Infowars And Alex Jones Banned On Multiple Online Platforms

[TheBlondBomber]

I don't say he should be punished for it legally.
But if it were my company I certainly wouldn't let him broadcast his message on it.

If Al Core's message causes the same issue as Jones he should be banned as well.

Yet, the same company allows ISIS propaganda on its platform? It also allows for GTA to have a platform as well, which has a history of inciting violence. How many shootings were inspired by first person shooters? Do they still have a platform? Obviously the reason for Jones’s banning was political, which is fine (unless there is significant government entwinement with these tech companies, then it’s a 1A issue), but these companies should be open about it. Just say “we don’t like what he has to say and we’re shutting him down”. Don’t hide behind the cloak of him violating their policies because there are thousands of others that do worse than Jones.

 

[GetTheseHands]

Agreed. But that's not what I was saying.

Freedom of speech was never intended that one person's falsehood could destroy lives. That was always viewed as an acceptable risk. However, that risk is mitigated by the size of the population and the speed of information. If there are only 50 people in my town, it's hard to lie to me about them because I probably know them pretty well. I can just ask. Similarly, if it takes a week to send a letter from one side of town to the other, it would take an awful lot of resources to perpetrate a mass lie.

But when you have 400 million people and a thought can be sent out to 100 million people in less than a second, shit becomes pretty risky. It has nothing to do with thoughts anyone agrees or disagrees with.

This is like saying "the founding father could not have envisioned the AR-15". It's an argument for stripping someone of their rights because something bad could happen, which is how we become a fascist state.

 

[Leagon]

Seems like a ton of potential for the "cure" to be worse than the disease.. Slippery slope and all that...

Of course. Everything is a slippery slope. Child abuse is illegal, but it is a slippery slope from child abuse to not being able to doscipline your child at all.

If a respected mod were to start sending PMs that your av and name are based on the fact that you're a pedophile, would you be okay with that because of free speech? Would you be fine with that mod potentially having access to your IP or personal information? How long would it take for someone who believes the lie to try to find your identity and warn your employer that you're a pedo?

At what point in that example did that slope become too slippery and what could be done about it?

 

[Rational Poster]

You JUST mentioned it and I JUST answered

Also, you're full of shit.

I said it on the first page and you ignored the post.

 

[panamaican]

Ok...is that grounds for being censored?






Is lying against the law (sans under oath)? Because by your argument, anyone who makes a claim that doesn't present evidence that you agree deserves to be banned. And who is the deciding the truth and what is their political affiliation?

If this was a government, you'd have an argument but it's not. People seem to forget that platforms like these are private companies, you don't have the same breadth of rights against them that you'd have against the government.

If a newspaper decided not to publish some dudes op-ed (and they do make that decision all of the time), no one would bat an eyelash. They would remember that the newspaper isn't a public platform and so are these social media and tech companies.

 

[GetTheseHands]

Hate speech was cited and being that his account suspension directly correlates with his death threat rant I'm confident in my assumption.

But it's an assumption

 

[GetTheseHands]

If this was a government, you'd have an argument but it's not. People seem to forget that platforms like these are private companies, you don't have the same breadth of rights against them that you'd have against the government.

If a newspaper decided not to publish some dudes op-ed (and they do make that decision all of the time), no one would bat an eyelash. They would remember that the newspaper isn't a public platform and so are these social media and tech companies.

I've already addressed the 'private company' argument with government protections.

 

[Diamond Jim]

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Cernovich next, block his internet access

Cernovich is certainly a scumbag, but he is exposing disgusting Hollywood pedophile wackos like James Gunn and others. Sometimes it takes a scumbag to expose a scumbag.

 

[Rational Poster]

This is like saying "the founding father could not have envisioned the AR-15". It's an argument for stripping someone of their rights because something bad could happen, which is how we become a fascist state.

Alex Jones still has his rights.

Facebook and YouTube are private corporations and have the right to refuse service for any reason.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Good. Fuck Alex Jones, purveyor of bullshit.
This isn't about freedom of speech, and the attempt to frame it as such is transparent.

What is it about?

 

[panamaican]

I've already addressed the 'private company' argument with government protections.

I didn't read that and it really doesn't change anything.

 

[spamking]

That white dude has no room to talk IMO . . .

 

[elfeliz]

 

[Rational Poster]

Cernovich is certainly a scumbag, but he is exposing disgusting Hollywood pedophile wackos like James Gunn and others. Sometimes it takes a scumbag to expose a scumbag.

That's only if you make yourself believe James Gunn is an actual pedophile instead of just a stupid asshole.

 

[Leagon]

This is like saying "the founding father could not have envisioned the AR-15". It's an argument for stripping someone of their rights because something bad could happen, which is how we become a fascist state.

It's an argument for adapting our laws and systems to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," as intended by the Constitution.

But you're right, that is how we become a fascist state. But there's a lot of space between absolute freedom and total fascism. I trust that we can regulate things without becoming fascist, as we've done since the beginning of this country.

 

[HomerThompson]

Cernovich is certainly a scumbag, but he is exposing disgusting Hollywood pedophile wackos like James Gunn and others. Sometimes it takes a scumbag to expose a scumbag.

 

[Leagon]

Cernovich is certainly a scumbag, but he is exposing disgusting Hollywood pedophile wackos like James Gunn and others. Sometimes it takes a scumbag to expose a scumbag.

Cernovic, by his own admission, has no integrity or interest in the truth. He isn't out to expose scumbags, he's trying to get clicks.

 

[snakedafunky]

Yet, the same company allows ISIS propaganda on its platform? It also allows for GTA to have a platform as well, which has a history of inciting violence. How many shootings were inspired by first person shooters? Do they still have a platform? Obviously the reason for Jones’s banning was political, which is fine (unless there is significant government entwinement with these tech companies, then it’s a 1A issue), but these companies should be open about it. Just say “we don’t like what he has to say and we’re shutting him down”. Don’t hide behind the cloak of him violating their policies because there are thousands of others that do worse than Jones.

Well,, I think I have already posted that I can see the criticism for banning right-wing bloggers faster.
And I am not trying to defend how those companies operate.
It's just that IMO Jones deserved to get banned.

 

[Rational Poster]

But it's an assumption

Not really.

Alex Jones made his death threat on 7.23 and his account was deleted today.

Do you think it's a coincidence his account was deleted within 2 weeks of making death threats broadcasted to 2 million+ people?