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

91–100 of 153 posts

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#91

Post by rhizome »

malvosenior wrote: post #32
rhizome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way they can ban him for saying that yet still claim to enforce the rules equally for all political affiliations. It's not the government, they absolutely can ban people for anything they want and they don't have to be consistent about it. There's nothing you can do about this it than deleting your account, complaining about them on the internet, and/or acquiring a seat on their board of directors and effe…

> Furthermore, "neutrality" is a figment of your imagination. Neutral is what Dorsey claimed in the video I linked to. I'm saying here is direct evidence, the next day, that they are not actually neutral.

"Shitty for everybody" indicates a kind of neutrality.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#92

Post by LocalH »

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.

The problem with this approach is it inevitably results in one of two broad possibilities:

1) Someone creates a "truly free" social media platform, and it is invaded by people who wish to mold it to reduce freedom for "toxicity"

2) Someone creates a "truly free" social media platform, and the only people to use it are those disallowed from using the mainstream platforms, creating a feedback cycle that eventually results in the free platform either shutting down or being branded "toxic" in and of itself, at which point they'll just go after the company that hosts the platform.

We're becoming so worried about "offending" people that we're literally giving away all our freedom of speech in the process. And yet, if we create such a restricted environment, and political sensibilities change dramatically, suddenly those in control become authoritarian dictators.

There's also the argument of "perhaps it's not a good idea to drive these people underground, where they can ultimately do far more long-term damage, than leaving their content available for all to mock"

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#93

Post by candiodari »

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.

> 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.

He is quite correct in the assessment that he's being persecuted on ideological grounds, unless he says "by the government". Why would you deny that ?

And let's face facts here. If you held an alt-right viewpoint in San Francisco ... would you tell your employer ? Would you tell your friends ? Would you tell a police agent ? Would you tell city hall ?

Because I'd sure be afraid as hell to tell anyone. Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened. They, of course, will not change their opinion or their vote, and will give more power if this movement does grow to the point they can get enough politicians elected.

The really sad part is that it really looks to me like neither Damore nor Eich had an alt-right worldview when they got screwed, but ... let me ask you ... if they held one now, because of what happened to them, would you find that surprising ? Would you blame them ? I wouldn't.

So let's just say that I REALLY think this is the wrong tactic. Engaging with them is the only way things might happen. That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults. Yep. Absolutely. Censorship, aside from being an act of desperation, mostly strengthens the hand of the people being censored, and convinces new people that what is being censored is true. I mean, just the act of censorship by itself does that. Plus, it won't stop them, Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically.

This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. Or at least, he has a lot more arguments against those.

Let's face facts here. These bans, takedowns, ... they make most of us feel better. They make the situation worse, but they make us feel better. That by itself is dangerous as hell.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#94

Post by LocalH »

bdcravens wrote: post #80
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.

HN also has much less influence on the greater world, as opposed to Twitter.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#95

Post by DoreenMichele »

LocalH wrote: post #94
bdcravens wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

HN also has much less influence on the greater world, as opposed to Twitter.

How so? I mean, what is your thinking here?

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#96

Post by uptown »

theseatoms wrote: post #46
CharlesW wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's a funny irony in suggesting that one heard a dog whistle.

That’s kind of the point. It’s a message intended to be “heard” by a certain audience but not everyone the same way dogs hear a dog whistle but most humans do not.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#97

Post by ryanobjc »

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…

Power dynamics are real, and the legal system deals with context all the time. So do humans, they handle it quite well in fact (hence why our languages are not context-free).

I know computer people want consistency in rules. However, do you want to have a simple-minded consistency (with full invocation of Emerson intended here), or do you value full inclusion and reparative actions to restore full humanity to everyone who shares your DNA, yet were considered non-human in the past? (and still are by many people, who are actively attempting to return the past to the future.)

Slavery is ugly and MOST people don't love thinking about that era. Some people DO love thinking about it, and are actively attempting to bring it back. To quote a choose your own adventure: - If you want to turn your back on historical realities, turn to page 55 - If you embrace the uncomfortable and pledge to work for the betterment of all, turn to page 100

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#98

Post by dsfasfsdfff »

atonse wrote: post #50
dsfasfsdfff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, you seem to have managed to use the internet for years without ever having to read his stuff. So what exactly is the case for banning him? It seems the standard tools (follow/unfollow/mute/block) are sufficient for people being able to avoid him. Do we really want social media monopolists and search engines to decide on what is truth and what isn't? What makes them the authority? Obviously Twitter, as a priv…

Can you name me a single government regulation that would prevent a decentralized twitter from forming? Let's not just hand-wave our blame for the government. There have been many, many, many attempts to create a more open, decentralized version of Twitter, Facebook, and various Blogs. But they've all failed because there just simply wasn't enough incentive for people to leave these popular sites to go to a random si…

I live in Germany. Here, for example, the government threatens to fine companies who don't censor "hate speech" - with no way to appeal and no exact definitions. So even if you just operate your own node, you might be liable for fines if you don't censor at the whim of the government.

Maybe a decentralized Twitter, with some kind of magic anonymization that is usable for normal people, could work around that. But then I guess decentralized approaches never achieved a good performance so far?

A decentralized alternative seems like the only hope, but it might be very difficult or impossible to implement.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#99

Post by rhizome »

SilasX wrote: post #30
rhizome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way they can ban him for saying that yet still claim to enforce the rules equally for all political affiliations. It's not the government, they absolutely can ban people for anything they want and they don't have to be consistent about it. There's nothing you can do about this it than deleting your account, complaining about them on the internet, and/or acquiring a seat on their board of directors and effe…

The argument was against their claim to enforce the rules neutrally, not that it's illegal.

And part of my argument is that the lie is in the word "neutrality," not their enforcement policies, which by all accounts are evenly uneven.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#100

Post by charlesism »

readams wrote: post #57
rhizome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way they can ban him for saying that yet still claim to enforce the rules equally for all political affiliations. It's not the government, they absolutely can ban people for anything they want and they don't have to be consistent about it. There's nothing you can do about this it than deleting your account, complaining about them on the internet, and/or acquiring a seat on their board of directors and effe…

This seems to be a common trope lately. The claim seems to be that because censorship by private parties is not banned by the constitution, it is therefore a good idea. It is entirely fair to criticize private parties for censorship even though there may be no legal recourse. It is in turn almost never a good idea to demand the censorship of ideas you don't like.

    > This seems to be a common trope lately.
That's because it has only become self-evident lately. It has become much harder to believe that reason and truth will prevail on the internet. Back in the 1990s, it was easier to be idealistic.
Post reply on HN