
Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones and Infowars - uptown
https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-permanently-bans-alex-jones-and-infowars/
======
minimaxir
Official statement:
[https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1037804427992686593](https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1037804427992686593)

> Today, we permanently suspended @RealAlexJones and @infowars from Twitter
> and Periscope. We took this action based on new reports of Tweets and videos
> posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to
> the accounts’ past violations. [https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-
> policies/abusive-behav...](https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-
> policies/abusive-behavior)

~~~
astrodust
Somehow this is just the babiest of baby steps. Infowars has a lot more than
one Twitter account, and there's a lot of accounts other than Infowars that
need to be thrown off Twitter.

~~~
goostavos
I also have some speech I disagree with that I would like silenced.

Is there a form somewhere?

~~~
astrodust
Are you the government? No, you can't.

Are you a private individual or corporation? Yes, you can, that ability to
moderate is _protected free speech_.

~~~
BayesStreet
I would agree, but something to think about is Twitter and facebook govern the
behaviour of the people around me more than my country's government, probably.

~~~
astrodust
Twitter and Facebook are private companies and they're free to govern their
platforms however they see fit provided they don't run afoul of discrimination
laws.

Being a racist jackass is not a protected class of individual.

------
ourmandave
I never watched infowars or read anything Jones said or wrote.

But to think there are people who believe his crazy sh*t is really scary. Like
the guy shooting up a pizza shop because of Pizzagate.

I compare him to the World Weekly News (next to the People magazines) from way
back where they'd show a picture of space aliens shaking hands with the
president.

Why does anyone believe this crap?

~~~
godzillabrennus
There are a lot of people who have lost faith in the system of government that
has largely forgotten them.

Their kids are drug addicts.

Their towns look like war zones.

They have no ability to earn a living.

They seek to be recognized and valued.

They seek to matter to someone.

In Alex Jones they find a leader who understands their issues and makes it
easy to understand who to blame.

If we want to disarm Alex we need to recognize there are real problems in
America outside of the coastal areas.

~~~
shredprez
> If we want to disarm Alex we need to recognize there are real problems in
> America outside of the coastal areas.

And inside the coastal areas as well.

Still, none of this stress and anxiety condemns a reasonable human being to
become a psychotic racist caricature (or a follower of the same). Desperation
just turns up the dial on a person's fundamental system of values. It exposes
the prejudice; it doesn't create it.

Solving the problems listed would calm their rage to the benefit of all, but
let's not kid ourselves that it would change any hearts or minds.

------
ve55
One of the most difficult issues with the style of bans that large tech
companies perform is that there is no hope for them to have strong
consistency. For them to be consistent they would have to ban anyone that has
been an equal or worse offender, while not banning anyone that is a lesser
offender. This is obviously far-fetched, especially with decisions that are
made by humans on a case-by-case basis.

Regardless of what actions they take, many parties will feel slighted, and
rightfully so, as anyone will be able to cherry-pick correct examples about
why various platforms are not fair with their bans, because complete fairness
is impossible. So we can have many equally valid "They banned X but not Y,
this is unfair" from one side, but also "They banned A but not B, this is
unfair" from an opposing side, with both complaints being valid examples that
demonstrate some type of bias or inconsistency.

~~~
hbosch
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.

~~~
influx
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?

~~~
ProfessorLayton
Discrimination is fine and dandy for any business as long as it isn't part of
a protected class (Whether it makes business sense to do so is another
argument). The cake shop argument is whether LGBT people fall under a
protected class, and the courts have continued to sidestep that issue.

I firmly believe LGBT people should be a protected class like race, and sex,
but ultimately we need to have a ruling on that.

~~~
poke111
LGBT being a protected class or not was not at issue in the cake shop
decision, since they were not denied service in general (they had been regular
customers of that shop, and were always served). The issue was whether
designing a custom cake for their wedding was considered artistic expression,
and as such he had a right to refuse under the 1st amendment since you cannot
compel speech.

------
WalterGR
_The Twitter founder addressed concerns about Jones’ conspiracy-mongering, and
tasked journalists with refuting his bogus claims.

“Accounts like Jones' can often sensationalize issues and spread
unsubstantiated rumors, so it’s critical journalists document, validate, and
refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions,”
Dorsey tweeted. “This is what serves the public conversation best.”_

Wow. Putting the burden of proof on anyone but the person making a claim is
ridiculous.

Any video with John or Joan Q. Qanon will have someone saying something to the
effect of, “Well, you don’t have any proof that it’s not true!”

Also, Jack Dorsey is a closet believer in the Tooth Fairy. He’s been known to
dress up as the Tooth Fairy and to participate in Tooth Fairy-related rituals.

I encourage anyone to disprove that.

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

~~~
astrodust
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.

~~~
have_faith
Q?

~~~
astrodust
Yeah, go and punch that into Google and see what you get.

------
bm3719
For the past few years, whenever a company demonstrates that it is actively
working against a culture of free speech, I block its URL in /etc/hosts. In
this case, I already added Twitter long ago, so no change necessary.

Not only do I have less time wasters around, but I noticed that the internet
is far less angry of a place as a result.

~~~
bdcravens
HN also actively moderates its content and its users. An Alex Jones would last
about a day here before being banned.

> I noticed that the internet is far less angry of a place as a result

I would think it would be quite the opposite: the likelihood of being censored
creates inhibition.

~~~
LocalH
HN also has much less influence on the greater world, as opposed to Twitter.

~~~
DoreenMichele
How so? I mean, what is your thinking here?

~~~
LocalH
The general public uses Twitter on a massive scale. They don't generally even
know HN exists.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Thanks.

------
AdmiralAsshat
Honestly, "Those are the eyes of a rat" is a fairly tame insult compared to
the kind of toxic drivel Jones _usually_ says, and seems like weak grounds for
termination.

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.

~~~
CharlesW
It does seem tame, but a quick search suggests it may be an anti-semitic dog
whistle.

~~~
sheepmullet
It seems like every comment by someone the left doesn’t like is a kind of dog
whistle.

~~~
beat
Comparing Jews to rats _is_ a classic Nazi trope. It's actually a dog whistle,
for real and true.

~~~
dragonwriter
I'm not sure it's subtle enough to be a dog whistle; it's more like a train
whistle, really.

------
funkythings
No matter what you think of Jones: Silicon Valley is digging their own grave
with their blatantly obvious double standards towards "hate speech" and other
forms of harassment.

~~~
MBCook
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/reason/moon phase basis?

Half the problem over the last few years is the quicksand of rules.
Punishments applied unevenly start to look an awful lot favoritism even when
there isn’t any there.

~~~
sheepmullet
> celebrating this as it means Twitter is holding to their own published
> policies.

Have they banned the racist New York Times editor yet?

~~~
MBCook
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. But I’ll take 40% enforcement over 5%
enforcement.

~~~
acdha
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...](https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-
twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan)

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.

~~~
sheepmullet
> made-up controversies

So making dozens of anti-white comments over a sustained period of time is
just a joke?

Yet Alex Jones calling a specific person a rat without any generalization when
that person has been targeting him for harassment and deplatforming is anti-
Semitic?

This is why the right and center have a growing distrust for the left.

> making obvious jokes in the style of right-wing rhetoric

Except right wing people don’t talk like that.

~~~
acdha
> Alex Jones calling a specific person a rat without any generalization when
> that person has been targeting him for harassment and deplatforming is anti-
> Semitic?

Please don’t waste time assuming you’re talking to people who are completely
unaware of his history and unable to check Wikipedia. If you want to defend
Alex Jones, justify pizzagate, harassing the parents of massacre victims, or
calling for armed uprising — i.e. the things which actually got him banned.

I know why you aren’t, of course, because it would make the false equivalence
of trying to compare him to Jeong a complete farce, not to mention raising
some uncomfortable questions about your shared values. You clearly like to
present yourself as speaking for some relatively mainstream group but that’s
incompatible with defending extremists like Jones.

> Except right wing people don’t talk like that.

You seriously expect everyone to have forgotten the blood and soil guys? The
birthers and other racists — like the figurehead of your party?

~~~
sheepmullet
> i.e. the things which actually got him banned.

So twitter was lying when they said he was banned for his video with the CNN
guy?

> false equivalence of trying to compare him to Jeong a complete farce

Exactly - he clearly is not as bigoted, racist, and hateful as Jeong.

A more similar comparison would be Sarah Jeong and Richard Spencer.

> but that’s incompatible with defending extremists like Jones.

Why? I don’t need to agree with everything you say to defend your right to
speak.

Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut but he’s also brought up lots of interesting
topics worth discussing.

There is no need to spread malicious lies about him like saying he has called
for armed uprisings.

> blood and soil guys

Ah yes the fringe fake right who want socialism and open borders but only for
whites.

Maybe you should put down the fake news and go out and meet some
conservatives. There are millions of us in California.

> The birthers

The birthers belong in the same category as the 9/11 truthers and the current
Trump-Russia conspiracy theorists.

You can hardly compare them with hardcore racists like Jeong.

------
orf
Here is the video he broadcast that got him banned:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne_wFdA-1oU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne_wFdA-1oU)

Alex Jones seems seriously unwell. That being said, apart from acting like a
complete jackass and harassing that man it was not exactly a racist rant and
not 'as bad' as some of his other comments.

Not sure why he got banned specifically for this to be honest.

Edit: not sure how that link got mixed up with another video...

~~~
Kim_Bruning
Just the continuous directed stream of invective. For 1 minute you can keep
watching, but it keeps on going as Alex Jones invents new insult after new
insult. I actually started to feel nauseated.

In previous centuries, one could have credibly challenged him to a duel after
just a few seconds of this. I wonder if we can find some other similar escape
valve in the modern age.

------
malvosenior
> _“Those are the eyes of a rat,”_

There's no way they can ban him for saying that yet still claim to enforce the
rules equally for all political affiliations.

There have been thousands (maybe more) tweets by people with blue verification
checkmarks calling Trump an orange oompa loopa and much worse. No one has been
banned for that (rightfully so imo).

There's been a ton of pressure on Twitter to ban Jones but using this tweet as
an excuse shows they are in no way politically neutral.

This comes one day after Dorsey stood in front of congress and said they don't
have a political agenda and previous examples of right wing censorship were "a
mistake".

Ironically, one of the only places you can see actual footage of Dorsey saying
this is on Infowars:

[https://www.infowars.com/watch-rep-markwayne-mullin-reads-
sa...](https://www.infowars.com/watch-rep-markwayne-mullin-reads-sarah-jeongs-
bigoted-tweets-to-jack-dorsey/)

This is _not_ an Infowars endorsement, it's seriously the only place I can
find this video aside from Breitbart.

~~~
rhizome
_There 's no way they can ban him for saying that yet still claim to enforce
the rules equally for all political affiliations._

It's not the government, they absolutely can ban people for anything they want
and they don't have to be consistent about it. There's nothing you can do
about this it than deleting your account, complaining about them on the
internet, and/or acquiring a seat on their board of directors and effecting
change from within. I suppose a hostile takeover of the entire company should
be mentioned, too.

Furthermore, "neutrality" is a figment of your imagination.

~~~
readams
This seems to be a common trope lately. The claim seems to be that because
censorship by private parties is not banned by the constitution, it is
therefore a good idea.

It is entirely fair to criticize private parties for censorship even though
there may be no legal recourse. It is in turn almost never a good idea to
demand the censorship of ideas you don't like.

~~~
charlesism

        > This seems to be a common trope lately.
    

That's because it has only become self-evident lately. It has become much
harder to believe that reason and truth will prevail on the internet. Back in
the 1990s, it was easier to be idealistic.

------
eip
"Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes, not need, just feed the war cannibal
animal. I walk the corner to the rubble that used be a library line up to the
mind cemetery now. What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and movin'.
They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove 'em while arms warehouses
fill as quick as the cells."

------
chad_strategic
I'm over news. I'm over fake news. I'm so over this whole internet and social
media experiment.

(I do checkout a few sites... hence this post.)

Wake up, it's 1984, and everybody is at the party. (left and right, liberals
and conservatives..etc...)

It just looks a little different than what you read.

Thankfully, I can think for myself.

------
jpm_sd
Too little, too late, Twitter.

------
Ataraxy
I'm surprised they held out so long considering the seemingly orchestrated
removal of him from other platforms.

Bit bizzare thing to remove him for regardless of the person when you consider
how much just total grbage exists on twitter in general.

------
vzaliva
[https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1037804427992686593](https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1037804427992686593)
says they "permanently suspended" his accounts. Merriam Webster defines
"suspend" as "to debar temporarily". So what it is, twitter? Permanently or
Temporarily? It may be just sloppy writing or they are leaving a way for
themselves to restore the accounts?

