61–70 of 131 posts
Secondly, Q just posted that this is retaliation for action against @jack, amongst other claims regarding infowars
Can anyone close to TWTR confirm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is wrong. Is Twitter suppressing Jones' ability to say what he wants to? No. So they are not suppressing free speech. Twitter is banning a serial harasser from using their (privately owned) platform. The analogy would be kicking someone out of your house for harassing your other guests.
> So they are not suppressing free speech. Twitter is banning a serial harasser from using their (privately owned) platform. I’d argue Twitter is the modern day town square and it doesn’t matter if it is privately owned.
Furthermore, Jones is a symptom. Banning him does cure the true problem. Does banning the likes of Jones make the MSM any more trustable? Or the MSM any more responsible? That seems unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-...
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.
Wouldn't drawing attention to bannable offenses be Streisand effect-y?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter isn’t going to broadcast or link to tweets that were bad enough to merit a ban, for obvious reasons- they’re banning it precisely to avoid having that content be propagated any further.
This is circular reasoning, and it conveniently excuses any abuses or hypocrisy by the company by disappearing the evidence and not allowing anyone else to judge for themselves. From an outside observer, there is no way to distinguish between the claim that the ban is for "good reasons", or that the ban is a result of bias on the part of the company.
What transparency would you find acceptable? Do you hold other companies to that level? I dont know the books for my local grocery store, I dont know their justifications or reasonings for what they do or dont stock, when they decide to hire, or what rules they hire for.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic or dismissive - I am far from an "anything goes" libertarian (or a libertarian of any kind) but if rules about rules are arbitrary, then we're just doing what we complain about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is circular reasoning, and it conveniently excuses any abuses or hypocrisy by the company by disappearing the evidence and not allowing anyone else to judge for themselves. From an outside observer, there is no way to distinguish between the claim that the ban is for "good reasons", or that the ban is a result of bias on the part of the company.
This is the same reasoning that leads to people getting banned from a service for a reason, and then given a cold shoulder and absolutely no information about why . Perhaps this is fine in situations where the banned entity is a malicious actor, but it presumes a zero false-positive rate. My opinion is, if even one person is wrongly punished without recourse (other than rolling the dice with social media) then the wh…
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.
The video that got him banned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne_wFdA-1oU
Lol, and the video was all about how the left censors people! Seriously, I never gave Alex Jones much credence before this, but this getting him banned makes him much more credible in my mind.
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…
I think there's overwhelming evidence to support Alex Jones as a true conspiracy theorist. Whether he truly holds all the ludicrous beliefs that he consistently espouses, that's harder to tell.