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

101–110 of 153 posts

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#101

Post by yitosda »

staticassertion wrote: post #34
yitosda wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the point of a dog whistle (as I understand it) is plausible deniability. The parent comment stands: shutting it down over something that "may mean something" -- even though with context you may be quite sure -- is a bad look. The next step is simply to point at the myriad of other times anyone called someone a rat on Twitter and Twitter is left to defend a position of shutting people down over what they were…

Or we should just be willing to call dog whistles what they are and stop feeling the need to respond when people cry 'but that person used the word rat over there!'.

It's possible I've been living under a rock, but while I'm aware of rat being pejorative, I'm finding out in this thread for the first time about the anti-semitic undertones.

It's pretty clear that the difference is context, but I also don't think there can be clear guidelines if Twitter is expected to delve into the context for each tweet its users make.

In fairness, context typically doesn't provide smoking guns as pungent as this one. I'd still say it's not beyond reasonable doubt (and I'd guess most would be ok with that for a Twitter ban -- it's not prison or death).

So, sure, everyone should call it a dog whistle on the preponderance of evidence, but there were almost certainly better grounds for the ban. I doubt there will ever be a good ban target whose only giveaway is dog whistles.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#102

Post by dsfasfsdfff »

anigbrowl wrote: post #84
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…

I just find it sad that people don't find it grounds enough to switch to a more open network. Not having to see Alex Jones as often is a feature, not a bug.

I've never seen him, nor has the poster I replied to. There is no need to ban people so that people don't have to see them.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#103

Post by LocalH »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #95
LocalH wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

The general public uses Twitter on a massive scale. They don't generally even know HN exists.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#105

Post by s73v3r_ »

candiodari wrote: post #93
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 te…

"Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened."

I find it incredible how many people are more upset that those two got called out for their crappy views, and don't care at all what the actions of those two meant to the groups they targeted. Suppose you were a gay person working at Mozilla. How would you feel if you found out that your boss thought that you were not deserving of basic human rights?

"Would you blame them ?"

Yes, I absolutely would. Because they're adults, fully capable of taking responsibility for their own actions.

"Engaging with them is the only way things might happen."

No, it isn't. Because they do not engage in good faith. They do not debate in good faith.

"That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults"

The fact that you refer to what they're saying as merely "insults" says a lot. They are questioning the very right of these people to exist. They are questioning the ability of these people to be in public. They are questioning the idea that these people are entitled to basic human dignity. That is not just an insult to be sustained.

"Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically."

Then they don't need the megaphone of Twitter.

"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. "

This is directly contrary to your previous point, which was that they still have their own websites to get their message out.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#106

Post by Jesus_saves »

This IS censorship, and is FAR more dangerous than anything Jones has ever said. Even if you don't agree with Jones, you should still fight against this attack on free speech. It is an attack. Today it's the right getting censored, but if it's allowed, it will soon be a much broader spectrum of people. It will be used to control the public, by censoring out truth's, and pushing lies. If you let them control what you choose to read, they will control you!

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#108

Post by MBCook »

yitosda wrote: post #101
staticassertion wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we should just be willing to call dog whistles what they are and stop feeling the need to respond when people cry 'but that person used the word rat over there!'.

It's possible I've been living under a rock, but while I'm aware of rat being pejorative, I'm finding out in this thread for the first time about the anti-semitic undertones. It's pretty clear that the difference is context, but I also don't think there can be clear guidelines if Twitter is expected to delve into the context for each tweet its users make. In fairness, context typically doesn't provide smoking guns as…

I was aware of it, but I couldn’t have told you about it without prompting. I didn’t remember it that well. As soon as someone mentioned what it was it made perfect sense to me.

Yeah, that’s the complex part of all of this. As you said context is king here, and Jones is very well known for making implicit or explicit derogatory remarks about Jewish people. There really isn’t room for him to claim “I didn’t know that“.

> there were almost certainly better grounds for the ban

I think you’re right that this was sort of a cherry pick.

He’s done way more than enough stuff in the past to earn him a ban but they never acted on it.

After the hearing and his behavior immediately after I’m guessing they were tired of defending him and having to answer these questions AGAIN.

But it would seem especially strange/capricious just say “that thing you did three months ago that we gave you a pass on? Now you’re out.“

So I think they just chose the latest thing as their “instigating” incident and said that plus the totality of his previous behavior meant a total ban.

Even though the most recent thing is not as bad (relative to his previous ‘highs’).

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#109

Post by MBCook »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #25
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.

Is Oliver Darcy Jewish?

Does it matter?

If this kind of behavior is against the platform rules, should the rules only apply if someone can prove that the person didn’t make a mistake in who they were targeting?

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#110

Post by poke111 »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #77
influx wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

LGBT being a protected class or not was not at issue in the cake shop decision, since they were not denied service in general (they had been regular customers of that shop, and were always served). The issue was whether designing a custom cake for their wedding was considered artistic expression, and as such he had a right to refuse under the 1st amendment since you cannot compel speech.
Post reply on HN