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

Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

thedailybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#71

Post by influx »

hbosch wrote: post #60
ve55 wrote: post #47

One of the most difficult issues with the style of bans that large tech companies perform is that there is no hope for them to have strong consistency. For them to be consistent they would have to ban anyone that has been an equal or worse offender, while not banning anyone that is a lesser offender. This is obviously far-fetched, especially with decisions that are made by humans on a case-by-case basis. Regardless o…

It's OK to be inconsistent, because tech companies aren't governments and their rules aren't laws. They are allowed to control their platform however they want. Everyone is welcome to create their own "free-er" Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit.

I'm curious what you think about the cake shop denying service to a gay couple? Is that ok since they are free to create their own non-bigoted cake shop?

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#72

Post by eip »

"Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes, not need, just feed the war cannibal animal. I walk the corner to the rubble that used be a library line up to the mind cemetery now. What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and movin'. They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove 'em while arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells."

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#73

Post by anigbrowl »

malvosenior wrote: post #17
achompas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not downvote you, but the official statement claims this was the last straw, and not a response to a single offense: https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1037804427992686593

Thank you for replying instead of downvoting. The problem I have is how subjective all of this is, and while they say they are trying to increase transparency I don't see it. This action suggests they keep tabs on accounts and there's some threshold they can reach over a period of time that will flip a ban on even if the actual action that causes the ban wouldn't be bannable in isolation. I've not seen this policy di…

This action suggests they keep tabs on accounts

No it doesn't. Twitter has a reporting function and whenever content offends a bunch of people then a wave of reports is a predictable outcome. Keeping a record of previous actions on an account is not the same as monitoring it.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#74

Post by noobermin »

ziroshima wrote: post #53
slg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some insults are simply worse depending on who they are targeting. It is the difference between calling GW Bush a monkey because he occasionally looked like a monkey and Obama being called a monkey as a racial slur. The former is a childish insult that is easy to ignore. The latter is a form of bigotry that shouldn't be tolerated.

Gauging the degree to which insults are insulting or offensive (based on context!) is always going to be problematic. I find your comment a little bit disturbing because it reminds me of the Roseanne fiasco. The woman she was insulting really does look like she could have been in the planet of the apes films. Is it racist to publicly observe a similar appearance? If someone believes that Obama has a monkey-like appea…

Context is important, as is learning history.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#75

Post by rhcom2 »

ArchTypical wrote: post #55
slg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some insults are simply worse depending on who they are targeting. It is the difference between calling GW Bush a monkey because he occasionally looked like a monkey and Obama being called a monkey as a racial slur. The former is a childish insult that is easy to ignore. The latter is a form of bigotry that shouldn't be tolerated.

> Some insults are simply worse depending on who they are targeting. That's just an ideological step that is unwise to adopt. Taking that as a philosophy, anything you say is an intolerable statement because of who might get offended by it. This is antithetical to free speech as prior restraint. I don't know why anyone would subscribe to such a viewpoint. Every philosophy has boons and banes, but that doesn't mean th…

> anything you say is an intolerable statement because of who might get offended by it.

That isn't what OP said though. I believe they were commenting that all words are not the same to every group of people and cultural and historical context matters.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#76

Post by s73v3r_ »

bm3719 wrote: post #45

For the past few years, whenever a company demonstrates that it is actively working against a culture of free speech, I block its URL in /etc/hosts. In this case, I already added Twitter long ago, so no change necessary. Not only do I have less time wasters around, but I noticed that the internet is far less angry of a place as a result.

Given that this very site moderates quite heavily, why is it not in your /etc/hosts file?

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#77

Post by ProfessorLayton »

influx wrote: post #71
hbosch wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's OK to be inconsistent, because tech companies aren't governments and their rules aren't laws. They are allowed to control their platform however they want. Everyone is welcome to create their own "free-er" Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit.

I'm curious what you think about the cake shop denying service to a gay couple? Is that ok since they are free to create their own non-bigoted cake shop?

Discrimination is fine and dandy for any business as long as it isn't part of a protected class (Whether it makes business sense to do so is another argument). The cake shop argument is whether LGBT people fall under a protected class, and the courts have continued to sidestep that issue.

I firmly believe LGBT people should be a protected class like race, and sex, but ultimately we need to have a ruling on that.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#78

Post by slg »

ziroshima wrote: post #53
slg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some insults are simply worse depending on who they are targeting. It is the difference between calling GW Bush a monkey because he occasionally looked like a monkey and Obama being called a monkey as a racial slur. The former is a childish insult that is easy to ignore. The latter is a form of bigotry that shouldn't be tolerated.

Gauging the degree to which insults are insulting or offensive (based on context!) is always going to be problematic. I find your comment a little bit disturbing because it reminds me of the Roseanne fiasco. The woman she was insulting really does look like she could have been in the planet of the apes films. Is it racist to publicly observe a similar appearance? If someone believes that Obama has a monkey-like appea…

The person calling a black person a monkey or a Jewish person a rat is either ignorant of the history of those slurs or they aren't.

If they are ignorant of that history, they can easily be excused. The ignorance is usually obvious based on their history of behavior because the accusation would likely be an isolated incident. Considering the history of accusations against Jones and Roseanne, I am pretty confident in saying they are both aware of how their words could be interpreted.

If that person is aware of the history of using those comparisons and isn't racist, what is the reasoning is still using that specific language? You can call Obama any number of insults and not be called a racist. Why would you choose an insult that you know will draw racial comparisons?

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#79

Post by [deleted] »

CharlesW wrote: post #7
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #3

Honestly, "Those are the eyes of a rat" is a fairly tame insult compared to the kind of toxic drivel Jones usually says, and seems like weak grounds for termination. He should've been kicked off long ago, but I fear that having this particular example be the "final straw" is only going to strengthen the alt-right's persecution complex.

It does seem tame, but a quick search suggests it may be an anti-semitic dog whistle.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#80

Post by bdcravens »

bm3719 wrote: post #45

For the past few years, whenever a company demonstrates that it is actively working against a culture of free speech, I block its URL in /etc/hosts. In this case, I already added Twitter long ago, so no change necessary. Not only do I have less time wasters around, but I noticed that the internet is far less angry of a place as a result.

HN also actively moderates its content and its users. An Alex Jones would last about a day here before being banned.

> I noticed that the internet is far less angry of a place as a result

I would think it would be quite the opposite: the likelihood of being censored creates inhibition.

Post reply on HN