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

YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 191 posts

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#131

Post by api »

stuckinarut wrote: post #86
bdcravens wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's atop Google search today, and articles on his site about "the purge" have far more engagement than others, so apparently many are seeking him out in light of the news.

And not one person is getting him as a suggested video on YouTube, shared on Facebook, etc... Deplatforming is effective.

If mere exposure to irrational ideas is this dangerous then this basically means the neoreactionaries are right and democracy is not viable. If people are that dumb they should not be able to vote.

I think the answer is much simpler but equally pathetic. The center right and center left are both so vapid and devoid of vision that they are helpless to address the "alternative" of Alex Jones. It is our elite that have failed and left a vacuum to be filled with whatever happens to be loudest.

If we had real public intellectuals and a real media and real politicians with vision Jones would be completely marginalized. He only succeeds because the culture is so empty.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#132

Post by tchaffee »

wmil wrote: post #52
tchaffee wrote: post #3

In other discussions about this action, I've seen lots of confusion about what the 1st Amendment guarantees. Too many people think it guarantees an outcome: that the government must protect your right to free speech and make sure you have a platform for free speech. When in fact it's almost the opposite: it prevents the government from interfering with free speech, specifically Congress can not pass any laws that int…

The major risk is the FEC. This push is coming from a desire to prevent Jones from being active in the 2018 midterms. If a Republican files a complaint with the FEC and there are employee messages talking about how they have to ban Jones to stop Trump, then the tech companies could have a situation on their hands.

What situation? What law would a company or individual be breaking by working to stop getting Trump elected again?

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#133

Post by thespider »

Congratulations to everyone at InfoWars! They have done such an incredible job, that the lies can't compete any longer and the censorship taking place is just a last resort. Me and all of my colleagues (left of the aisle and to the right) with any of these social media accts will be deleting them, and moving onto other more innovative, true free speech platforms that promote real diversity and tolerance of all viewpoints.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#134

Post by dmix »

cjslep wrote: post #69
tchaffee wrote: post #3

In other discussions about this action, I've seen lots of confusion about what the 1st Amendment guarantees. Too many people think it guarantees an outcome: that the government must protect your right to free speech and make sure you have a platform for free speech. When in fact it's almost the opposite: it prevents the government from interfering with free speech, specifically Congress can not pass any laws that int…

And besides the legal definition, the principle of free speech is about being able to express speech without systematic repurcussions. Censorship by an individual (or corp-as-individual) is tool used by businesses on their platforms and doesn't violate principles of free speech. Systematic censorship that violates this principle is only really wieldable by governments: Making the expression of an idea anywhere have c…

Even if this is the case for the US constitution written centuries ago, why can't the principle (today) expand beyond government to all centralized systems... without being dismissed because it doesn't fit into the constitutional grounds? Does the fundamental idea still not have grounds?

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#135

Post by dmix »

tchaffee wrote: post #129
slededit wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment represents an ideal. An ideal the country is walking back from as it discovers a large faction does not share the same morals. The decision to silence instead of engage will lead to disintegration of the country if its not dealt with.

The ideal is very clear: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". That's it. It forbids Congress from making laws. Any ideal beyond that is fully imagined and does not exist as part of the Constitution. And we've been doing fine for well over 200 years with that simple ideal alone. With the internet and the ability to easily create a website or blog, people have more means of…

> Fifty years ago he would have been the kooky guy living at the end of your street and no one would know who he is.

Are you suggesting guys like him weren't famous, wealthy, and had popular speaking tours across the country? If so, you're sadly mistaken about the reach of even wrong ideas.

Quackery and supernatural stuff was extremely popular among the middle class America in the 1800s and well into the 1970s. The internet has given individuals a wider platform, but it hasn't changed the amount of individuals (ie, audience size) willing to consume this stuff...

We can't ban our way out of this problem. The risks/costs of doing so (false positives of anyone pushing what is considered 'fringe' at the moment) is far too high to go down this path. And if anything it increases the audience of these people who become martyrs and victims of the very 'conspiracies' they are pushing. It's far better to ignore them or fight them than to ban them.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#136

Post by dmix »

dragontamer wrote: post #88
jlarocco wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I don't agree with anything he says, but banning him from these platforms sets a bad precedent. The way to fight ignorance is with education. If anything, this will enforce their persecution complex. Now Alex Jones will say, "See? Big media doesn't want you to know the things I'm telling you." And he'll be right.

> The way to fight ignorance is with education. And ignorance fights back with education. Removing Thomas Jefferson from textbooks for example. Or replacing evolution with creationism / intelligent design theory. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html People rewrite education to suit their political slants. You ain't gonna win in education until you win at politics.

> You ain't gonna win in education until you win at politics.

Unless politics doesn't control education... which is a direction we're fortunately slowly moving towards.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#137

Post by dmix »

krapp wrote: post #110
internet_user wrote: post #51

First, they came for Alex Jones.

>First, they came for Alex Jones. You know, it's interesting how often this poem, written to warn people about the dangers of the Nazis, is almost exclusively invoked nowadays in defense of Nazis and people who share their ideology. I mean, I get the free speech argument... even though this is less an argument and more a lazy attempt at pseudointellectual concern trolling... but why is it only ever a slippery slope t…

> but why is it only ever a slippery slope to come for the Nazis, but never a slippery slope to let the Nazis come for us?

The more important question is why it suddenly becomes not a slippery slope when it comes to Nazis? The danger comes from inaction not our ability to question every action. Which is the very good reason ACLU has defended neo-nazis right to hold protest for decades (including defending the Unite the Right organizers in Charlottesville court).

If you don't defend it when it at all times than when it 'matters' (to you) it will be too late.

Besides I doubt there's more 'Nazis' today (or simply racists) than in the past but there does seem to be far more people willing to concede our rights in order to fight them in some extremely dangerous ideological war... which is perilously predicated on the current power structures continuing to be on the (far-left's) side in the future and not giving some future government the power to use the same actions against them.

If that's not acting out of a position of naive 'privilege' than I don't know what is...

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#138

Post by dunpeal »

gamblor956 wrote: post #93
whatyoucantsay wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is prosecution underway? Much of what you mention is surely illegal, even in the US.

For PizzaGate, Sandy Hook, and his many numerous other acts of slander and incitement against private individuals, he's being sued up the wazoo. (These acts are torts, not crimes.) For calling for Hillary's and Obama's assassination? The Secret Service investigated and determined that it would be too difficult to prosecute in the absence of someone actually taking Jones up on the offer. (If someone had, we wouldn't b…

> (If someone had, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now--he'd be serving life in a SuperMax for conspiracy.)

Pure speculation, and unlikely at that. There were dozens of assassination attempts against past presidents, not once has anyone been imprisoned for allegedly inciting the attempt.

This comment, and your previous one as well, are trying to criminalize acts of speech that are protected by the First Amendment.

Which is why there are no current criminal proceedings against Jones.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#139

Post by mcphage »

acct1771 wrote: post #116
lovehashbrowns wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait patiently for the "chosen one" to come, while he continues to grow his fanbase, spread misinformation, participates in fear mongering, and is praised by the president of the United States? Yes, sure, great plan. We can also have a grand old time debunking each and every single one of the crackpot theories that come out of the show, which surprisingly nobody has ever tried before!

No, you're right, inhibit freedom of expression. There's no way that can go wrong after a while.

> There's no way that can go wrong after a while.

Well, giving him whatever platform he wants has already gone wrong right now. So if deplatforming him goes wrong in the future, and puts us back into the same situation we found ourselves in before today, at least we'll have between now and then to enjoy things, and come up with a plan C.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#140

Post by mcphage »

ergothus wrote: post #100
dunpeal wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article explicitly says he's banned because of TOS violations. The article is not clear about what those are, but I assume they fall under hate speech and harassment. Not at all a fan of Mr Jones (the little I've seen makes him seem like a garden variety nutcase peddling inane conspiracy theories), but aren't we just a little bit concerned when someone is banned on the same day by all the major internet content…

I play a mental version of what you list every time someone raises the "we should ban/disallow/make illegal..." concept. Generally, I'm hearing this about topics where I'm in strong agreement. Yes, we SHOULD take action against these attempts to exploit our inherent logical weaknesses for the promotion of values we disapprove of (sexism, racism, hatred, violence, etc). BUT...before I agree, I like to say "How is this…

> "How is this different than banning speech/actions promoting something society generally favors but historically did not. [...]"

Are you asking, how is banning someone for peddling hateful conspiracy theories different from banning someone for supporting human rights and dignity? You don't... I dunno, see a few differences between those two messages?

Or is it the future bit that you're worried about—you think that maybe in the future society will generally favor the idea that the parents whose children were murdered should get death threats? And us rubes who banned something like that will think "oh man, this is great, if we had only known!"

Post reply on HN