YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#91

Post by whatyoucantsay » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:28 PM UTC

rurounijones wrote: post #82

whatyoucantsay wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best thing to do is just silence their voices, no ifs, ands or buts. > Remember, these people are against the idea of democracy. Oh, the irony of following the one sentence with the other.

You cherry picked and forgot the first line which puts the rest in context. > You're making the mistake of thinking that Alex Jones and his followers are rational and good-faith actors - a pre-requisite for debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...

> You cherry picked and forgot the first line which puts the rest in context.

How uncharitable of you to write that. I didn't "forget" it. It wasn't relevant to my point. The first line was specific to this situation, but the final two I quoted represent a very universal and timeless position.

In fact, ancient Athens suffered greatly when "silence the voices of the enemies of democracy" became the dominant position in their society:

http://quillette.com/2018/01/25/free-speech-matters/

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#92

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:29 PM UTC

api wrote: post #2

I have mixed feelings about this. I fear it will actually make Jones' brand of demagoguery and crackpot theories more appealing and sexy. The best thing to do might be to let far-right conspiracy theory propaganda die in the mainstream, since the mainstream is where things go to die.

> The best thing to do might be to let far-right conspiracy theory propaganda die in the mainstream, since the mainstream is where things go to die.

Last time I checked, my mother still thinks Obama is Muslim.

So no. Crackpot theories become more widespread once they hit mainstream. And they stay there forever.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#93

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:31 PM UTC

whatyoucantsay wrote: post #83

gamblor956 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones has openly advocated for the murder of multiple people, including both our last president and his would-be party successor. He has openly incited violent acts against an innocent business, whilst also slandering their character and reputation, for profit. He has accused parents of murdered children of making it up , for profit. He hasn't just "said things", he's committed acts which have had resulted in si…

Is prosecution underway? Much of what you mention is surely illegal, even in the US.

For PizzaGate, Sandy Hook, and his many numerous other acts of slander and incitement against private individuals, he's being sued up the wazoo. (These acts are torts, not crimes.)

For calling for Hillary's and Obama's assassination? The Secret Service investigated and determined that it would be too difficult to prosecute in the absence of someone actually taking Jones up on the offer. (If someone had, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now--he'd be serving life in a SuperMax for conspiracy.)

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#94

Post by sykhic » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:35 PM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #59

sykhic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you like about his content, but it is not fringe. This is a man spouting off that there is evidence that Michelle Obama is a man [1]. If that's not a fringe idea I'd like to know what you think one is. To me a fringe idea is one that is so obviously wrong that it is not worth considering its merits. Doubtless there are many fools willing to consider the 'facts' surrounding Michelle Obama's gender but they ar…

Okay I feed the troll. So how much of the proof we got that Michelle Obama IS actually a women? Her look? Many transgander look much more womanish than she does. Same sex marriage? Could be? Have you seen her birth certificate (original, NOT the copy) that you can genuinely say she is a female? Yes I know she has the kids... okay so let me see their DNA test that actually they belong to Michelle as a parent. Exactly;…

I like how joering calls me the troll!

I do not have proof in the mathematical sense that Michelle Obama is a woman. I merely have an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence that she is a woman and absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Indeed, interestingly enough you wrote:

...you can genuinely say SHE is a female?

Emphasis mine. I do not need definitive proof. Collect all the statements you believe to be true. Now collect all of the statements you can actually, definitively prove true. The intersection of these two sets is quite small. This is true for everyone.

You have to give a better example if that's was your best shot to make Jones looks like a loon.

You believe that Alex Jones thinking Michelle Obama is a man is not sufficient evidence that he is a loon and you have the temerity to claim that my approach to reasoning and facts is precisely what's wrong with the country.

Thank you for your post. It was instructive, illuminating, and hilarious all at the same time. That is a rare feat.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#95

Post by lovehashbrowns » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:38 PM UTC

j-c-hewitt wrote: post #40

I think the reason why Alex Jones became popular is because the mainstream news websites like CNN and even sections of the NYT became more Jones-like in their reporting. When people are just choosing between different sensationalist conspiracy theory websites it becomes much more challenging for ordinary people to pick a quality outlet. The thing is that most of the web and the printed word is spam that will actively…

> because the mainstream news websites like CNN and even sections of the NYT became more Jones-like in their reporting

What an amazing claim! Surely you have examples of this? I'd love to read conspiracy theories coming from CNN or NYT that are in line with something as absurd as "Michelle Obama is actually a man" or "Sandy Hook was fake" or the absolutely insane birther movement.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#96

Post by whatyoucantsay » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:39 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #93

whatyoucantsay wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is prosecution underway? Much of what you mention is surely illegal, even in the US.

For PizzaGate, Sandy Hook, and his many numerous other acts of slander and incitement against private individuals, he's being sued up the wazoo. (These acts are torts, not crimes.) For calling for Hillary's and Obama's assassination? The Secret Service investigated and determined that it would be too difficult to prosecute in the absence of someone actually taking Jones up on the offer. (If someone had, we wouldn't b…

That's surprising that publicly broadcasted calls to assassinate the president didn't result in arrest.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#97

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

javagram wrote: post #81

gamblor956 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something else to keep in mind which is that the government can evade the 1st amendment by pressuring companies to take action against speech it doesn’t like. No, what you have described is a free speech violation and US courts have already addressed this point many times. And you clearly misunderstand why hostile environment laws have survived First Amendment lawsuits. The government cannot interfere with t…

I linked to an article by a law professor explaining the issues. Courts cannot always address such issues anyway due to the doctrine of “standing”. For instance, government in the 90s pressured the video game industry to self regulate by establishing a rating system and prohibiting the sale of M rated games to minors in various chain stores. If the government themselves had passed such a law it would have been subjec…

However it can outlaw a company allowing an employee to use a racial slur in the workplace.

Nope, you're still not understanding. The government can't do that either, because that law would target the content of a communication. However, the law can prohibit companies from allowing employees to create hostile environments, however such environments arise, such as by making racial slurs or by trying to lynch their coworkers. The content isn't what matters--the behavior of creating the hostile workplace is what matters and what the government can regulate.

As I said--speech can be both speech and an action. Government can't regulate speech, but it can regulate the action part of the speech. This is, simply put, the concept of whether you can ban people from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. (There are no laws against yelling fire in a crowded theater because that is of course illegal. There are laws against causing public panic, which is content-neutral, so it doesn't matter whether you yell FIRE, BOMB, or CARROTTOP.)

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#98

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:45 PM UTC

tlrobinson wrote: post #47

tchaffee wrote: post #3

In other discussions about this action, I've seen lots of confusion about what the 1st Amendment guarantees. Too many people think it guarantees an outcome: that the government must protect your right to free speech and make sure you have a platform for free speech. When in fact it's almost the opposite: it prevents the government from interfering with free speech, specifically Congress can not pass any laws that int…

I agree people are often confused by what the 1st Amendment guarantees, however government isn't the only threat to free speech, especially on the internet where large platforms yield more power than many smaller countries. I'm not saying private entities should be subject to the 1st Amendment, but we shouldn't give them a free pass to censor just because we happen to agree with their decision this time.

We're not giving Facebook a free pass. We're discussing it, in detail, and 99% of people are okay with it after examining the particular context of the situation, namely, that a private company is exercising its own free speech rights to exclude hate speech from its platform.

Jones is free to create his own Facebook clone or jump to Twitter.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#99

Post by trukterious » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

pithic wrote: post #64

trukterious wrote: post #13

>Conspiracy theorist and online troll Alex Jones >The decision comes hours after Apple and Facebook made similar moves So I guess Mr Jones will have to report on this particular conspiracy elsewhere. I for one would like to hear it...

Sophisticated people understand that there are no actual conspiracies, only baseless conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are usually bad explanations and leave unexplained stuff like how new conspirators are recruited without exposing the conspiracy. Yet a small fraction of conspiracy theories are true, e.g. Guy Fawkes. A more sophisticated treatment acknowledges this and understands that these are frequently labelled 'conspiracy theories' in attempts to discredit them.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#100

Post by ergothus » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 10:50 PM UTC

dunpeal wrote: post #74

tryitnow wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's about ideas, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The article explicitly says he's banned because of TOS violations. The article is not clear about what those are, but I assume they fall under hate speech and harassment. Specifically, I am guessing this has something to do with Jones taking legal actions against parents whose child was murdered. I don't think this has anything to do with hi…

> The article explicitly says he's banned because of TOS violations. The article is not clear about what those are, but I assume they fall under hate speech and harassment. Not at all a fan of Mr Jones (the little I've seen makes him seem like a garden variety nutcase peddling inane conspiracy theories), but aren't we just a little bit concerned when someone is banned on the same day by all the major internet content…

I play a mental version of what you list every time someone raises the "we should ban/disallow/make illegal..." concept.

Generally, I'm hearing this about topics where I'm in strong agreement. Yes, we SHOULD take action against these attempts to exploit our inherent logical weaknesses for the promotion of values we disapprove of (sexism, racism, hatred, violence, etc).

BUT...before I agree, I like to say "How is this different than banning speech/actions promoting something society generally favors but historically did not. Could the same rules have been/be used to prevent the end of slavery, to deny equal rights (including voting rights), to silence those complaining about abuse of power of raising awareness of injustices? Would the rules used to silence peddlers of lies like Alex Jones be used against, say, proponents of generally unpopular and uncomfortable opinions such as improved rights of life for animals, or polyamorous marriage rights? (The only commonality of those being that each has been used as an example by some of a concept treated as ridiculous on it's face).

And here's the thing - I _don't_ ask these questions to try and reach a "enh, guess we should just let everyone be a-holes and eventually it will work out". I want to find a legit answer. Sometimes I can't, but most of the time I circle around some concept that DOES make a difference, even if it's hard to nail down in words. I think that's important because while civilization has generally moved in a positive direction over time, none of that has happened by just waiting it out - people made a fuss, took risks, raised awareness. Governments, churches, media, and other social bodies hashed out opinions and decided what was right, what was wrong, and what was unacceptably TOO wrong. Knowing that these processes can fail does not mean we should give up on them, instead we should work harder to find better success rates.

We are not well equipped to handle societies at the scale we have them (see Dunbar's Number etc), but that does not mean we can't try to get better.

As a result, things like this tend to fall into buckets for me: "Yeah, good idea, but we should be careful", "I wish, but only once we figure out how to distinguish the reasons", "I wish, but honestly there are still too many legit points to remove this from discussion", "Nah, this is important churn to work through" and "Are you crazy? They are right and should be amplified, not silenced".