart? And is banning the guy from a platform a good way to deal with this sort of thing? Is there any worry about actual good speech being banned from these platforms? Should this have been done sooner? Is this related to the desire to get fake news off their platforms before the next election?

I support it myself, and am find as long as the rules for these platforms remain unbiased. If there is any sort of monopoly, I think the better way to deal with it is anti-trust issues, not trying to regulate the speech of these companies by telling them they are officially public spheres or whatever the term is.

Outside of the debate, I simply point and laugh at Jones. I do wonder if he pushed the burning Nikes thing, because it would fit when people smashed their Keurig machines. Will he buy them a bunch of Nikes to replace them?

Getting rid of these conspiracy nuts is a good thing for our country. But the real best step is to start teaching how to see through this stuff in our schools again.

Edit: didn't refresh the page for a bit, and didn't notice the OP had already came up with their own debate questions.

Last edited by BigT; 09-06-2018 at 06:39 PM.
  #11  
Old 09-06-2018, 07:14 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,268
Big T is right. There are a few conversations to be had here. One is the balance between free speech and social media, particularly on these giant platforms. It goes beyond who gets to speak. It's what do they get to say, who decides it, and does the audience even know it's been censored, curated, or created?

In this particular case, Twitter had earlier refused to remove Alex Jones in the face of strong pressure to do so. Why now? The story is that Alex Jones had posted content in violation Twitter's use terms, but the reality is that Jones and Infowars had been doing so all along (CNN documented this, for example). It may be that Twitter wanted to provide the appearance of impartiality. They were also specifically targeted in a July tweet by the President who accused them of "shadow banning", so another theory is that they feared reprisals from the White House or via the government.
  #12  
Old 09-06-2018, 09:47 PM
Kimera757 Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
He's free to provide his own platform to spew nonsense, 'Murica, dammit. Bootstraps and stuff.
Not if he's spewing hate or engaging in defamation. Is he the one who called school shooting survivors Nazis? Or crisis actors? It's a little hard to keep track of the paranoid nonsense.
  #13  
Old 09-06-2018, 10:36 PM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757 View Post
Not if he's spewing hate or engaging in defamation. Is he the one who called school shooting survivors Nazis? Or crisis actors? It's a little hard to keep track of the paranoid nonsense.
No, he can spew hate in his own dark corner of the Internet. I'll adamantly defend his right to do that, as every American should. Twitter, Youtube and Facebook just aren't his corner of the Internet. Let him slink off to whatever hole he can afford to provide for himself and spew all that crap until his face is blue or his fingers blister. I don't care, I wont be visiting his site. The KKK has its website and he can have his too. Now, defamation is different. He's free to do it, but he's also liable for damages in civil court.

And yeah, I believe he uses Nazi pretty interchangeably with Communist because all bad things are the same thing (that is, "not me") in that weird bubble of thinking.
  #14  
Old 09-06-2018, 11:17 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,268
Do social media platforms have any duty to free speech beyond their bottom line and/or the inclination of their board of directors?
  #15  
Old 09-07-2018, 01:59 PM
Nars Glinley Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Do social media platforms have any duty to free speech beyond their bottom line and/or the inclination of their board of directors?
IANAL but I assume that they do not. However, I don't see the point in banning him. Sure, he's a jerk that spews garbage but that could be said of at least 50% of twitter users.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
  #16  
Old 09-07-2018, 04:05 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
he still has his own website so I don't think it matters that much who else bans him
And Google and Apple still have his app on their app stores.
  #17  
Old 09-07-2018, 04:12 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nars Glinley View Post
IANAL but I assume that they do not. However, I don't see the point in banning him. Sure, he's a jerk that spews garbage but that could be said of at least 50% of twitter users.
If Twitter had not banned him, and one of Jones's acolytes had gone on a shooting spree against the Sandy Hook parents (for example), could Twitter have been held liable, if the shooter said he got the idea from reading one of Jones's tweets?
  #18  
Old 09-07-2018, 04:20 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nars Glinley View Post
IANAL but I assume that they do not. However, I don't see the point in banning him. Sure, he's a jerk that spews garbage but that could be said of at least 50% of twitter users.
Perhaps he broke some rules of theirs, as was explained in the link the OP provided.
  #19  
Old 09-07-2018, 09:06 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
If Twitter had not banned him, and one of Jones's acolytes had gone on a shooting spree against the Sandy Hook parents (for example), could Twitter have been held liable, if the shooter said he got the idea from reading one of Jones's tweets?
I think you've identified the probable reason that Twitter finally banned him: potential liability issues. (Even if they weren't held liable, the publicity would be ruinous.)
  #20  
Old 09-08-2018, 12:49 AM
Nars Glinley Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Perhaps he broke some rules of theirs, as was explained in the link the OP provided.
If Twitter banned everyone that broke some rules of theirs, there would be no Twitter. Which in and of itself would not be a bad thing.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
  #21  
Old 09-08-2018, 01:13 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Do social media platforms have any duty to free speech beyond their bottom line and/or the inclination of their board of directors?
No. But in some ways yes. We hear all of the time, correctly, that the First Amendment applies only to government action against its citizens. However, the idea of free speech is one imbued in the people as an important freedom so that we can all exchange ideas.

Facebook, Twitter, and the SDMB, for example, can legally ban all views that are supportive of X. But are they doing society, or even themselves, a good service by doing so? I think that broadly speaking, they are not.

If some guy wants to come on here and say that Hitler was right or that blacks are inferior, then I think that type of thought when it still exists should be brought into the light and condemned for the dangerous idea that it is and not kept in his mother's basement where it might foster into action one day.

I think that is indeed part of our duty as a free people to discuss, condemn, and correct.
  #22  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:09 AM
KMS94 KMS94 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
And Google and Apple still have his app on their app stores.
Apple removed the app yesterday.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-p...ore-1536382593
  #23  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:35 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If some guy wants to come on here and say that Hitler was right or that blacks are inferior, then I think that type of thought when it still exists should be brought into the light and condemned for the dangerous idea that it is and not kept in his mother's basement where it might foster into action one day.

I think that is indeed part of our duty as a free people to discuss, condemn, and correct.
That's a nice ideal, but reality doesn't bear it out. Infowars was already condemned and shown to be dangerous. But that didn't stop it. No, that only strengthened it. These are conspiracy theorists--anyone telling them they are wrong is only proof they are right.

The reality is that what Jones is saying is propaganda: lies designed to prey on certain minds. And the best way to stop propaganda spreading is to stop the lies.

That said, it wasn't mere ideas that got the guy banned. It was his abusive behavior towards CNN reporter Oliver Darcy, accosting him in person and harassing him.

That, plus his previous suspensions for breaking the rules (like posting personal info to try and harass people) got him permanently banned from the platform.
  #24  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:36 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No. But in some ways yes. We hear all of the time, correctly, that the First Amendment applies only to government action against its citizens. However, the idea of free speech is one imbued in the people as an important freedom so that we can all exchange ideas.

Facebook, Twitter, and the SDMB, for example, can legally ban all views that are supportive of X. But are they doing society, or even themselves, a good service by doing so? I think that broadly speaking, they are not.

If some guy wants to come on here and say that Hitler was right or that blacks are inferior, then I think that type of thought when it still exists should be brought into the light and condemned for the dangerous idea that it is and not kept in his mother's basement where it might foster into action one day.

I think that is indeed part of our duty as a free people to discuss, condemn, and correct.
It is clear though that that took place already, I'm referring about the years of feedback Facebook, Twitter and others gave to the likes of Alex Jones, only to see years also of Jones and others not shaping up when warnings are also part of the feedback. What we see now is the managers of social media reacting a bit late to misinformers that do feed hate.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-08-2018 at 09:38 AM.
  #25  
Old 09-08-2018, 10:50 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That said, it wasn't mere ideas that got the guy banned. It was his abusive behavior towards CNN reporter Oliver Darcy, accosting him in person and harassing him.

That, plus his previous suspensions for breaking the rules (like posting personal info to try and harass people) got him permanently banned from the platform.
Right, as he has moved on to personally harassing individuals like Darcy and Rubio, his material becomes a credible incitement to others to do the same.
  #26  
Old 09-08-2018, 05:54 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That said, it wasn't mere ideas that got the guy banned. It was his abusive behavior towards CNN reporter Oliver Darcy, accosting him in person and harassing him.
Nah, that was their excuse. It was because he said bad things about Jack Dorsey.
  #27  
Old 09-08-2018, 11:51 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Free speech on someone else's site (and Twitter IS someone else's site, not a public utility) is a dangerous illusion that needs to be publicly squashed. Prominent notices that can't be hidden, attached to every conversation, that Twitter is private property and messages are posted at Twitter's sole discretion.
  #28  
Old 09-09-2018, 12:02 AM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Free speech on someone else's site (and Twitter IS someone else's site, not a public utility) is a dangerous illusion that needs to be publicly squashed. Prominent notices that can't be hidden, attached to every conversation, that Twitter is private property and messages are posted at Twitter's sole discretion.
It could be argued, however, that Twitter (and other social media platforms) are akin to the 'public square' - and https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-public-square

Last edited by simster; 09-09-2018 at 12:03 AM.
  #29  
Old 09-14-2018, 04:31 AM
bubbag85 bubbag85 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 5
Free speech is not a grey area

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
I previously posted this in the "Obvious things about creative works" thread in CS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No. But in some ways yes. We hear all of the time, correctly, that the First Amendment applies only to government action against its citizens. However, the idea of free speech is one imbued in the people as an important freedom so that we can all exchange ideas.

Facebook, Twitter, and the SDMB, for example, can legally ban all views that are supportive of X. But are they doing society, or even themselves, a good service by doing so? I think that broadly speaking, they are not.

If some guy wants to come on here and say that Hitler was right or that blacks are inferior, then I think that type of thought when it still exists should be brought into the light and condemned for the dangerous idea that it is and not kept in his mother's basement where it might foster into action one day.

I think that is indeed part of our duty as a free people to discuss, condemn, and correct.

Whoever said the first amendent only limits government actions? If that were true, it would be undermining the actual idea of of the first amendent. It applies to liberty, and rights of the people. It grants and ensures liberties...it does not restrict governments. The government has no power, the power belongs to the people. Not the other way around.
  #30  
Old 09-14-2018, 04:41 AM
bubbag85 bubbag85 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 5
Banning Alex Jones is the same as burning books!

Noone is forced to follow Alex Jones. We should never support censhorship of anykind by Twitter or any other media outlet or we will be swirling the drain.
  #31  
Old 09-14-2018, 05:43 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbag85 View Post
Whoever said the first amendent only limits government actions? .

Says right there: “Congress shall make no law...”
  #32  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:59 AM
SuperAbe SuperAbe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Flour Capital
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbag85 View Post
Whoever said the first amendent only limits government actions? If that were true, it would be undermining the actual idea of of the first amendent.
The 1st Amendment Doesnít Mean What You Think it Means

Quote:
However, itís important to note that the freedom of expression (commonly known as free speech) only means that the government cannot censor you. So, in other words, if you choose to criticize the government, you cannot be arrested for what you say.

That doesnít mean, though, that anyone else has to listen to you. No one has to pay attention when you speak, no one has to give you a platform, and just because you say something, that doesnít mean there are no consequences for saying it.
  #33  
Old 09-14-2018, 11:07 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbag85 View Post
Whoever said the first amendent only limits government actions?
That would be the 1st Amendment.
  #34  
Old 09-14-2018, 11:36 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbag85 View Post
Noone is forced to follow Alex Jones. We should never support censhorship of anykind by Twitter or any other media outlet or we will be swirling the drain.
Imagine you write a novel, and submit it to a publisher, and they decline to publish it. Does that mean they are guilty of “censorship?” No. It means they thought spending their money to publish your novel was a shitty business decision.

Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter are private publishing companies. They exist to make money off the content that users submit. They are not a telephone company or a postal service, although some users seem to think so. If the publisher believes that hosting Alex Jones is an unprofitable business decision, they are free to do as they please.

Let’s be clear on one thing: If Jones wants to publish his own content, on his own server, with his own money, he has the right to do that. This has NOTHING to do with “censorship” or Jones’ “freedom.” It has EVERYTHING to do with Jones wanting to take advantage of the combined audience of YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter subscribers. If Jones’ own server gets less traffic than these social media sites, that is HIS problem and nobody else’s.

Quote:
It grants and ensures liberties...it does not restrict governments.
Actually, restricting governments is the ONLY thing it does. Next time you bother citing an Amendment, I recommend you actually read it first.

Last edited by JB99; 09-14-2018 at 11:39 AM.
  #35  
Old 09-14-2018, 12:51 PM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Imagine you write a novel, and submit it to a publisher, and they decline to publish it. Does that mean they are guilty of “censorship?” No. It means they thought spending their money to publish your novel was a shitty business decision.

Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter are private publishing companies. They exist to make money off the content that users submit. They are not a telephone company or a postal service, although some users seem to think so. If the publisher believes that hosting Alex Jones is an unprofitable business decision, they are free to do as they please.

Let’s be clear on one thing: If Jones wants to publish his own content, on his own server, with his own money, he has the right to do that. This has NOTHING to do with “censorship” or Jones’ “freedom.” It has EVERYTHING to do with Jones wanting to take advantage of the combined audience of YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter subscribers. If Jones’ own server gets less traffic than these social media sites, that is HIS problem and nobody else’s.
and in a fit of irony - the "Net Neutrality" act that Trump's administration just killed - was intended specifically to make sure that the ISPs didn't favor traffic to some sites over others - basically making sure that AlexJonesBS.com got equal service. (the net neutrality stuff, not Trump's killing it - by Trump killing it - it allows for the ISPs to say "nope, no or reduced service for you alex, we don't like you")

Last edited by simster; 09-14-2018 at 12:54 PM.
  #36  
Old 09-14-2018, 02:48 PM
nightshadea nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 3,852
wasn't this solved years ago by aol and the supreme court like in the 90s?

they said aol was private property and youre just renting space so its their rules or move along? and if you get kicked out for violating those rules well its on you unless its proven those rules violate federal law ?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017