after Youtube and Apple and Facebook banned him last month
Guess he’ll have to try carrier pigeons.
he still has his own website so I don’t think it matters that much who else bans him
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 ]
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.
Is there an actual discussion, here?
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?
He’s free to provide his own platform to spew nonsense, 'Murica, dammit. Bootstraps and stuff.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And Google and Apple still have his app on their app stores.
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?
Perhaps he broke some rules of theirs, as was explained in the link the OP provided.
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.)
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.