Alex Jones and Infowars gets 'disappeared' - are we headed in the right direction?

[RoadRunner79]

They have every right to run their company how they like. However, I don’t like and do not condone them censoring posts and speech.

They aren't censoring him. They are not the government and so are not required to provide a vehicle for his manure. I bet you  wouldn't give one pinch of feces if a liberal pundit ended up not having his/her thoughts published by said entities. I'm sure that there is a rock out there somewhere in the wilderness that his sycophants can turn over and find the slimy fuck. Fucking hypocrites, the lot of you.

I don’t even know the guy. And I’d bet you would be wrong. Perhaps it is your own hypocrisy you are seeing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm of mixed feelings.  In some sense these social media platforms are a kind of commons, and on that theory denying access to a commons based on the unpopularity of their viewpoint is wrong.  The fact is these social media platforms are essentially monopolies.  You can't just walk down the street to another Facebook, or stick out your shingle and hope to compete.  I'm not sure there isn't a middle ground where, yes, they aren't required to provide services to people who violate their rules, but if they aren't actually violating the rules, I'm not sure I agree with arbitrarily excluding them from the arena.  And I don't personally buy their story that they had tolerated abuses in the past and just suddenly decided, all at once, to act on them.  That's just CYA.  To treat these mediums as the equivalent of social clubs that can choose to exclude based on conditions which they don't hold other members to abiding is, I think, misleading.  I think that's oversimplifying an issue that may be more complex than that.

I agree entirely. These companies have have been hiding from liability under the pretense that they are "merely" providing a venue. At the same time they appear more and more to be engaging in taking an editorial role. They need to decide which they are.

[robvalue]

I think that a responsible organization is allowed to limit what it will propagate. This a great step forward, IMO. I liken it to not accepting what the WBC does at funerals of deceased vets, Vs driving them there for pay, even if one doesn't agree. No need to provide a vehicle for this. Alex Jones and his ilk can find their own independent methods of propagating the BS.

I agree. They aren't being silenced, or restricted as such; they are producing such foul and inaccurate content that private companies no longer want to associate with them. No one has the right to be heard on every platform.

[Rev. Rye]

I have no problem with this. But then I barely know who he is to begin with.

You know, I'm honestly conflicted about this. I don't think he was actively dangerous (at least in the way the Daily Stormer was), but he's clearly a fucking jackass and the fact that he was ever really influential beyond the "point and laugh at this jackass" speaks volumes about the sanity of America. It's not like there are a lot of other platforms out there for him to use online, especially since Youtube has more or less taken over everything, but then again, it's not like YouTube was overstepping its bounds legally in shutting him down.

Seriously, I voted for every option in this, because they all fit my conflicting views on this subject.

[RoadRunner79]

They have every right to run their company how they like. However, I don’t like and do not condone them censoring posts and speech.

What if censorship was due to the hateful, bigoted content violating the company’s Christian values? Would it be okay then?

Some of it has to do with what the business is and what it is promoted as. As I said, I think they have a right to do what they please with their servers. What I have issue with is more censoring ideas, when it is supposedly an open place. Was an clear objective rule broken? The little I’ve heard about this guy isn’t good, but sometimes it’s best to leave that stuff in the light, and keep them talking, rather than sweep them under the rug.

[Minimalist]

It is not an open place.  From FB's Terms of Service.

Combat harmful conduct and protect and support our community:

People will only build community on Facebook if they feel safe. We employ dedicated teams around the world and develop advanced technical systems to detect misuse of our Products, harmful conduct towards others, and situations where we may be able to help support or protect our community. If we learn of content or conduct like this, we will take appropriate action - for example, offering help, removing content, blocking access to certain features, disabling an account, or contacting law enforcement. We share data with other Facebook Companies when we detect misuse or harmful conduct by someone using one of our Products.

Note that they say that it is their decision.  They do not put it to a vote.

If you don't like it, don't use FB.

[Aroura]

There is no slippery slope. These companies already censor other content that falls under legal free speech, if they deem it inappropriate or harmful. For instance, you can't post porn on Youtube, even softcore porn.

Jones is dangerous. He propagated such stories as Pizzagate, which culminated in a man shooting up a pizzaria over a completely fake news story. Fortunately, no one was killed. But the fact that it took this long for those sites to remove him is kind of amazing.

My understanding is that there is currently a red alert by security agencies in the US and in Europe concerning Russian meddling. Since Alex Jones spread some of the things that can be traced directly back to Russian misinformation, he is again posing a danger to individual citizens, and to democracy as a whole.

[vulcanlogician]

I have no problem with this. But then I barely know who he is to begin with.

Dude, I think Rev. Rye is trying to ease you into Alex Jones slowly or something.

If you really haven't seen his stuff before, you need to start with the classics:

---

---

[Lucanus]

He is an ur-fascist con artist and won't be missed, I'm just worried it might be a bit too late. Now he's had the time to accumulate a large following, and this "censorship" could play in his sweaty, conspiracy theorist hands.

It only goes to show that ur-fascists should be crushed (or in this case banned) as soon as they rear their ugly head.

[Fake Messiah]

You know, I remember youtube suspended his channel completely back in 2009 and then Jones launched his own youtube on infowarstv.com, but as I see that web-page is now defunct. Then, of course, they reinstated his channel, until now. The only reference I could find now on google for that 2009 suspension is from Jones' own web-page

https://www.infowars.com/youtube-restore...s-channel/