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

[The Grand Nudger]

What on earth are you talking about, Cap?  The only relevant change from the time that the 1st was written to today would be if the government owned twitter, youtube, etc.  They don't.  The press was already a private enterprise when the 1st was written, publishers included what content they wanted, and excluded what they didn't want.  The 1st amendment was written for no reason -other- than to protect that discretion. If anything, we've become more inclusive since then..as it's long been the case that some users content has been objectionable to the owners of the service which hosts it..and yet it remains up.  

I doubt that this will make jones any more popular...in any case.  He was already as popular as he was going to be..and his viewership will go off to the next conspiracy nutjob they can easily get on their devices. Jones isn't the first or last person to squeeze that lemon. Even more amusingly, why wouldn't a business ban some pill salesman who could do damage to their bottom line? Is their property or income his to destroy? If some asshole stands at my booth shouting crazy shit at the clouds..I'm calling the cops....and I would love to be in the room when he started bitching about his 1st amendment rights as though they were operative.

When people like jones are brushed aside and forgotten, it's nothing but a gain to everyone..even his own viewers. Recall..there are people who voted against their own interests on the basis of his "reporting" imagining that they were getting credible info..rather than an infomercial. Gay frogs, gay frogs..buy my manliness pills! First amendment my ass, lol.

[Pat Mustard]

At least Alex Jones is taking his collapse quite well

You know, he's going to die at that desk some day.

[The Valkyrie]

At least Alex Jones is taking his collapse quite well

You know, he's going to die at that desk some day.

You lips to Zod's ears

[Pat Mustard]

If he got banned for breaking the rules, absolutely. That's how rules work.

But that's the question here: were the rules clear, unambiguous, and fairly applied, or were they simply used as a pretext for silencing Alex Jones.  

It's much more simple than that, Zuckerberg is getting so much shit over facebook not even following their own rules about disallowed content and it's Orwellian obsession with learning everything about everybody on it (to monetise the data, seriously look at the kind of algorithms the company is patenting) that it's hurting their subscriptions and bottom lines (plus there's also the problem that major advertisers are beginning to realise that facebook is a shitty advertising platform).

So Zuckerberg has done a reverse ferret and banned one of the most consistent and egregious breakers of the sites' rules as highly visible method of hoepfully placating everybody.

---

In case anyone had any doubts...

Facebook Wants Your Bank Account Data

You subscribe to the journal?  You lucky bastard.

Hey he has to keep his owner in caviar.

[Minimalist]

But when the first amendment was drafted, the internet didn't exist and private corporations didn't control so much of our speech.

And Cap'n I know that conservatards hate CHANGE more than they hate anything else but it's your fucking bad luck that things change constantly and even if it gives you terminal diarrhea you're going to have to get used to it or die.

Your choice.  I personally don't care either way.

[robvalue]

From what I can gather, he definitely has broken the TOS. They may well have decided to ban him for other reasons as well, but that is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But when the first amendment was drafted, the internet didn't exist and private corporations didn't control so much of our speech. 

JustAThought: Newspapers were privately owned, of course, back then. They had a lot more impact than they do today.

[CapnAwesome]

But when the first amendment was drafted, the internet didn't exist and private corporations didn't control so much of our speech. 

JustAThought: Newspapers were privately owned, of course, back then. They had a lot more impact than they do today.

That's true. I guess there could be more parallels than people think. But that doesn't magically mean we should hand over our free speech on the internet to corporations and billionaires. It's strange that people who distrust them so much are okay with their dictating speech.

[Amarok]

That's true. I guess there could be more parallels than people think. But that doesn't magically mean we should hand over our free speech on the internet to corporations and billionaires. It's strange that people who distrust them so much are okay with their dictating speech.

On their own service what can one do really .I distrust them but on this point it really does not matter .

[Angrboda]

Because of their power to shape culture, these large social media companies serve as a kind of gate keeper. Since the 2016 election they have been working hard to keep shills created by countries like Russia from influencing the political debate, both here and abroad. One can laugh and dismiss the lunacy that is Alex Jones, but ideas matter. Facebook, Twitter, and Apple are using their power to determine who can and who cannot participate in the market of ideas concerning more than just Alex Jones. There have been reports of censorship and inequal access among conservatives in the past year. If we simply hand over the power to decide who has access to a small group of insiders within the corporation, they can wield that power any way they wish, without regard to whose politics or ideas they are censoring. You could be next. That's why I am troubled by this removal of Alex Jones. Not that I'm going to miss Infowars, but rather that I see the enormous power these social media platforms have, and they're not policing them in a manner that is consistent, fair, non-partisan, and ethical. The example of the abuses involving Cambridge-Analytica are a signal call. When we simply relinquish control to these large social media corporations, abuses happen. I don't know what the solution is, because, as noted, they are private corporations. However I think we as consumers should demand a higher standard from them than simply censoring who they will at liberty, as our letting them do that has consequences for us all. That is one reason I find the answer that they are just a private corporation and so nothing should be done to be an inadequate response. I suspect that government intrusion is not the answer, but I do think we as consumers should take these issues more seriously and apply our own pressure to these corporations. If that means bringing back Alex Jones, so be it. I think we will all be better off for it.