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

Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#51

Post by fuball63 »

starik36 wrote: post #38
Atlantium wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones is free to express his speech on his own website as much as he pleases. "Free Speech" is not about forcing a company to host content they don't like. That would be against Twitter's freedoms. Alex Jones will still be heard by his audience.

That's like saying: Alex Jones is free to grow his own food on his land as much as he pleases. This supermarket has a policy not to sell food to people who violate our terms of service regarding hate speech.

It isn't unreasonable for a supermarket to forbid someone that is disturbing the peace from entering.

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#52

Post by dstroot »

In the eyeball economy there seems to be no way I can personally reward Twitter for good behavior. I’d like to send them $100 for banning the creep.

If I feel Apple is doing well with social responsibility I can buy more Apple stuff. I certainly won’t click more ads on Twitter to reward them. So what incentive do they really have to foster good behavior?

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#53

Post by TheDong »

starik36 wrote: post #38
Atlantium wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones is free to express his speech on his own website as much as he pleases. "Free Speech" is not about forcing a company to host content they don't like. That would be against Twitter's freedoms. Alex Jones will still be heard by his audience.

That's like saying: Alex Jones is free to grow his own food on his land as much as he pleases. This supermarket has a policy not to sell food to people who violate our terms of service regarding hate speech.

If you go into a supermarket and start spewing hate-speech, yes they have every right to ban you.

If you make other customers uncomfortable, they have every right to expel you.

Alex Jones is spewing hate-speech on twitter, making other twitter users feel unwelcome, and so on.

I don't see how this analogy is favorable to him at all. If you're abusive in a space to the point of causing mental pain to others, yes, you should be removed from it.

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#54

Post by threeseed »

nyolfen wrote: post #21
Atlantium wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones is free to express his speech on his own website as much as he pleases. "Free Speech" is not about forcing a company to host content they don't like. That would be against Twitter's freedoms. Alex Jones will still be heard by his audience.

maybe you haven’t noticed, but people have been going after hosting companies and payment processors lately to shut down people they find politically disagreeable. we are increasingly less and less free to host our own speech.

Then run your own hosting company and accept money via Bitcoin.

You can't just force third party companies to do whatever you want.

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#55

Post by mkbgw »

modells wrote: post #28

Crossfire, Alex Jones and Gordon Ramsay need their own shouting as a service platform. It sucks for free speech that he got banned because it gives him notoriety and "credibility" in wingnuttery circles. There ought to be other remedies to manipulative behavior for ratings than simply banning.

I think Gordon Ramsey deserves better than to be grouped with Mr. Jones.

I haven't heard much from Milo Yiannopoulos since he was banned from Twitter and other platforms. I suspect Alex Jones has a similar future.

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#56

Post by LocalH »

nyolfen wrote: post #21
Atlantium wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones is free to express his speech on his own website as much as he pleases. "Free Speech" is not about forcing a company to host content they don't like. That would be against Twitter's freedoms. Alex Jones will still be heard by his audience.

maybe you haven’t noticed, but people have been going after hosting companies and payment processors lately to shut down people they find politically disagreeable. we are increasingly less and less free to host our own speech.

Every bit of it is done under the assumption that "freedom of speech only applies to the government", which is quite technically true. However, I don't really see how it would have been possible for the authors of the Constitution (since Twitter is a US company, and Alex Jones is a US citizen, it's within scope) to foresee that the greatest danger to freedom of speech would not be the government.

Honestly, we're probably at the point in our existence as a nation where we have the least freedom of speech. Sure, you can sit in a private conversion and say pretty much whatever you want. But, if you speak anywhere where the public can see it (even via private means), and you have an unpopular opinion, you have droves of people who try to shut you down. And it's not bad enough that they can get your access to your platform of choice revoked, some of these people will make it their life's mission to ensure that you lose your job or even worse become unemployable.

Look at what happened to Conor Daly after something his father said ten years prior to Conor's birth surfaced.

I'm waiting for the day when someone legitimately tries to argue that the rights of all of those descended from the Pilgrims should be taken away, since they took away the rights and land of Native Americans.

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#57

Post by Aunche »

dmix wrote: post #5

Anyone know what videos or tweets were 'abusive'? Twitter didn't say which ones they were. Twitter needs to be more transparent about this stuff. Especially when banning one of the most influential conspiracy theorist in the world. Not to mention a vague and/or arbitrary banning policy is always a bad idea.

There's no upside in being transparent in what is bannable. They don't want to encourage people to post what is barely allowed. Inevitably, there is going to be some inconstancy in the way borderline cases are handled, and then everyone will get even angrier.

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#58

Post by mikeyouse »

rosser wrote: post #36
adamrezich wrote: post #9

Does anyone still actually think that Alex Jones isn't a character or persona being put on by an actor, like Colbert's Colbert Report character? Not that this excuses anything he says or does of course (though apparently what he said here wasn't a big deal at all)... but how anyone can think Jones acts the way he does on-camera after the cameras are turned off and nobody is looking is beyond me. His lawyer essentiall…

It's somehow "better" that he behaves that way to make a buck, than because he believes it?

The rule of goats applies here..

"The Rule of Goats applies. Slightly paraphrased — for this family newspaper — the rule states: If you kiss a goat, even if you say you're doing it ironically, you're still a goat-kisser. Alex Jones, playing a character or not, is a goat-kisser."

From Ken White, notorious free speech attorney who blogs as Popehat:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-alex-jones-...

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#59

Post by rtkwe »

dmix wrote: post #5

Anyone know what videos or tweets were 'abusive'? Twitter didn't say which ones they were. Twitter needs to be more transparent about this stuff. Especially when banning one of the most influential conspiracy theorist in the world. Not to mention a vague and/or arbitrary banning policy is always a bad idea.

Haven't seen the CNN video but it was his stunts at the Capitol I see most places saying it was the video where he harassed a CNN reporter for ~10 minutes streaming it on Periscope.

> Ironically, it was the initial CNN story—or rather, Jones' unhinged response to it—that proved his eventual undoing. On Wednesday, just before Dorsey was set to testify at his second congressional hearing of the day, Jones approached Darcy as he waited in line with media colleagues to be let into the hearing room. Jones, flanked by his entourage, cornered Darcy, jabbed a phone in his face, and harassed the reporter for more than 10 minutes about his work, his employer, and his looks, saying he has the "eyes of a rat." The entire ordeal streamed on Periscope, which is owned by Twitter.

https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-bans-alex-jones-infowars...

Re: Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour

#60

Post by colordrops »

HBlix wrote: post #31
marcrosoft wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"do the right thing" is difficult when you are suppressing free speech on a platform that's supposed to be all about it.

How are they suppressing free speech? They’re not the government, they get to control their service just like any business, because they are also free.

This is a narrow view of the reality of speech in the US. Almost all public speech goes through private entities that are controlled by a small number of powerful connected people, giving them the de facto ability to censor speech.
Post reply on HN