It really just allows the tech giants to determine what messages should be said. Its not the government, but still entities that largely rule the internet. I see your point, its just murky waters.
Personally I would say let people speak. Leave it up to the individual to filter messages they dont want to read. Twitter (FB, Google, etc) are fighting a PR battle these days, and are being leaned on by the gov as well. No easy answer.
Context is very important here. Alex Jones was punished for "he tweeted out a link to a video in which he calls for his supporters to get their "battle rifles" ready for the media and others." which is not really trying to incite actual violence.
Some locations on earth the ability to communicate the need to stop violence is necessary. Ethnic cleansing being done by your government? Do you want the people to unite and stop that?
I really dont have a good answer and can see both sides, personally Id err on the side of letting people speak.
I agree, but the inverse is the the tech companies and government use this type of punishment to silence and quell dissenters or stop any type of change it doesnt like.
Context, satire, and meaning is extremely tough to convey over the internet and leads to a pretty wide margin for interpretation to suit your (or who ever it may concern) needs.
I think there’s probably an argument in there that those services are so curated by their algorithms that it’s not so easy as people filtering what they read, especially users not so well educated in how those platforms shape the window they look through.
Funny thing is, it’s likely the people who never went looking for Jones saw less of him than the people who did.
Maybe the people looking for his kind of messaging were just waiting for a note like “ready your guns”.
And again maybe the real danger lies in the ones who are on the edge of that and start getting hints of it and what’s more, increasingly fall prey to it and so seek it out more and their curated window is all the more filled with it. Suddenly you have large swathes of people believing that the end is nigh, Obama is a reptile, men are under attack, and it’s time to ready their rifles against their neighbour.
More should probably be questioned about the curation process those companies employ.
Personally, I think there's a some sort of line there where you have to use some sense and say this person shouldn't be allowed to say or use our platform. There's got to be a line somewhere for hateful, terrible people. It's not about different viewpoints or opinions when you get to the point of something like White Nationalists or Islamic fundamentalists.
I don't think they should be arrested or put in jail but what's the harm in booting some awful people? I know someone will respond to "what happens when they disagree with what you say"? Yeah, that could happen and I get pissed and life goes on. People get banned daily from all the platforms for really dumb things. Hell, you can't even have a female nipple on Instagram.
I agree those are horrible people, but I just ignore them. I'd rather be the one to make that choice for myself than let people at Twitter, Google, FB, etc... who have a monetary invested interest make the choice.
I get that and 99% percent agree with you but I also don't think there's harm in limiting the influence of these people. You and I might be able to ignore it or parse it in a rational manner but some disaffected teenager might buy into it.
The tech giants didn't take his website down, the RSS feed is still live and can still be subscribed to in the podcast of your choice. How did the tech giants determine anything?
Censorship doesn't necessarily mean censorship by government. If an entity is powerful enough (Google, Facebook, etc.) they can engage in censorship just as well.
It is worth separating out the (less interesting) legal argument around the 1st amendment from the practical reality.
The reality is that private companies like Google, Twitter, etc. have more power than the government to restrict speech. In fairness, tech companies have been reluctant to wield that power and have been pushed into it.
What if you flip this around: private companies like Twitter, etc, have provided a mass-media platform to far more people than who could ever broadcast globally in the past.
Is it so wrong for them to think maybe this wasn't a universal good?
A thought experiment, what if in the past the ink and paper makers had banded together and prevented a newspaper from being able to publish? Is that OK because the ink and paper companies are private and not the government?
There's been plenty of examples of yellow journalism where the press incited the public into war, so there could be legitimate reasons private ink and paper companies wouldn't want those messages broadcast.
The difference being that in this case, ink, paper and even printing presses are readily available to everyone. The free private one-stop platform they were using before is stopping them from publishing, but for negligible cost almost anybody can publish what they like using their own private platform.
It's a valid question to ask. To me, it's clear that the answer is it's better not to censor. But there are, of course, plusses and minuses...
Here's my perspective.
I remember the start of the second Iraq war very clearly. Something like 70% of Americans believed, falsely, that Sadam Hussein was behind 9/11. As someone that didn't believe that, it was almost surreal. It was like everyone had gone mad. Most MSM sources were basically de-facto propaganda arms for the US govt.
On that wave of public support, we ludicrously and tragically invaded Iraq.
I think if you replay that scenario with Twitter existing, there's a very good chance you don't hit that 70% number and a pretty good chance we don't go to war.
It's simply too easy now to be exposed to alternative narratives. And the false venere of infallibility that "the news" has historically had pretty much fades away when you see reporters duking it out on equal footing with everyone else on Tiwtter.
So! I think the banning of Alex Jones is just step 1 of a plan to "fix" this problem; it's an attempt to reassert the ability to control the narrative and what the public thinks.
I know that all might sound a bit conspiracy-theory-ish, but, well, how else to interpret things like this?
More broadly, it's surprising to me that so many people who believe in freedom of speech, democracy, etc in their governments, are so gung-ho for autocratic, censored governening structures in the online realms.
Twitter is more important than traditional press; shouldn't it have similar protections?
It seems to me that you've gone off topic here without offering detailed support of your arguments.
Re: "Conservatives have a far, far lower bar to censor people than Twitter, et al. (i.e. /r/The_Donald on Reddit)" This is a generalization with only one example for support.
It isn't that complex and to be 100% honest, once you know how it works, its very easy to test for yourself with extremely consistent results. The bans are more a result of me testing their belief in the first amendment for my own curiosity rather than anything you need to apologize for. I intentionally bait conservatives that claim they are pro-free speech to watch the hypocrisy and to confirm my belief in their dishonesty is correct.
The loophole used to "justify" my bans is almost always:
User who doesn't agree with conservative narrative posts facts viewed as damaging -> Conservatives report you as "spamming" -> powers that be ban you as a "spammer" due to moderation mechanisms based on N reports.
Sometimes it involves human intervention as well, sometimes not.
> PC case maker CaseLabs says it has been 'forced into bankruptcy and liquidation' by US tariffs (Prices went up 80%!) -- Thanks Folks and I await your censorship ban.
I know they are going to do that after I posted that, even included it in the title, and was banned. :)
I was also banned for similar posts on a couple news sites.
-----
Pretty much any major "Conservative" subreddit has banned my account (or another one of my Reddit accounts) at this point. Voat/Gab, I'm banned platform wide.
>The reality is that private companies like Google, Twitter, etc. have more power than the government to restrict speech.
Is that a bad thing?
The worst a company can do is drop your account - they can't even stop you from moving your content elsewhere. Governments can have you killed. Governments should be more restricted than the common citizen or even corporation.
It's certainly a difficult topic, but I can see a pretty strong argument that the likes of Alex Jones make Twitter a worse place. It's not in their interests to keep him on the platform, and I'm not really sure what would compel them to do so.
I like guns. I think conspiracy theories are fun (just not Alex Jones's presentation of them), even when they're false, as they almost always are. I hate the censorship these platforms are engaged in.
That said, these bans were righteous. Anyone getting on any platform and encouraging, iirc, people to act "legally... and illegally" with "battle rifles" to resist an unseen army of government oppressors, is saying civilization has broken down and the only thing left is civil war and revolution.
The fact that there has been no Jones-inspired violence means that there are literally zero people in his audience who take him seriously. Which is good.
That raises an interesting side issue, though. Granted, someone advocating violence like that needs to be de-platformed. However, since clearly none of his viewers take him seriously, maybe the main narrative about Infowars is wrong. Maybe his entire persona, and Infowars, are an undeclared comedy act that give people, mostly conservatives, an outlet for their frustrations without requiring them to agree with, or act on, any of the extreme shit he says, even if they might parrot it in conversation from time to time.
If this is a comedy act, I don't know where the line is between comedy and incitement to violence. These platforms probably don't (and can't afford to) have as nuanced a view of it, but if they did, they would still probably not want to take that chance. I think attempts to incite others to violence is a serious enough thing that if he is running a comedy show, he should still tone down direct incitement to violence. What if just the right kind of mentally unhinged person watches his videos? That could turn out badly, and there's no reason to take that risk. The impact to freedom of speech of prohibiting, even in comedy, incitement to violence, is minimal. I have a feeling if it were a government agency doing the censoring, the courts would find approximately the same thing: This kind of speech can properly be censored, even under strict scrutiny.
>The fact that there has been no Jones-inspired violence means that there are literally zero people in his audience who take him seriously. Which is good.
Alex Jones at least indirectly inspired a gunman to fire into a restaurant because he pushed the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.
One might be able to make the argument that Alex Jones doesn't directly call for violence, but he and people like him make a living out of talking around violence, and when someone pushes conspiracy theories about certain groups of people (jews, muslims, leftists, gays) belief in those conspiracies can create a higher likelihood of violence against those groups.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And also, persons, including legal persons, will be compelled to provide a platform for persons inciting violence.
This is the “Christian Bakery” moment for Twitter et al. You can’t at the same time argue that a bakery must serve people whose politics it doesn’t like (you can find photos of the baker in question with sympathetic gay folks, so he doesn’t seem like a total homophobe to me) and do the exact same thing yourself.
It's illegal in Colorado for a business to refuse service to someone because of their sexual orientation. That's the law under which the state tried to penalize the baker.
Alex Jones violated Twitter's ToS by, among other things, encouraging armed violence.
There's zero tension in thinking that both Twitter and the state of Colorado acted defensibly in these two cases.
"People need to have their battle rifles and everything ready at their bedsides" is not a figure of speech I've ever heard. Is Milo Yiannopoulos's quote "I can't wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight" a similar figure of speech?
Excusing extreme calls-to-action after the fact as "figures of speech" gives license to say anything: when you've found you've gone too far, you can simply walk it back and say it was metaphor. Should any of Milo's or Jones's followers act on this, would you still say their comments were just figures of speech?
Yes, it’s _obviously_ a figure of speech. Alex Jones is not, nor has he ever been, a leader of armed resistance of any sort. Neither was Milo. They do not _actually_ urge armed resistance. Anyone who argues otherwise is being deliberately obtuse. If you want to go after violent resistance, check out hundreds of accounts of violent Antifa activists which are, miraculously, not banned from Twitter.
the second part of that quote makes it much less worse. 'everything ready at their bedsides' implies resisting an armed attack as opposed to going out and hurting other people. previously i'd only seen the 'battle rifles' ready part of the quote in the media. though, possibly the rest of the context is probably worse for jones :/
Full context is available in a tweet linked in the article[1], but Jones states "We're under attack and you know that and you've pointed out that mainstream media is the enemy. But now it's time to act on the enemy... They're coming and they're coming and they're coming. They think they can really take down America. This is it." before urging his followers to have rifles ready.
Your analogy fails because Alex Jones isn't a protected class. He wasn't kicked off for being gay/religion etc, he was kicked off for inciting violence.
Nor were those gay folks by the baker. He didn’t refuse service because they were gay per se. He refused because they wanted a _gay wedding cake_. Had they ordered a birthday cake, he would have happily made it for them. It’s like if you go into a Muslim bakery and order a cake with a picture of prophet Mohammad an it. Go try it, see how that works out for you.
50 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadSome locations on earth the ability to communicate the need to stop violence is necessary. Ethnic cleansing being done by your government? Do you want the people to unite and stop that?
I really dont have a good answer and can see both sides, personally Id err on the side of letting people speak.
"mainstream media is the enemy, but now it's time to act on the enemy"
"legally and criminally its time to move against these people"
Context, satire, and meaning is extremely tough to convey over the internet and leads to a pretty wide margin for interpretation to suit your (or who ever it may concern) needs.
No easy answer
Funny thing is, it’s likely the people who never went looking for Jones saw less of him than the people who did.
Maybe the people looking for his kind of messaging were just waiting for a note like “ready your guns”.
And again maybe the real danger lies in the ones who are on the edge of that and start getting hints of it and what’s more, increasingly fall prey to it and so seek it out more and their curated window is all the more filled with it. Suddenly you have large swathes of people believing that the end is nigh, Obama is a reptile, men are under attack, and it’s time to ready their rifles against their neighbour.
More should probably be questioned about the curation process those companies employ.
I don't think they should be arrested or put in jail but what's the harm in booting some awful people? I know someone will respond to "what happens when they disagree with what you say"? Yeah, that could happen and I get pissed and life goes on. People get banned daily from all the platforms for really dumb things. Hell, you can't even have a female nipple on Instagram.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
edit: already downvoted. Wikipedias mundane standard definition is already too controversial for HN. :D
The reality is that private companies like Google, Twitter, etc. have more power than the government to restrict speech. In fairness, tech companies have been reluctant to wield that power and have been pushed into it.
Is it so wrong for them to think maybe this wasn't a universal good?
There's been plenty of examples of yellow journalism where the press incited the public into war, so there could be legitimate reasons private ink and paper companies wouldn't want those messages broadcast.
Nobody's taking down infowars.com, afaik.
Here's my perspective.
I remember the start of the second Iraq war very clearly. Something like 70% of Americans believed, falsely, that Sadam Hussein was behind 9/11. As someone that didn't believe that, it was almost surreal. It was like everyone had gone mad. Most MSM sources were basically de-facto propaganda arms for the US govt.
On that wave of public support, we ludicrously and tragically invaded Iraq.
I think if you replay that scenario with Twitter existing, there's a very good chance you don't hit that 70% number and a pretty good chance we don't go to war.
It's simply too easy now to be exposed to alternative narratives. And the false venere of infallibility that "the news" has historically had pretty much fades away when you see reporters duking it out on equal footing with everyone else on Tiwtter.
So! I think the banning of Alex Jones is just step 1 of a plan to "fix" this problem; it's an attempt to reassert the ability to control the narrative and what the public thinks.
I know that all might sound a bit conspiracy-theory-ish, but, well, how else to interpret things like this?
https://twitter.com/chrismurphyct/status/1026580187784404994
More broadly, it's surprising to me that so many people who believe in freedom of speech, democracy, etc in their governments, are so gung-ho for autocratic, censored governening structures in the online realms.
Twitter is more important than traditional press; shouldn't it have similar protections?
Why does no one call them out on their echo chambers that ban anyone who calls BS?
Even their "free speech" platforms do this. (i.e. Gab)
There is no private party that genuinely protects people's first amendment rights.
Re: "Conservatives have a far, far lower bar to censor people than Twitter, et al. (i.e. /r/The_Donald on Reddit)" This is a generalization with only one example for support.
Voat
Gab
16 Republican subreddits
Multiple GOP "news" sites
I can try to come up with a comprehensive list if it's really worth it?
The loophole used to "justify" my bans is almost always:
User who doesn't agree with conservative narrative posts facts viewed as damaging -> Conservatives report you as "spamming" -> powers that be ban you as a "spammer" due to moderation mechanisms based on N reports.
Sometimes it involves human intervention as well, sometimes not.
For instance:
https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/96h0dy/pc_case_...
> PC case maker CaseLabs says it has been 'forced into bankruptcy and liquidation' by US tariffs (Prices went up 80%!) -- Thanks Folks and I await your censorship ban.
I know they are going to do that after I posted that, even included it in the title, and was banned. :)
I was also banned for similar posts on a couple news sites.
-----
Pretty much any major "Conservative" subreddit has banned my account (or another one of my Reddit accounts) at this point. Voat/Gab, I'm banned platform wide.
Is that a bad thing?
The worst a company can do is drop your account - they can't even stop you from moving your content elsewhere. Governments can have you killed. Governments should be more restricted than the common citizen or even corporation.
But if you succeed and it becomes a bastion of racism, insanity, and violent speech, I'll vote to stop you.
That said, these bans were righteous. Anyone getting on any platform and encouraging, iirc, people to act "legally... and illegally" with "battle rifles" to resist an unseen army of government oppressors, is saying civilization has broken down and the only thing left is civil war and revolution.
The fact that there has been no Jones-inspired violence means that there are literally zero people in his audience who take him seriously. Which is good.
That raises an interesting side issue, though. Granted, someone advocating violence like that needs to be de-platformed. However, since clearly none of his viewers take him seriously, maybe the main narrative about Infowars is wrong. Maybe his entire persona, and Infowars, are an undeclared comedy act that give people, mostly conservatives, an outlet for their frustrations without requiring them to agree with, or act on, any of the extreme shit he says, even if they might parrot it in conversation from time to time.
If this is a comedy act, I don't know where the line is between comedy and incitement to violence. These platforms probably don't (and can't afford to) have as nuanced a view of it, but if they did, they would still probably not want to take that chance. I think attempts to incite others to violence is a serious enough thing that if he is running a comedy show, he should still tone down direct incitement to violence. What if just the right kind of mentally unhinged person watches his videos? That could turn out badly, and there's no reason to take that risk. The impact to freedom of speech of prohibiting, even in comedy, incitement to violence, is minimal. I have a feeling if it were a government agency doing the censoring, the courts would find approximately the same thing: This kind of speech can properly be censored, even under strict scrutiny.
Alex Jones at least indirectly inspired a gunman to fire into a restaurant because he pushed the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.
One might be able to make the argument that Alex Jones doesn't directly call for violence, but he and people like him make a living out of talking around violence, and when someone pushes conspiracy theories about certain groups of people (jews, muslims, leftists, gays) belief in those conspiracies can create a higher likelihood of violence against those groups.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And also, persons, including legal persons, will be compelled to provide a platform for persons inciting violence.
So, no.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17764760
Alex Jones violated Twitter's ToS by, among other things, encouraging armed violence.
There's zero tension in thinking that both Twitter and the state of Colorado acted defensibly in these two cases.
Two: Using a figure of speech is not “encouraging armed violence”.
Excusing extreme calls-to-action after the fact as "figures of speech" gives license to say anything: when you've found you've gone too far, you can simply walk it back and say it was metaphor. Should any of Milo's or Jones's followers act on this, would you still say their comments were just figures of speech?
If the rest of the context was worse for jones, the press would have used it.
[1] https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808