Twitter has finally banned Alex Jones & Infowars

[Master Disaster]

So if you remember last month there was a big kafuffle over Infowars being allowed to continue posting to Twitter despite AJ & IW being banned from all other social media outlets for claiming a school shooting where children were killed was faked.

 

Seemingly out of the blue Twitter has reversed that decision and within the last few hours have "permanently suspended" (why use an oxymoron?) both Alex Jones personal account and his Infowars account.

Quote

Twitter says it has permanently suspended the accounts of Alex Jones and his Infowars website.

 

It made the move after a number of tweets that violated Twitter's abusive behaviour policy, the company said.

A number of tech giants, including YouTube and Facebook, deleted the right-wing conspiracy theorist's content last month, citing hate speech.

 

Jones is best known as a hate filled conspiracy nut who is currently fighting a lawsuit in relation to his claims that the Sandy Hook School shootings, in which 20 children and 6 adults died, was a hoax.

Quote

The radio host is best known for spreading unsubstantiated allegations about tragic events, including 9/11.

 

He is currently being sued for defamation by the parents of two children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which he has repeatedly claimed was a "giant hoax". Twenty children under the age of seven and six adults died in the attack.

Twitter have refused to confirm exactly why he has now been banned but have confirmed that recent posts made my him have been reported and are in breach of the site's abusive behaviour rules.

Quote

Twitter said the ban was a result of "new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behaviour policy, in addition to the accounts' past violations".

 

It did not specify what the violations were.

 

It added that it does "not typically comment on enforcement actions... against individual accounts", but was "open about this action given the broad interest in this case".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45442417

 

So normally I'm against censorship, especially against conspiracy nuts like him, as when you censor them you enable them to shout their message even louder. Leave them be and most sound minded people will ignore them.

 

In his case however I can't hide the fact I'm glad he's banned from spreading his hate to social media. This guy is especially repugnant and pretty much everything he says is hurtful or disrespectful to someone.

 

Good job for doing the right thing finally Twitter, shame it took you a month longer than everyone else.

[PlayStation 2]

Again, here comes big tech becoming the police on what we can and can't hear.

[ivan134]

I don't get it. Why dont conservatives ask their billionaire donors to start their own social media?

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Again, here comes big tech becoming the police on what we can and can't hear.

Normally I'd agree with you but not this time, he deserves to be banned from every public outlet.

[Arika]

What ever you think about Alex Jones and Infowars, this blatent censorship and will lead down a dark path where anyone can be banned/silenced for having an option that is not in line with the status quo or the Media's current agenda

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Normally I'd agree with you but not this time, he deserves to be banned from every public outlet.

Why? Because you don't like him?

I don't like numerous outlets (trust me, I could list 'em but for the sake of this I have no need to), but I don't believe they should be censored outright, not at all.

[ItsMitch]

this thread going to turn into a proper shit show 

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

What ever you think about Alex Jones and Infowars, this blatent censorship and will lead down a dark path where anyone can be banned/silenced for having an option that is not in line with the status quo or the Media's current agenda

Why are you people against private companies deciding who they want to do business with?

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

What ever you think about Alex Jones and Infowars, this blatent censorship and will lead down a dark path where anyone can be banned/silenced for having an option that is not in line with the status quo or the Media's current agenda

It's not censorship, not this time. You can only censor the truth and to say his message is being censored is basically agreeing with it.

[Blademaster91]

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

What ever you think about Alex Jones and Infowars, this blatent censorship and will lead down a dark path where anyone can be banned/silenced for having an option that is not in line with the status quo or the Media's current agenda

I feel kinda mixed on this topic but yeah I'd agree, the media is whining about free speech yet is just fine shutting down everyone that doesn't completely follow them.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Why? Because you don't like him?

I don't like numerous outlets (trust me, I could list 'em but for the sake of this I have no need to), but I don't believe they should be censored outright, not at all.

No, I don't know him. I don't like anybody who can stand there and say a school shooting in which 26 people died was a hoax.

[Andreas Lilja]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Because they don't realize that the first amendment only applies to Congress?  They also seem to not understand why he's been banned.  Even if it wasn't just applied to Congress you can't make threats, harass people, and so on.  

Freedom of speech / expression is more than a law, it's also a philosophy...

[Eaglerino]

The internet on a whole seems to be cracking down on free speech. They put it under the guise of 'no toxicity', whatever that means

[Ryujin2003]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Normally I'd agree with you but not this time, he deserves to be banned from every public outlet.

 

Just now, Arika S said:

What ever you think about Alex Jones and Infowars, this blatent censorship and will lead down a dark path where anyone can be banned/silenced for having an option that is not in line with the status quo or the Media's current agenda

I understand the desire to side with the banning because he'sa douche....

 

TLDR: As long as Jones was given the same warnings system and treatment as everyone else, it's fine. He violated standards. Otherwise, jumping in the band wagon isn't right.

 

However, censorship is still censorship. If he blatantly violated the terms, did he get the same warnings that anyone else would get? If not, then I'd say his banning is unsur unfair. Why? Because social media goodness already have enough influence over what we read and are exposed to. If they censor right wonder loonies, they need to treat them the same as the left wing loonies. (And i don't think that actually happens)

[ivan134]

Muh free speech

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

It's not censorship, not this time. You can only censor the truth and to say his message is being censored is basically agreeing with it.

I don't know the guy or watch any of his videos but banning him is a form of censorship whether he is right or wrong. 

 

I don't get people, first they all bitch when their freedom of speech is taken, sites block, opinions banned, but then when one guy spews his opinion suddenly its fine??

 

Seriously people, make up your fucking minds. All or none.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

The internet on a whole seems to be cracking down on free speech. They put it under the guise of 'no toxicity', whatever that means

It's a fine line and as I said, normally my stance is leave them be and let people decide for themselves but there's always an extreme case and he is very much the extreme.

[Ryujin2003]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Why are you people against private companies deciding who they want to do business with?

Many people are against it because if the power and influence these companies have. Many believe they have social (though not legal) obligation to act ethically.

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

The internet on a whole seems to be cracking down on free speech. They put it under the guise of 'no toxicity', whatever that means

It means people are turning into children and cant handle any other opinion than their own. 

[ivan134]

Just now, Ryujin2003 said:

Many people are against it because if the power and influence these companies have. Many believe they have social (though not legal) obligation to act ethically.

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

I don't know the guy or watch any of his videos but banning him is a form of censorship whether he is right or wrong. 

 

I don't get people, first they all bitch when their freedom of speech is taken, sites block, opinions banned, but then when one guy spews his opinion suddenly its fine??

 

Seriously people, make up your fucking minds. All or none.

It's a rules for thee and not for me scenario.

If Jones truly and genuinely harassed someone, fine, go ahead and ban him, but Twitter better hold anyone else's feet to the fire like that rather than picking and choosing.

[ivan134]

It's hilarious seeing free market proponents talking about companies acting "ethically". The cognitive dissonance is off the charts

[AlwaysFSX]

5 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Freedom of speech / expression is more than a law, it's also a philosophy...

People seem to have forgotten that ideas should be shared, good or bad, so we don't become sheltered to opinions we do or do not want to hear. Apparently now everyone wants to be coddled as to what they have to filter, and have some other body do the filtering for them.

[aezakmi]

come on, they banned him because he's associated with Breitbart and also because twitter is modded by a bunch of unique snowflakes that believe in social justice

[Andreas Lilja]

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, I can just go about harassing people, do destruction of character, make direct threats..etc.. and the philosophy is also okay with that?

I was referring to your assertion that freedom of speech starts and ends with the 1st.