
Twitter did not suspend Alex Jones or Infowars - dsr12
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1026984242893357056
======
mjwhansen
To me, the crux of the problem is how the platforms see themselves, vs. how
many in media and the informed general public see them.

The informed general public opinion seems to be that Facebook and Twitter have
mainstream media-level responsibility, i.e., with great distribution, comes
great power, comes great responsibility. They are akin to newspapers in a way
in this view, and have a responsibility to only promote reasoned perspectives.

Facebook and Twitter, on the other hand, seem to see themselves more like a
grocery store magazine rack, which have carried a wide variety of magazines
including conspiratorial BS like the National Enquirer for years without any
controversy whatsoever.

These two positions seem to be at loggerheads and operating on completely
different planes.

~~~
WiseWeasel
The grocery store typically won't carry The Weekly Bigot or Jihad Monthly;
even the Enquirer has standards.

------
notthemessiah
Recently twitter was auto-suspending everybody who had "Elon Musk" as a subset
of their name, including parody accounts such as "Italian Elon Musk" or puns
involving the name. Twitter goes out of their way to prevent anything
resembling fraud reguarding the blue-checkmarked accounts, yet if you have
one, you're able to spew as much bullshit as you want.

Who gets a blue-checkmark is a rather arbitrary selection process, and Alex
Jones retains his despite launching harassment campaigns against Sandy Hook
victims. If you don't want to suspend the account, why not take away his
coveted blue checkmark?

~~~
tomjakubowski
@alexqarbuckle changed his account display name to "Italian Elon Musk" for a
dumb but hilarious bit and lost his blue checkmark over it. So that's where
the line is, I guess.

[https://twitter.com/alexqarbuckle/status/1008257043843690497](https://twitter.com/alexqarbuckle/status/1008257043843690497)

------
xupybd
Good work Twitter. Alex Jones is a liar and a nut but free speech is more
important than preventing a liar and a nut from having a platform.

~~~
aplummer
I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say
whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_
content bizarre.

Does a newspaper publish everyone’s comments? If I call you and ask you to
repeat what I say to ten friends will you do it?

Alex jones’s right to talk garbage != his “faux-right” to have platforms
publish it.

~~~
mistermann
> I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say
> whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_
> content bizarre

I find it interesting how so many people are unable to stop their mind from
automatically, and without their awareness, narrowing the very broad topic of
_the principle of free speech in general_ , to narrower and more specific
topics like the first amendment, or obligation (by force!) to distribute
unsavory ideas (neither of which were mentioned in the comment to which you
are replying).

Can we agree that the network effect has reduced the majority of _public_ ,
_mass_ online communication to a relatively small number of players, most of
whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to describe
themselves as centrists on the political spectrum? Considering this, can you
imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a
coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they
disagree with sometime in the future?

I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away when
everyone starts thinking the same way, exposing their minds to only one flavor
of opinions, and perhaps harming their ability to think critically. Some
people might say we're living within that very scenario right now. No, this
doesn't necessarily mean Alex Jones specifically has any redeeming qualities
whatsoever, but can you at least see that there is _at least something_ to be
said for the general principle of free speech and diversity of ideas?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech)

"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual
or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of
retaliation, censorship, or sanction."

EDIT: Downvoters, care to share the thinking behind your disagreement? Do you
think I'm wrong in thinking that the principle of free speech exists
independent of the first amendment, and can be discussed with or without the
existence of force being exerted on publishing platforms? Is the very idea of
a conversation with those whom you may not completely agree old fashioned or
unrealistic?

~~~
aplummer
(FYI I didn't downvote you because you gave a thought out answer, must be
other people.)

> ...most of whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to
> describe themselves as centrists on the political spectrum?

The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including
countries outside the USA.

> Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple
> silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform
> someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the
> future?

If you are saying tech companies should be broken up, I don't have a strong
opinion on it. If you are saying that they should be forced to promote
conspiracy garbage - I disagree.

> Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple
> silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform
> someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the
> future?

I hope so, ISIS uses social media.

> I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away
> when everyone starts thinking the same way.

I disagree that is what is happening here - when Australia's chief scientists
was questioned by a conspiracy theorist he said "I like to keep an open mind,
but not so open my brains fall out". I think brains fall out delusional fear
mongering should be suppressed (not by suppressing free speech, just by people
sense checking and only promoting what they want) by the majority,
particularly when it has real world impacts like AJ. You could argue the
current state of the internet (lots of garbage conspiracies) is an effect of
this being short-circuited.

As well, I think your dogma towards "free speech at any cost" is an example of
people getting carried away and thinking the same.

Every other western country has free-ish but not free speech, however people
are more free from fear and persecution in those places than in America.
Consider that AJ is banned from visiting places where quality of life,
political engagement, etc is higher than in the USA.

Even if you disagree with my points, what about the company employees' free
speech, don't they have the freedom to publish whatever _they_ like?

~~~
mistermann
> The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including
> countries outside the USA.

This seems like the absolute opposite of literally every single article I've
ever read, I have not once heard a single person make this claim before. Am I
misunderstanding something, are we not talking about the same thing?

> If you are saying tech companies should be broken up

I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right there for
your review.

> If you are saying that they should be forced to promote conspiracy garbage -
> I disagree.

Once again, I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right
there for your review.

> I hope so, ISIS uses social media.

Considering:

a)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone
says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

b) What I actually wrote

....does that seem like an appropriate response?

> I disagree that is what is happening here

I am referring to the possibility that if free speech _in general_ is
restricted to the point that large portions of the population rarely hear
views that might conflict with their own, one possible result might be that
they lose the ability to think critically, and perhaps the ability to hold the
simplest of good faith conversations with those whose _actual_ opinions may
differ only slightly.

> As well, I think your dogma towards "free speech at any cost"

If I had _actually_ said anything of the kind, I would agree with you.

I asked some fairly reasonable questions that 10 years ago wouldn't have been
considered controversial at all. I would hope that you and anyone else that
comes across this exchange review the words I have written, and the words you
have written in response, and try to think calmly and clearly about the nature
of this situation. There is something very, very strange going on.

As for free speech, if there's no longer anyone left who is able or willing to
engage in an honest discussion, perhaps there's no point in even trying to
defend the principle.

~~~
aplummer
1) tech companies employ people at will and engage in profit shifting

2) I did jump to two plausible solutions to what you were describing, true.

3) You did say tech companies shouldn’t be the arbiter of content people put
on there. I said I _want_ then to be the arbiter given terrorists use the
platform. It’s a fair point that the thing you are saying is wrong has
literally been going on for years, and the only difference is that now its
someone you disagree with less being censored.

I reread and feel my comments were fair, you are subscribing to free speech at
“Alex Jones” cost (effectively any). As well, I am engaging in an honest
discussion, we just disagree.

~~~
mistermann
> tech companies employ people at will and engage in profit shifting

Your claim was: "The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any
spectrum including countries outside the USA". Structuring your company to
maximize financial returns is hardly a good representative of the complexity
of right/left leaning in the aggregate.

> I did jump to two plausible solutions to what you were describing, true

That's a rather generous characterization of what you wrote.

> You did say tech companies shouldn’t be the arbiter of content people put on
> there.

Please quote the part where I said that.

> the only difference is that now its someone you disagree with less being
> censored

This is your imagination playing tricks on you again. Review everything that
has been written here, and find the most compelling words I've written that
substantiate this claim. I think you might be surprised.

> you are subscribing to free speech at “Alex Jones” cost (effectively any)

Once again, your imagination is projecting ideas onto your mental
representation of me. To test whether this is true, review the conversation
and find where I said anything remotely advocating "subscribing to free speech
at “Alex Jones” cost (effectively any)".

There is a way out of this situation, but it isn't a zero effort endeavor.

------
8iterations
"Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge" is my
favorite work by Karl Popper. His 1945 work on the Paradox of Tolerance seems
more appropriate here.

~~~
Bendingo
Agreed.

Especially his statements [1]:

"...as long as we can counter them (the tolerant) by rational argument and
keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise"

and

"it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of
rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their
followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach
them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should
therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the
intolerant"

The behaviour that Popper warns about (forbidding rational argument and
answering arguments with force) sounds more like the left, than Alex Jones.
[2] [3]

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#cite_note...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#cite_note-1)

[2] - [https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-
tr...](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-
officials/index.html)

[3] - [http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/06/antifa-windows-marine-
corp...](http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/06/antifa-windows-marine-corps-
berkeley/)

------
p3nt3ll3r
This guy lied about mass shootings and encouraged the bullies to physically
torment the parents of the victims. But sure, let's treat him as an equal.
Twitter is a cesspool.

~~~
sadris
>encouraged the bullies to physically torment the parents of the victims

Can you cite this? Never heard of that.

~~~
dredmorbius
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/media/alex-
jones...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/media/alex-jones-sandy-
hook.html)

[https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/04/17/sandy-hook-parents-
su...](https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/04/17/sandy-hook-parents-sue-
conspiracy-troll-alex-jones/)

[http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/01/hilla...](http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/01/hillary-
clinton/hillary-clinton-correct-austins-alex-jones-said-no/)

[https://newtownpostexaminer.com/2014/09/25/sandy-hook-
hoaxer...](https://newtownpostexaminer.com/2014/09/25/sandy-hook-hoaxers-
misrepresent-fbi-crime-stats/)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories#Alex_Jones_claims)

~~~
sadris
None of these links has a quote from Alex Jones "encouraging physical
harassment".

~~~
dang
You've been using HN to comment only on ideology and politics. That's not a
legit use of this site, whose purpose is intellectual curiosity, not
ideological battle. If you'd please review
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and use the site as intended, we'd appreciate it.

We eventually ban accounts that use HN primarily for political battle. It will
take over the site if we let it, so we can't let it.

------
narrator
It seems that everything was running just fine according to plan until Trump
was elected and now there's a huge crusade to use all the technological might
of Google, Facebook, etc to shut down whatever caused that to happen and save
democracy. I hear a lot of technological luminaries in AI and technology
saying the next most important thing that has to be done is to end "fake
news". That big tech is hiring in AI to detect "hate". It's a Manhattan
project to save the status quo!

Forget slaughterbots, or rogue AI, the real disruptive technology that is
going to end the world and requires coordinated action by all the major
players is Alex Jones with a social media account!

The media has been highly controlled since the broadcast era with a small
oligopoly of federally licensed broadcasters allowed to conduct mass influence
operations. Since the 1996 telecommunications act things have gotten more and
more centralized till we have 5 companies that control 90% of media, so of
course people are looking for other options.

Congrats to Twitter for being the least technologically adept company and thus
being kind of garbage at censorship thus leading to them being the vanguard of
free speech.

------
jazzyjackson
Hacker News commentators seem to be falling for troll strategies that should
be obvious by now.

Don't assume the people in this conversation are acting in good faith, that's
what they exploit.

------
justinph
Disgusting.

Twitter is trying to hold on to relevance by staying the mainstream medium
where demagogues discuss their garbage. The world would be a better place if
they kicked off the white supremacists and the jerks, but their stock price
would take a hit. To me, it's an easy decision (I'm a shareholder, the stock
is already in the toilet), but one twitter has consistently abdicated.

------
marenkay
This is such an interesting dilemma in terms of laws and ethics, and there is
literally no way out without being shunned.

This is an online business, which laws actually apply? Company incorporation
location, account location, reader location? All of them?

Twitter has usage terms, did he actually violate a single one of them so far?
If yes, which one? If no, wouldn't it be illegal to ban him without reason
based on ToS?

Then there is the interesting question of responsibility. In capitalism it
usually boils down to he who has ownership also has responsibility, which is
the price for being on the owning side.

So if your small shop around the corner sells Nazi propaganda, it will very
likely be closed down.

So why do we treat these so called platforms as if they were a piece of paper?
Paper is no business. It just exists, whereas platforms are companies and have
intentions. Money is the goal, so responsibility should be there.

Which leads to ethics: all things considered, does an abstract concept such as
morale mandate we only accept truth, wisdom, right things?

Finally the biggest question of all IMHO: if we as a society can not rely on
the majority making the "right" decision, then does it even matter if people
who spread lies are banned since we failed as a society so badly that this is
the least of our issues.

------
xbmcuser
They can't ban him unless they are willing to ban Trump who says similar
stuff.

~~~
justinph
They should ban Trump.

~~~
tomhoward
They won’t ban a world leader and it’s unreasonable to expect them to.

~~~
jazzyjackson
What makes him so special? He's not King, and Twitter doesn't have any
government contracts.

~~~
tomhoward
It's nothing to do with him, it's to do with the position of head of state or
head of government of any country or international political body.

For Twitter to block anybody in such a position would be a step too far into
playing an active role in the political process, and would open a can of worms
by forcing them into the role of determining which other political leaders or
contenders should be allowed or banned.

------
m_ke
Will be interesting to watch twitter die once Trump is out of office.

------
dubrocks
Good. Political speech, which conspiracy theories are, is the speech most in
need of protection.

------
StanislavPetrov
If you only defend the speech of people you agree with, you are against free
speech and a free society.

~~~
Fukkaudeku
I am against free speech and a free society and I am proud to say that.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
At least your honest about it. Hypocrites who claim to support free speech and
a free society while seeking to silence those who disagree are despicable.

------
splitrocket
I wonder if there’s a case to be made that continuing to provide a platform to
Alex Jones effectively creates a toxic working environment for Twitter
employees.

Could be a great deal of liability there.

~~~
willio58
What about the other hundreds of thousands of outwardly racist twitter users?
Just ban them all? They’ll just congregate in their own communities.

~~~
alphabettsy
Maybe they should stop allowing anonymity then? Like communities who
disallowed hooded marchers to discourage the Klan.

~~~
mankypro
Yeah I’d like to see how many Antifa folks would show up if they weren’t able
to be anonymous, both online and in the RL.

~~~
freen
You know why Antifa folks wear masks? Because when you dox a Nazi, they loose
their jobs. When Nazis find out who you are, they kill you.

