
Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Other Extremists–But Not as Planned - howard941
https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-bans-alex-jones-extremists/
======
sarcasmatwork
>None of the extremists banned Thursday are new to Facebook or Instagram. Each
has used the platforms extensively to spread misinformation and inflame
tensions

Has wired aka Paris Martineau a biased writer? Has wired gone to shit now?

This is a 100% miss mischaracterization of these people. MSM is the ones that
spreads misinformation, lies and decent everyday but they still have accounts
on social media platforms.

Here is an actual terrorist group that associates with hamas. Why the f do
they have an account, but Americans using their 1A cant?
[https://www.facebook.com/CAIRNational/](https://www.facebook.com/CAIRNational/)

~~~
ziddoap
Regarding bias: [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wired-
magazine/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wired-magazine/)

A bit of a stretch to claim that saying Alex Jones spreads misinformation and
inflames tensions is "100% mischaracterization of these people". I'd say that
description is fairly spot on.

I don't know what the group you linked has to do with Alex Jones or the others
mentioned in this article. Could you elaborate why that group is relevant to
the article? Other than highlighting the difficulties of content moderation at
the scale of 2B users?

------
red5tar
its funny how all these big platforms are always trying to hush people who are
trying to alert others about the truth even as crazy as it may sound. Some of
the stuff alex j says is true but its so crazy and hard to believe that people
see it as fake news. who ever wrote this article has biased intentions instead
of just reporting the news without taking sides.

~~~
ziddoap
Please, I genuinely would love to see some examples of some of this "so crazy
and hard to believe" stuff that has been peddled by Alex Jones that has been
proven as true.

Edit: I would also ask, if you could, to let me know which portions of this
article struck you as particularily biased. Considering half of the article is
conveying the statement from Facebook, and the rest of the article appears to
be stating the facts (Media announced a ban, the ban actually happened after
the media, heres what FB had to say about it) I'm having trouble seeing the
intense bias you see.

