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

131–140 of 153 posts

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#131

Post by sheepmullet »

MBCook wrote: post #125
sheepmullet wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> celebrating this as it means Twitter is holding to their own published policies. Have they banned the racist New York Times editor yet?

We already know certain people get special treatment. They were explicitly said it for the president. Jones certainly got it. I’m not sure who you’re talking about or what they did but I’ve always gotten the feeling that Twitter is very careful about messing with people who have any amount of power/fame. My position? Apply the rules to everyone who violates them no matter what. Twitter has shown that won’t do that. B…

> But I’ll take 40% enforcement over 5% enforcement.

A politically motivated 40% is far worse than a completely open forum.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#132

Post by sheepmullet »

MBCook wrote: post #124
sheepmullet wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After the hearing and his behavior immediately after I’m guessing they were tired of defending him and having to answer these questions AGAIN. Did you listen to the hearing? Jack was being questioned for unfairly silencing conservatives.

I know with the hearing was about. And I know they’re desperately trying to say that they are not silencomg conservatives. Jones has been a very obvious case of someone who has stayed on the platform despite violating the TOS multiple times. And then after the hearing: Jones went up to a reporter from CNN, screamed in his face, made anti-Semitic remarks about him, AND POSTED IT TO TWITTER. They was supposed to contin…

> I know they’re desperately trying to say that they are not silencomg conservatives.

And then they go and silence Alex Jones the very next day...

> Jones went up to a reporter from CNN, screamed in his face, made anti-Semitic remarks about him, AND POSTED IT TO TWITTER.

He confronted one of the key people responsible for deplatforming him.

He wasn’t screaming and he didn’t make anti-Semitic remarks.

He did get in the guys face and was making a lot of offensive comments.

> The only thing that would make any sense is that he PURPOSEFULLY did this to get kicked off as “proof” he’s being censored

Of course he did.

Now all conservatives have to do is document all the offensive left-leaning tweets over the next few weeks and Congress will drag Jack right back to explain his clear bias against conservatives.

Or alternatively Twitter will be forced to start applying its rules equally to the left (fat chance). I’ve reported 3 significantly more offensive tweets already today.

If Jones did nothing then smaller less popular conservative voices would continue to be unfairly silenced and in the long term he would surely be banned as well.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#133

Post by funkythings »

MBCook wrote: post #125
sheepmullet wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> celebrating this as it means Twitter is holding to their own published policies. Have they banned the racist New York Times editor yet?

We already know certain people get special treatment. They were explicitly said it for the president. Jones certainly got it. I’m not sure who you’re talking about or what they did but I’ve always gotten the feeling that Twitter is very careful about messing with people who have any amount of power/fame. My position? Apply the rules to everyone who violates them no matter what. Twitter has shown that won’t do that. B…

It's a NYT journalist that stated multiple times she hates white people. Like, really vile stuff. No ban, no 7 day suspension. Nothing. The NYT even defended her (Sarah Jong).

Now, the crazy annoying right-winger Candance Owens just copied the same tweets and replaced white with black. What followed? Banned.

Twitter does not uphold their now standard independent from political affiliation. They can do that, it's a private company, but they should not LIE about it.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#134

Post by funkythings »

sheepmullet wrote: post #118
MBCook wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I’d say no matter what you think of Jones you should be celebrating this as it means Twitter is holding to their own published policies. The nonsense of banning people for X, unless they famous, unless they’re the wrong KIND of famous, or are being attacked by someone and asking “Why do they get to say X to me” stuff is a mess. How can anyone run a platform if the rules are in constant flux on a per day/user/…

> celebrating this as it means Twitter is holding to their own published policies. Have they banned the racist New York Times editor yet?

Yeah, double standards. Unbelievable

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#135

Post by have_faith »

astrodust wrote: post #11
aklemm wrote: post #4

He should start a blog or a magazine. Marginalizing harmful and admitted liars is fine.

A magazine would be great, as that's going to be the quickest way to bankruptcy. Will not shed a tear when Q makes Alex Jones look like a lame mainstream reporter and his audience, seeking the "truth", moves on from him to the latest, greatest purveyor of utter nonsense.

Q?

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#136

Post by sheepmullet »

funkythings wrote: post #133
MBCook wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already know certain people get special treatment. They were explicitly said it for the president. Jones certainly got it. I’m not sure who you’re talking about or what they did but I’ve always gotten the feeling that Twitter is very careful about messing with people who have any amount of power/fame. My position? Apply the rules to everyone who violates them no matter what. Twitter has shown that won’t do that. B…

It's a NYT journalist that stated multiple times she hates white people. Like, really vile stuff. No ban, no 7 day suspension. Nothing. The NYT even defended her (Sarah Jong). Now, the crazy annoying right-winger Candance Owens just copied the same tweets and replaced white with black. What followed? Banned. Twitter does not uphold their now standard independent from political affiliation. They can do that, it's a pr…

> The NYT even defended her (Sarah Jong).

It’s even worse than simply defending her - the NYT admitted they knew about the tweets when they hired her!

So in a competitive market like journalism where dozens of qualified candidates would have applied for the job the NYT deliberately chose the candidate who openly hates white people.

And shortly before hiring her they ran an article stating it was good that Roseanne Barr was driven from the workplace because of a single racist joke she made.

Alex Jones has more integrity than the NYT.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#137

Post by bachbach »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #105
candiodari wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It is no good appealing to human rights - because human rights are the subject of great controversy and debate between Enlightenment scholars themselves.

I am tired of people using 'human rights' as a flag for moral uprightness.

There are good arguments against human rights from all parts of the political spectrum.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-agains...

That's right, an argument against the received wisdom on human rights from the Guardian.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#138

Post by bachbach »

GW150914 wrote: post #18
darpa_escapee wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about persecution complexes is that those who have them will find persecution in anything, so it's kind of a waste of energy to worry about what might trigger those prone to thinking in such a way.

The thing about persecution complexes is that those who have them will find persecution in anything, so it's kind of a waste of energy to worry about what might trigger those prone to thinking in such a way. Interestingly enough, that’s probably why Twitter feels comfortable ignoring the screams of outrage from the “this is censorship, and the internet is now dooooomed” crowd. When the only thing a group has to stand…

So as seems likely - suppose a schism opens up that pushes 'those people' off some platforms.

The next step is to prevent DNS resolution working.

I assume that like myself you would see that as a step too far. The problem is that the average millennial will not see a meaningful distinction between being blocked on plaform X and being prevented from using a protocol.

There is a good chance of that happening I think - it's a matter of time before somebody develops a 'fake news' list and the wrongthinkers are effectively not part of the web for nearly everybody.

What will happen then is a big expansion of that other portion of the internet, and eventually citizens will go there to 'find out what really happened' on event x.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#139

Post by acdha »

MBCook wrote: post #125
sheepmullet wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> celebrating this as it means Twitter is holding to their own published policies. Have they banned the racist New York Times editor yet?

We already know certain people get special treatment. They were explicitly said it for the president. Jones certainly got it. I’m not sure who you’re talking about or what they did but I’ve always gotten the feeling that Twitter is very careful about messing with people who have any amount of power/fame. My position? Apply the rules to everyone who violates them no matter what. Twitter has shown that won’t do that. B…

They’re talking about Sarah Jeong, who’s been the subject of one of the more recent made-up controversies various right-wingers are using as an chance to bond over their shared identity as self-perceived victims:

https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong...

The usual differences apply: she was making obvious jokes in the style of right-wing rhetoric (e.g. joking about how white people can’t handle the sun and need to live underground) about a group which has never been seriously threatened rather than repeating slurs which have serious history behind them, there was no sign of capacity or intent to do real harm, etc. Twitter doesn’t do nuance well but it’s about as accurate as thinking Swift made a serious proposal to eat poor children.

Re: Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars

#140

Post by hbosch »

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?

Whoa, I definitely think you’re over-rotating on this. No, I don’t think the cake shop was right to discriminate. This example is more like: Do I think it’s okay for a cake shop to refuse baking a cake for someone who comes into the shop every day and call the owners jewish pedophile lizard people?

Yes, I believe it’s okay for any business to refuse service to people who desire to damage that business.

Post reply on HN