Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 287 posts

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#241

Post by jhayward »

resters wrote: post #113

Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, and that there is nothing of interest or value to learn from his rants. Those who ignore the obvious signs and still choose to listen to it do so for their own, identity-driven or emotional reasons. This is the same process that causes humans…

This comment makes several errors, the most severe of which is the category error of thinking Alex Jones, et. al. are about discussion and dialogue. He is not. He and his ilk are about weaponizing the norms of society to destroy society. They are at war, not having a discussion.

It is a fatal error to misunderstand this as a norms vs views issue. It is not. It is war.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#242

Post by mitochondrion »

jessriedel wrote: post #165
baldfat wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of Speech != Speech without Consequences. I can say what I want at work but I can get fired for that speech. Same thing you can loss your advertisers and your platforms for the same speech. I grew up in the last house in Bethel, CT before Newtown (Sand Hook), heck my mom went to elementary school in Sandy Hook. Friends of mine had children in the school. People don't know how crazy it was the first 6 months t…

> Freedom of Speech != Speech without Consequences. I can say what I want at work but I can get fired for that speech. You should only be fired if that speech directly interferes with the performance of that job, e.g., if the cashier says offensive thing to the customers or an employee tries to convince their coworkers to shirk their duties. Political opinions that are separate from an employee's job that the employe…

People are fired for racism all the time. You don’t disagree with that, do you?

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#243

Post by flycaliguy »

pjc50 wrote: post #44
iamdave wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Austinite (well now Iowan) who grew up with plenty of Alex Jones on the airwaves, it's stuff like this I'll actually-in a morbid kind of way-really miss. I suppose you have to be exposed to it long enough to grow numb to it but Alex Jones became a source of entertainment as I grew older just to see what wackiness he'd come up with next. Gay frogs still manages to put a grin on my face even on my most stressful…

Serious question: how do you make sure that none of this stuff you're listening to leaks into your perception of the real world? Are you sure you're just regarding it as some weird dystopian fiction, like Scarfolk or the SCP foundation, and not letting it affect your real politics?

I find that most of it strengthens my opposing view and a sliver of it makes me reconsider my own beliefs.

I find radio which has a perspective that matches my own to be insufferable. It’s not funny, it’s uptight, it’s often miserable in it’s Subject matter.

I just prefer my entertainment to be creative people arguing absurd points over boring professors explaining climate change.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#244

Post by manfredo »

mitochondrion wrote: post #242
jessriedel wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of Speech != Speech without Consequences. I can say what I want at work but I can get fired for that speech. You should only be fired if that speech directly interferes with the performance of that job, e.g., if the cashier says offensive thing to the customers or an employee tries to convince their coworkers to shirk their duties. Political opinions that are separate from an employee's job that the employe…

People are fired for racism all the time. You don’t disagree with that, do you?

And who gets to define "racism"? If I defend my company's policy of only accepting resumes from coding boot camp graduates if they're a woman, Black, or Latin is that racist or sexist? How about if I criticize these policies? I know plenty of people that would call the former racist and also a good number of people that would say the same of the latter.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#245

Post by joe_the_user »

jessriedel wrote: post #215
joe_the_user wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when a company is looking at someone using their platform for a activities that look blatantly illegal, it's common for them to preemptively ban them. These platforms have no obligation to wait for a court ruling. In case of Jones, He blatantly defamed the parents of Sandy Hook victims in a fashion that had considerable negative consequences for the parents due to constant harassment by Jones followers. https:/…

I agree this would be a reasonable response if this were the actual justification. But in fact, all the coverage I've seen of this cites his hate speech as the justification, not illegal activity. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifestyle/2018/08/apple-pulls... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/06/apple-rem... Hate speech is correctly generally protected by the first amendment, and it should likewise be…

Hate speech is correctly generally protected by the first amendment, and it should likewise be protected as free speech by private parties.

Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. It is correct that something being hate speech by itself not sufficient cause for it to lose first amendment protections. But hate speech can loose first amendment protections for all the reasons other speech can; commercial speech, fighting-words and liable/slander included.

And of course, the first amendment doesn't require Apple or Facebook to host anyone so them banning first amendment protected hate speech is not a problem by itself, which is to say the second part of your claim isn't justified.

I mean, Jones' vicious rants are hate speech, slander, and falsehoods. They are intended to damage innocent, a-political, private individuals and have indeed damaged a-political, innocent private individuals. Which reason a company actually gives to ban Jones probably involves a PR calculation ("hate speech" sounds best) but whatever the given reason, I can't see this as unjustified.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#247

Post by tptacek »

pvg wrote: post #236
zaroth wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the totality of my comment makes clear the relevance. In the matter of interpreting historical internet posts and judging whether the speaker should be censored or punished for them, or not, the lines are quite blurred. Is there not something worth discussing here — as we examine the reactions to Sarah Jeong, Quinn Jones, Alex Jones.... to me these are all part of the same movement. By which I don’t mean nece…

lines are quite blurred. They aren't. The lines between a professional conspiracy- and snake-oil-monger, a person whose friendship with Nazis made them lose a job offer and a person against whom a targeted smear campaign failed are not at all blurred. These things are not closely related and piling Roseanne Barr on to this blob of amorphous grievance-gunk just makes it more sealion-shaped and sealion-sized. It's not…

Even more clearly, Apple choosing to be selective about who they'll retain in their podcast catalog is not at all the same discussion as The New York Times choosing who to hire. This is practically the textbook case of an unrelated controversy derailing a thread.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#248

Post by jessriedel »

joe_the_user wrote: post #245
jessriedel wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree this would be a reasonable response if this were the actual justification. But in fact, all the coverage I've seen of this cites his hate speech as the justification, not illegal activity. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifestyle/2018/08/apple-pulls... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/06/apple-rem... Hate speech is correctly generally protected by the first amendment, and it should likewise be…

Hate speech is correctly generally protected by the first amendment, and it should likewise be protected as free speech by private parties. Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. It is correct that something being hate speech by itself not sufficient cause for it to lose first amendment protections. But hate speech can loose first amendment protections for all the reasons other speech can; commercial sp…

> It is correct that something being hate speech by itself not sufficient cause for it to lose first amendment protections....

"Hate speech is correctly generally protected by the first amendment" obviously does not mean "all hate speech is protected regardless of other properties it may have". That's the entire point of the word "generally". The point is that Apple and others are using "hate speech" alone as the justification.

> the first amendment doesn't require Apple or Facebook to host anyone so them banning first amendment protected hate speech is not a problem by itself, which is to say the second part of your claim isn't justified.

I have explained at least half a dozen places in this thread why it's a mistake to think there's no moral imperative for private individuals and organizations free speech just because the first amendment applies only to the government. I didn't want to repeat myself, so I explicitly acknowledged in the comment you're replying to that it is an additional moral claim. Your comment just states your disagreement without actually arguing for it, or engaging with any of the arguments I have given elsewhere.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#249

Post by joe_the_user »

jessriedel wrote: post #248
joe_the_user wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate speech is correctly generally protected by the first amendment, and it should likewise be protected as free speech by private parties. Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. It is correct that something being hate speech by itself not sufficient cause for it to lose first amendment protections. But hate speech can loose first amendment protections for all the reasons other speech can; commercial sp…

> It is correct that something being hate speech by itself not sufficient cause for it to lose first amendment protections.... "Hate speech is correctly generally protected by the first amendment" obviously does not mean "all hate speech is protected regardless of other properties it may have". That's the entire point of the word "generally". The point is that Apple and others are using "hate speech" alone as the jus…

I have explained at least half a dozen places in this thread why it's a mistake to think there's no moral imperative for private individuals and organizations free speech just because the first amendment applies only to the government.

There is a moral imperative for private organizations to protect open expression in fashion appropriate to their position the national and world media "sphere" (Google suppressing a search is distinct from Apple not selling a tune is distinct from Youtube not hosting a video). None of them are identical to a government so none of them have imperatives identical to a government.

It's worth noting also that Facebook and others are transnational entities - hate speech is not protected speech in Europe, for example.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#250

Post by resters »

jhayward wrote: post #241
resters wrote: post #113

Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, and that there is nothing of interest or value to learn from his rants. Those who ignore the obvious signs and still choose to listen to it do so for their own, identity-driven or emotional reasons. This is the same process that causes humans…

This comment makes several errors, the most severe of which is the category error of thinking Alex Jones, et. al. are about discussion and dialogue. He is not. He and his ilk are about weaponizing the norms of society to destroy society. They are at war, not having a discussion. It is a fatal error to misunderstand this as a norms vs views issue. It is not. It is war.

> It is war.

This brings to mind the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. Typically war is used when we are meant to take sides in support of drastic action without too much thought getting in the way.

> He and his ilk are about weaponizing the norms of society to destroy society.

I'm honestly not sure from this comment if you are deliberately trolling/baiting or if you just feel a tremendous amount of righteous indignation and emotion about Alex Jones.

In my view, if we start to assume that all content on the internet has somehow been vetted by responsible elders who know what's best for us, we lose the (essential) ability to filter out the garbage for ourselves.

In today's world, people seem to flock toward authority figures of all kinds and wish to wield authority against others (by suppressing their speech, etc.). So your comment strikes me as an appeal to authoritarianism and a call to authoritarian action to crack down on morally objectionable content.

Some people think that a picture of two men holding hands is morally objectionable content, and they seek authority to make their view dominate the public discourse. How is your goal different from theirs other than in the small detail of which content is objectionable?

Post reply on HN