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

[The Industrial Atheist]

He's a goofy con man. Can't stand him. But this presents a slippery slope. What happens when it's someone who is telling the truth but is saying things that the powers that be don't like?

Instead, easily refute his goofy arguments and claims. More people will believe you than him. It's only the most deluded people that would believe this guy. He was snarling in anger abut Brian freaking Stelter. He's obviously unhinged or a dramatic actor/con man. Both, likely.

To be clear they have every legal right to do this. That is not in doubt.

[Fireball]

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

C'mon, you owe it to yourself to at least once watch him get all red in the face over some minor shit. It took one look for me to realize that he was a nut. Frankly, I'm astonished that he hasn't blown a blood vessel and bled to death out of his ears, or sprayed blood out of his eye like a horny toad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_lizard

[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.

[vulcanlogician]

Khem beat me to the gay frogs joke, dammit. I'll really miss the motherfucker on my regular perusals through youtube and elsewhere. He was a source of quite a few belly laughs for me.

I see shutting him down as a negative thing. I mean, if people believe this guy, that's their problem. And removing him from a given platform isn't going to solve the real issue: widespread ignorance and a general lack of critical thinking skills among the populace. Luckily, this problem is solvable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: our public education system sucks; colleges need to reverse the trend of becoming "career training centers" and return to being "centers of education." Jones is just a symptom of an underlying problem.

[Seraphina]

Some will applaud the removal of Alex Jones from social media sites.  Others will regard it as a dangerous incursion against free speech.  Where do you stand?

Top technology companies erased most of the posts and videos on their services from Alex Jones, the internet’s most notorious conspiracy theorist, thrusting themselves into a fraught debate over their role in regulating what can be said online.

Apple, Google, Facebook and Spotify severely restricted the reach of Mr. Jones and Infowars, his right-wing site that has been a leading peddler of false information online. Mr. Jones and Infowars have used social media for years to spread dark and bizarre theories, such as that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax and that Democrats run a global child-sex ring. Apple made its move on Sunday and the others followed on Monday.

The actions, one of the tech companies’ most aggressive efforts against misinformation, highlighted a difficult dilemma for their businesses. They have long desired to combat misinformation online, but they have also been reluctant to be arbiters of truth.

But since a rise of misinformation online around elections, such as the 2016 presidential vote, the tech companies have faced increasing calls from lawmakers and the news media to address their role in that spread of false information and a related increase in partisan divisions. The tech companies have recently stepped up enforcement — but that has led to accusations of political bias, largely from conservatives.

Apple, Facebook and YouTube Remove Content From Alex Jones and Infowars

I read about this on The Guardian today and I laughed out loud - because it's about time. These are privately owned platforms and they have a right to decide who uses them and who doesn't. Sure, banning Alex Jones and his ilk won't make them go away. But giving fruitcakes like Alex Jones the ability to shit all over widely-used platforms and high visibility on the web gives them a sort of legitimacy - not a good thing in places here like the US where many people aren't able to think critically.
If Alex Jones wants to spread his disinformation so badly, he can make his own damn platform.

-Teresa

[Minimalist]

Leave it to TheOnion to be more rational than the fuckheads at FOX.

https://www.theonion.com/first-amendment...1828142660

First Amendment Experts Warn Facebook Banning InfoWars Could Set Completely Reasonable Precedent For Free Speech

“If we allow giant media platforms to single out individual users for harassing the families of murdered kindergarteners, it could lead to a nightmare scenario of measured and well-thought-out public discourse,” said Georgetown law professor Charles F. Abernathy, cautioning that it was sometimes very easy for private organizations to draw a line between constitutionally protected free speech and the slanderous ravings of a bloated lunatic hawking snake oil supplements.

[Fireball]

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.

[LadyForCamus]

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?

[Angrboda]

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.

[Minimalist]

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?

Oh.  That would be different.