
Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet - kylesellas
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/technology/twitter-alex-jones-suspension.html
======
skrebbel
I'm curious about how this is happening in America, of all places. As a
European, I've always wondered (with a certain hint of jealousy, I might add)
at the USA's absolute freedom of speech. People like the Westboro Baptist
Church would've certainly been blocked from protesting here in the
Netherlands.

At the same time, it's now companies that are very American, both by origin
and by culture, that are (letting themselves be pressured into) censuring
speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West. This strikes me as an
odd paradox, coming from a country where people get taught from primary school
onward to "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it".

I wonder where all this is going to lead, especially since these few companies
control so much of global information flow. Are Facebook, Google and Twitter,
once self-titled champions of free information flow, going to be the forces
that end America's freedom of expression (in practice at least)?

~~~
kylesellas
I'm all for freedom of speech even if that speech includes ideas I vehemently
disagree with (even hate speech). However, when speech incites physical
violence and can be viewed as a legitimate threat, then it needs to be shut
down.

Parents of children who were lost during Sandy Hook received physical threats
and death threats because of Jones' comments. That's the line where free
speech should be censored.

~~~
beaconstudios
so then those people should be banned. A public individual cannot be held
responsible for the actions of their followers unless they called for those
actions to be taken.

~~~
berbec
So for example "tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their
“battle rifles” ready against media"?

~~~
beaconstudios
I'd have to see the video myself - I'll probably look it up later in order to
have an informed opinion. Because it could be meant in many ways, and my
suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally
calling for his followers to shoot up some offices.

~~~
mcphage
> Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was
> intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his
> followers to shoot up some offices

Welcome to the world of "plausible deniability". Deliberately speaking in a
way that lets you defend yourself "oh I was only meaning metaphorically!" or
"I was just joking!", where you intend a subset of your listeners to
understand that you are speaking literally, is a common tactic. It's somewhat
akin to the Motte and Bailey defense:
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-
word...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-
words/)

~~~
beaconstudios
that's a huge presumption on your part. What you're essentially saying is that
you know what the internal motivation of Alex Jones is, and that his metaphor
is definitely what he actually believes. I don't think even he knows what his
internal motivation is, and to suggest that you know he's secretly harbouring
these murderous thoughts is ridiculous.

plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actual argument
for something then pulls the "haha I was only trolling" argument, but to say
for example to be ready for battle, in the context of politics, should not be
immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes. People use
references to war, battle, fighting and so on all the time in the context of
political conflict.

~~~
mcphage
> should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes

Is that what happened? I guess I'm behind on the news; I had heard his twitter
account got suspended, I didn't realize he was lynched!

Or is that just hyperbole? Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole in
this situation, instead of discussing what actually happened?

I find interesting the transformations you use in your language—"get your
battle rifles ready" becomes "be prepared", but "twitter account suspended for
a week" becomes "tying the lynching ropes".

[this was edited, btw, since you responded while I was editing it]

~~~
beaconstudios
That's just my poor writing skills - I meant that someone calling for
political battle may not actually be inciting lynching or shooting the media
or whatever, but speaking in metaphor.

------
pjc50
"The New York Times reports that Jones tweeted a link to a video calling for
supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others"

Turns out that there _is_ a limit, and it's making really overt death threats.
I'm surprised he didn't get banned over the "Democrats are going to have a
revolution" stuff. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
intersect/wp/2018/07...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
intersect/wp/2018/07/03/a-short-history-of-alex-jones-claiming-that-the-left-
is-about-to-start-a-second-civil-war/)

~~~
nailer
> get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others"

> it's making really overt death threats

I don't think that's overt, but I think it's grey enough (perhaps deliberately
so) that it constitutes incitement to violence. This is awesome - banning
account for _specific_ reasons (message X contained an incitement to violence)
means moderation can be applied consistently. Twitter has had a much better
approach in this case than FB or Apple, who've simply stated there's an issue
with hate speech on the entire account without saying what it was.

~~~
manicdee
Being specific means the malcontents will simply adjust their language.

No longer will it be, “get out there with your battle rifles and let the blood
of the infidel run free” but it will become, “let loose your holy Christmas
candy and witness the tears of the spoilt children of the Left!”

There’s no death threat or incitement to violence there.

------
CamTin
For those that missed it, Infowars' podcast was also recently dropped from
iTunes, and several of Jones' pages dropped from Facebook as well. I'm sure
there are many people who are looking to see how successful Jones is in
suddenly having to swim on his own, without these hugely successful platform.
As much as I'm not a fan, I do kind of hope that he can prove we don't
necessarily need these platforms to distribute content and grow one's
following (creating that following in the first place is obviously another
matter).

Will this wave of platform rejections force Alex Jones fans onto Mastodon?

------
Rjevski
Now if only they'd do the same for spam, scams, malware, etc... you know, the
actual stuff that hurts the platform.

I don't support Infowars but I'd take it any way over "Hai this is
@EloanMusk2499 and I am giving out free cryptocurrency - just click this link
or send 1BTC to this address and you'll get 10BTC in exchange!!!".

~~~
hackandtrip
I think the problem is technical and not moral. Alex Jones threatened lifes,
and the banhammer is easy to give to one single user. What about new user that
are doing so many accounts a hour with different (guess private) proxy, etc?

I hope that twitter is addressing that problem with stronger anti-spam
measure, but it doesn't really relate to Infowars.

------
poisonborz
This whole ordeal is a good example how f'd up the current internet
infrastructure is. For a decade or so it just seems like the beginnings of a
megacorp-ruled Blade Runner-ish world.

While companies have all the right to have control over whatever on their
platforms, there just isn't a well known unfiltered, unmoderated, "real" spot
on the internet anymore that is known to all - just some niche spots requiring
technical or insider knowledge.

It's sickening to look at all the stock-footage-showing happy-go-lucky feeds -
comments, articles, posts disappearing without a trace, individuals banned,
search results removed.

I'm rather sure that the more this continues, the sooner a breakout moment
happens, creating p2p-ish network not needing direct corporate support for
content delivery.

To note: in no way do I support Jones, and as said, companies have the right
to censor.

~~~
beberlei
In the 90s and early 2000s you had to search for the nieche content as well or
know where it was located. Hundrets of different phpBBs or other forums hidden
from "uninitated" people.

The simplicity of central platform just has all the users going there, because
they don't want to search for hours to find communities to participate in.

infowars is still available at infowars.com, they just can't use the platform
and distribution effects of fb, twitter, spotify, etc anymore, so they are
precisely back in 1999.

~~~
poisonborz
The majority of people only access these distribution platforms. The "they
still have a website" argument equals to "in a dictatorship, you still have a
home and you can say anything between its walls, people can come to you and
listen". The internet is / should be much more than that.

I always found "disapproval by removal/banning" to be absurd. The true way of
them not gaining ground is by educating people. Yes, it's a much, much harder
way. Yet it's infinitely more fair, and probably the only way to a healthy
society.

~~~
loriverkutya
You never lived in a dictatorship, do you? If people comes to your home and
you say something against the "system", they will come and take you, the
people who were listening to you and probably your family too. And you are
probably not coming back.

I really wondering, how would you educate somebody who is shouting and
threatening other people. Also, can you imagine how you would feel, if your
child was killed in a school shooting and then somebody is telling everybody,
that you are lying?

If you want to educate this idiot, go ahead, and before you try to do it, stop
him from hurting people, who are already having the worst time of their
life...

~~~
poisonborz
There are many forms of dictatorships. The stalinist police state you allude
to is just one, very outdated variant. It was easy to hate it, and thus it
didn't live long. Far more dangerous forms are emerging now.

It's not just him you should educate. It's more about the people who listen to
him. As for shouting lies: is it a better alternative to silence that man
because you are right? On one hand, argue back, and accept that he has a voice
even if it hurts you, on the other, it's the task of all the people standing
around to dismiss and ignore and that guy.

~~~
kthejoker2
Why is he entitled to my platform and resources, exactly? I own stock in
Twitter, why is he allowed to use my money for his voice?

Let him use your property as you see fit, by all means, but don't insist
others do the same.

But of course you're equating Twitter with the State or a "voice" which is
ridiculous. Please stop.

------
humantiy
For those who are actually curious about what was said in the video Media
Matters posted a clip that should provide some context:

[https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808](https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808)

------
bitwize
Alex Jones will be fine. He's been around since the 90s, when shortwave radio
-- that bastion of white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, fundamentalists,
and other assorted kooks -- was his primary means of contact with his
audience.

If anything this will make Alex, and his followers, even crazier, as his
censorship by major Web outlets only PROVES that the DEMONS behind the New
World Order are plotting to silence the righteous!

------
test001only
Twitter put up a ban for 7 days because the account tweeted a video calling
for violence against media. People commenting here either have not read the
article or are deliberately bringing in false parity between call for violence
and request for cake for a wedding. It would be outrageous if any media did
not ban call for violence, especially by somebody with considerable following
in the public.

------
throw2016
This is great for Alex Jones, he gets global notoriety, free publicity and
gets to be the martyr.

Given Alex Jones weakness for theatrics he is going to play up this
'conspiracy' against him to prove every other conspiracy theory he nurtures
for the next 10 years.

The 'co-ordination' however is blatant and raises questions about whether they
are trying to silence him or martyr him. Is this really necessary, why is it
co-ordinated and so heavy handed?

The only logical explanation for it being so brazen is they are doing this
against him as cover to silence more 'problematic' figures which would raise
more serious concerns about dissent and free speech. But that's a conspiracy
theory.

------
teamk
Its pretty insane that public businesses are forbidden from discrimination on
most grounds (political views, religious views, etc) of who it employs, or who
can enter their business, but its perfectly fine for FB, Google, Apple,
Twitter, etc., to completely control the content of the conversation on their
platforms.

It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding
cakes, or as a Restaurant owner I can't open a 'straight white people only'
restaurant, but Social Media giants can basically purge any and all far right
content.

~~~
codemusings
> It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding
> cakes, or as a Restaurant owner I can't open a 'straight white people only'
> restaurant [...]

What is wrong with you? What happened to you as a child that made you think
this form of discrimination is even remotely acceptable?

~~~
ramblerman
You are completely misunderstanding his point.

He is saying why is it OK for a small business to be forced to accommodate
something that may be against their belief system. But the biggest
corporations, who are also managing our online discourse, can pick and choose
what they like.

~~~
codemusings
But he's insinuating that people like Alex Jones should be protected by
freedom of speech as if their fucked up ideads are some sort of alternative
view that's just not for everyone.

This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for
extremists that they don't have.

~~~
beaconstudios
> But he's insinuating that people like Alex Jones should be protected by
> freedom of speech as if their fucked up ideads are some sort of alternative
> view that's just not for everyone.

That _is_ the case. In my opinion he's a hilarious nutcase, but just because
you find his views offensive does not mean his speech is now illegitimate. The
whole point of freedom of speech is to allow the airing of controversial
opinions, even if that means you end up with professional trolls calling
tragedies a hoax. Any time you make a "freedom of speech doesn't apply to
opinion X" argument, you are actively arguing against freedom of speech.

> This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for
> extremists that they don't have.

What does this even mean? Having a different opinion is not gaslighting and to
suggest that it is, is to trivialise a form of psychological abuse.

