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

[CarveTheFive]

Goddamn you’re really fucking weird. Like, I didn’t say anything even remotely close to that.


GAY FROGS!!!

I mean, that was fun, wasn’t it?


Maybe. Idk. But right now they’re boring and if they have crazy shit on them it’s entertaining. I like to be entertained when I’m clicking on websites. That’s all.


I don’t care. I mean, yes for sure if it’s on fire otherwise it concerns me about as much as shouting bad cliche on an Internet forum.


Consequence from whom?


Yes.

Well that's... a depressingly immature approach to the situation. You don't actually seem to care about freedom of speech, its impacts, and its limits. You're just in it for the lols?

Yep.

[FatAndFaithless]

Well that's... a depressingly immature approach to the situation.  You don't actually seem to care about freedom of speech, its impacts, and its limits.  You're just in it for the lols?

Yep.

Well, thanks for the contribution, I guess.

[CarveTheFive]

You’re welcome

[Sal]

Who determines, if not yourself, what is and what isn't misinformation?

My point is, if you let someone decide for you that, then you're letting it up control to an authority besides yourself. People should be able to discern for themselves what they want to believe or not.

On the other hand, I'd like to see something akin to Elon Musk's Pravda suggestion, where people criticise journalists, news organizations and articles openly.

I'm against censoring anyone, even the likes of Alex Jones.

[FatAndFaithless]

Who determines, if not yourself, what is and what isn't misinformation?

My point is, if you let someone decide for you that, then you're letting it up control to an authority besides yourself. People should be able to discern for themselves what they want to believe or not.

On the other hand, I'd like to see something akin to Elon Musk's Pravda suggestion, where people criticise journalists, news organizations and articles openly.

I'm against censoring anyone, even the likes of Alex Jones.

But he's not being censored.  You and everyone else is free to go to his website, listen to his show, buy his merch, etc.  This is an owner of a platform (eg, facebook) saying they will not let their private property be used in a certain way.  They have no obligation to host Alex Jones than they do to host pornographic videos or any other type of content.  They set the rules for using their property, and Alex Jones broke them, constantly.  He's not being booted for holding certain views, he's being booted for violating the rules over and over and over.

[Sal]

Who determines, if not yourself, what is and what isn't misinformation?

My point is, if you let someone decide for you that, then you're letting it up control to an authority besides yourself. People should be able to discern for themselves what they want to believe or not.

On the other hand, I'd like to see something akin to Elon Musk's Pravda suggestion, where people criticise journalists, news organizations and articles openly.

I'm against censoring anyone, even the likes of Alex Jones.

But he's not being censored.  You and everyone else is free to go to his website, listen to his show, buy his merch, etc.  This is an owner of a platform (eg, facebook) saying they will not let their private property be used in a certain way.  They have no obligation to host Alex Jones than they do to host pornographic videos or any other type of content.  They set the rules for using their property, and Alex Jones broke them, constantly.  He's not being booted for holding certain views, he's being booted for violating the rules over and over and over.

A company can do anything within the Law of the land of course and set community guidelines they see fit in accordance with those Laws. There are alternatives to Facebook and YouTube, which are growing quite quickly thanks to the censorship on those platforms (FB and YT), which are also free speech absolutists in contrast to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, et. al.

I reckon Facebook will share the same fate as Myspace, and YouTube the same fate as Google Videos, losing to platforms where free speech is paramount to their success.

[FatAndFaithless]

But he's not being censored.  You and everyone else is free to go to his website, listen to his show, buy his merch, etc.  This is an owner of a platform (eg, facebook) saying they will not let their private property be used in a certain way.  They have no obligation to host Alex Jones than they do to host pornographic videos or any other type of content.  They set the rules for using their property, and Alex Jones broke them, constantly.  He's not being booted for holding certain views, he's being booted for violating the rules over and over and over.

A company can do anything within the Law of the land of course and set community guidelines they see fit in accordance with those Laws. There are alternatives to Facebook and YouTube, which are growing quite quickly thanks to the censorship on those platforms (FB and YT), which are also free speech absolutists in contrast to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, et. al.

I reckon Facebook will share the same fate as Myspace, and YouTube the same fate as Google Videos, losing to platforms where free speech is paramount to their success.

And hey, if that's what happens, fine.  But Alex Jones isn't a victim of censorship just because Facebook refuses to host his garbage anymore.  He's free to use those "free speech absolutist" platforms, along with anyone else.

[robvalue]

Being banned for breaching TOS isn’t censorship though, at least not in any meaningful way. If you don’t have TOS you either have to allow everything ever, or implement bans far more subjectively which would no doubt cause greater outrage.

I’m sure people have been banned for reasons other than breaking TOS, but not this AJ guy from what I’ve heard.

[Dr H]

If it were my world popular social media sites wouldn’t censor any content whatsoever even if the end results were harmful to mankind.

Most people embrace a consequentialist view that if the harm resulting from a course of action exceeds the good resulting from that action, the action is thus undesirable.  Do you think that the good resulting from unrestricted free speech on these social media platforms would outweigh the harm?  If so, what do you base that on?  If not, what reasons lead you to conclude that speech shouldn't be restricted in spite of any harm caused?

I'm also curious as to whether you feel it's okay to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?  To make terroristic threats without consequence?  Do you think that all laws against libel and slander should be abolished?

Personally, I don't believe that public free speech should be censored in any way, shape, or form.  
That's what "free" means:  open to everything; you take the bad with the good, otherwise it isn't free.
Once you start making exceptions, you've let the camel's nose into the tent.

That said, if someone creates a particular forum that wasn't there before, that is not "public", unless they choose to make it so.  They can set any rules or restrictions they like, so long as they apply equitably to everyone, and so long as they are clearly and unequivocally stated up front.  If I let you into my home with the understanding that I do not permit ethnic jokes, and you start telling ethnic jokes in my living room, I am within my rights to unceremoniously throw your ass out the door.
Just because you are free to speak doesn't mean that I have to sit and listen to it.

The key point you raise is that of consequences.  While all speech may be permitted, the intelligent person realizes that speech of any sort may have consequences.  If I use words in a situation which I have reason to believe are likely to provoke hostile reaction, and somebody slugs me for them, I really can't complain; there's no one to blame but myself.

I have no problem with Jones being banned from privately-owned social media, if he's not willing to play by the rules set up by the owners.  But neither do I have a problem with him airing his offensive views on, for example, his own radio program.  To paraphrase the great philosopher George Carlin, "if you don't like what you're hearing, there are two knobs on the box:  one of them changes the station; and the other one turns it off."

And if I want to be more activist about it, I can counter Jones' spew with my own arguments.  
The solution to bad speech is not censorship, it's more speech; good speech.

[Angrboda]

The key point you raise is that of consequences.  While all speech may be permitted, the intelligent person realizes that speech of any sort may have consequences.  If I use words in a situation which I have reason to believe are likely to provoke hostile reaction, and somebody slugs me for them, I really can't complain; there's no one to blame but myself.

The problem is that the power that the arbiters of these social medium platforms enjoy is not analogous to that you enjoy in your own home, which is both rather limited, circumscribed, and shared ubiquitously. All that making such an analogy shows is that we can use bad analogies to overlook and ignore relevant disanalogies.