Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You don't seem to fully understand that social media platforms are not a public service.

Your point about porn is interesting. Facebook deletes posts all the time if they show a woman's nipple - even if the context is breast feeding - because that level of nudity goes against their Terms of Service. I think that's absolutely f*cking ridiculous, but I understand that Facebook gets to make the rules because they are providing a service to me free of charge.

Is there anything a poster could post that you think would warrant being banned from social media sites?

I understand that they're private companies. I'm arguing that because of their importance, there should be safeguards against a platform's owner doing what they like. A cabal of oligarchs could in theory take over say Twitter and promote Russian propaganda effectively removing that service from the public domain. I don't use Twitter but it's hard to deny that it's a core part of global journalism.

And yeah, illegal stuff should be removed. Incitement should be removed.

Madonna should have been removed for talking about blowing up the White House. If Alex Jones said that during Obama's term, I'd fully support his removal.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is the hysteria part

They struggled to ban a conspiracy theorist for years, they can't even ban anti-vaxx stuff (just try to demonitise it). Yeah I think we're okay.

I am anything but hysterical. Anyone who argues with my on this site knows I often play devil's advocate to combat it. I'm doing it right now, "supporting" a person I hate.

Demonitising is removal. It stops further content being made. Getting rid of anti-vaxx BS is good, and is happening now, but it's still part of the slippery slope.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Unfortunately, a lot of people suddenly become free speech advocates when one of their cnuts gets kicked off a private platform. A general thread on free speech would be a good idea but as I said, nobody really cares that much about it until their kind of cnut is affected.

You're being a bit snide here by implying he's my cúnt. He isn't. In the same vein, people are more than happy to support actions that go against their best interests because it benefits them at the time. Patriot Act.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Hang on here Ads.



You'd be happier with a private firm removing the access for someone based on a direct order from the Government itself? That in itself would breach Freedom of Speech, the very thing that Jones supporters have been banging on about.

That's a very wordy way of saying that I support the removal of illegal content, and people who produce it. Free speech is a very hard thing to nail down. Alex Jones was probably guilty of incitement, so I've said I'd rather that was why he got removed. Instead, it seems to me that he got removed because of the reverse logic of not doing so along with other companies would suggest support. And please don't try to attach me to his supporters.



There's a pretty big gap here in regards to how much of a public utility these companies are. If one believes they are private entities that can do what they like, his removal is obvious and understandable. If one believes they have become too big and prominent, his removal brings up more long-term implications. I've been online for for around 17 years and have seen the number of sites being used by regular people drop from dozens to a few. If removed from those few, it's a big deal.

Back to the thread title, I will retract everything about Alex Jones if each site who removed him followed their standard protocol. My points regarding these sites' importance, and the need for governance over them, stand, though.

Gimme A Pound, ultimately, I support legal speech online. But it's such a grey area, because of things like that nonsensical aniti-vaxx stuff.

There's no good solution. This is our new media, warts and all.