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.
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, plus his previous suspensions for breaking the rules (like posting personal info to try and harass people) got him permanently banned from the platform.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, restricting governments is the ONLY thing it does. Next time you bother citing an Amendment, I recommend you actually read it first.
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”)
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 ?