DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Facebook, Apple and Spotify ban Infowars' Alex Jones

You can't make exceptions to a rule that is applied universally, otherwise you may as well just erase the rule.

Yes I can.

Rather than articulate a clear standard by which the conspiracy theorist could be banned, Facebook and its competitors cited vague prohibitions on ‘hate.’
Alex Jones is a full-fledged kook.

This is a man who called Special Counsel Robert Mueller a “monster” controlling an unnamed pedophilic gang, and then added, “Politically, you’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying, bi**h. Get ready. We’re going to bang heads.” This is a man who suggested that the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre never occurred, and then claimed that victims were “child actors.” This is a fellow who says that vaccines give your children autism, who says that a Syrian chemical-weapons attack was a “false flag,” that Stoneman Douglas survivor David Hogg was a “crisis actor,” that the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria was actually a pedophilic headquarters, and that the Chobani yogurt company had contributed to a rise in tuberculosis.

This week, he was banned from Facebook, Apple, and YouTube . . . for none of the above reasons.

Apple announced that it “does not tolerate hate speech,” and thus Jones had to go. Facebook announced that it had removed Jones’s pages for “glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.” YouTube also cited “hate speech and harassment” as the rationale for knocking down Jones’s videos.

Now, I dislike Jones more than the average human. I’ve been a longtime critic, a status that resulted in Jones personally threatening my company a few months back, calling me a “parasite” and an “atheist” while screaming, “Get behind me, Satan!” I think Jones is a disgrace, and that supposed conservatives who have embraced him and Infowars have done a serious disservice to the conservative cause.

But I’m far more concerned with social-media arbiters suddenly deciding that vague “hate speech” standards ought to govern our common spaces than I am with the daily dose of detritus distributed by this delirious dunce. Social-media giants had a choice here. If they wanted Jones gone, they could simply have defined a standard limit on the number of debunked conspiracy theories one could peddle on the site before being banned, or they could have created a standard prohibiting public threats.

Instead, they chose the most politically correct way of booting Jones: They claimed he’d violated undefined standards regarding “hate.” That’s why so many on the right are rushing to Jones’s defense — not because they like Jones or anything he stands for, but because the Left is happy to apply double standards under the rubric of “anti-hate measures.”

To see how, we only need to examine the last week of news. Sarah Jeong, the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, has tweeted dozens of times, in racist fashion, about white people. The Left defended Jeong, not on the grounds that the New York Times ought to ignore social-media mobbing, but on the grounds that people of color can’t be racist. Were Jeong white, the Left dutifully explained, she would justifiably be fired; but since she is an Asian-American graduate of Berkeley and Harvard Law School, she’s a victim of the white patriarchy, and thus fully entitled to use racist slurs to target those with less melanin in their skin. “Hate speech,” it seems, only runs one way.

And it only applies to particular viewpoints, too. Suggest that Caitlyn Jenner is a man, and you might be violating crucial social-media “hate speech” taboos; suggest that the Jews are bloodsucking demons, as Louis Farrakhan does, and the leaders of the Women’s March will still hobnob with you.

COMMENTS
Is it any wonder, then, that conservatives don’t trust social-media hall monitors to apply their alleged rules with equal vigilance? It’s demonstrative of the echo chamber that is Silicon Valley that rather than going after Jones on some semblance of an objective standard, they went directly for the buzzwords that will be most popular among those who love Sarah Jeong.

Unfortunately, the informal implementation of left-wing “hate speech” standards will likely be only a precursor to far more devastating culture wars to come. That’s because the Left does not operate in good faith. People of rational mind agree that Jones is a never-ending font of silly garbage. But the Left won’t leave it at Jones, which is why the social-media giants didn’t craft an objective standard to apply.

I would have thought that as a capitalist you would have stood on the side of letting a private company enforce its own rules and agreements as they see fit.

I'm actually just wondering when it became popular for Republicans to say that a business shouldn't be able to choose their customers? It seemed fine when it was a baker.

I wouldn't really call myself a Republican. Your baker comparison is not valid. I just did a google search and found 8 bakers within a 5 miles of me, guess how many facebooks I found?

This is an overreaction. You are treating facebook as if they are the only social media platform. You have twitter, instagram, tumblr, linkedin, snapchat, and many others. To apply to the baker example you quickly disliked, if Alex Jones doesn't like what Facebook is baking, he can make a tumblr website and advertise there. I have dozens of social media sites at my fingertips, much less 5 miles away.

It's also notable that you are bemoaning the importance of Facebook when we are having this discussion on a social media site completely unaffiliated with FB. Facebook is not the be all end all of social, and if history is any clue, will not enjoy its perch as the top social media platform for much longer.

They simultaneously banned him from Facebook, youtube, spotify and Apple. As far as I know you can't upload hour long videos to twitter, dawgtalkers or tubmlr effectively deplatforming a guy who holds muti hour shows.

I may be over reacting, but “Hate speech” is garbage, it’s a stick to hit anyone you don’t like with. Define hate speech……


Never did the day come when I thought I would be defending Alex freaking Jones. This country is losing its mind in the name of pre-approved opinions.

Acting like Facebook is a widget where you just "go to another company". Is seriously disingenuous.

There is a reason Zuck had to sit in front of congress, stop acting like this is getting banned from live journal or myspace.

They simultaneously banned him from Facebook, youtube, spotify and Apple. As far as I know you can't upload hour long videos to twitter, dawgtalkers or tubmlr effectively deplatforming a guy who holds muti hour shows.

The right needs to quit acting like Alex Jones didn't bring this on himself. The guy is a parasitic turd, period. Scummiest of scum. Lower than low. Cockroach to cockroaches... Need I go on?

You can't defend him against scrutiny that is well deserved. you can't defend him from censorship that WAS EARNED. He is toxic and these companies are finding out that they are directly or indirectly being held responsible for their users conduct. After the losses FB had recently, I'd boot all the wingnuts off. I think Alex Jones is the warning shot from social media. The next shot could be much much bigger.

They are companies that must protect their product. Period.

I may be over reacting, but “Hate speech” is garbage, it’s a stick to hit anyone you don’t like with. Define hate speech……


Never did the day come when I thought I would be defending Alex freaking Jones. This country is losing its mind in the name of pre-approved opinions.

Then don't be shocked when they come for you. You'll get no sympathy for your double standards.

I agree with all of it except....


You're arguing that Alex Jones was affecting their profits? Get a grip. They booted him because they don't like what he has to say.

I am not willing to stifle anyone free speech, even if they are damaging the party I most closely agree with. To agree that this is not a unified attempt by 4 of the biggest companies on the planet to silence an individual they don't like is just not a take I am willing to buy. They absolutely are on a witch hunt, no matter how much of an idiot Jones is.

No, he did not affect their profits, he is just a small part of the abuse going on that IS affecting their profits. Russians and other foreign instigators, extremist from both sides, and dark money political orgs are targeting low information types on social media to seed lies, conspiracy theories, and propaganda in order to manipulate our democracy! Anyone with eyes can see it, these companies are starting to attack that problem. Jones is a victim of his own rhetoric, he is the proverbial example being set. There will be more, I guarantee that.

I am not willing to stifle anyone free speech, even if they are damaging the party I most closely agree with. To agree that this is not a unified attempt by 4 of the biggest companies on the planet to silence an individual they don't like is just not a take I am willing to buy. They absolutely are on a witch hunt, no matter how much of an idiot Jones is.

Alex Jone's free speech has not been infringed in ANY WAY. Facebook is not the government.

So they banned one guy when they have been investigating this for over a year? The actors are already known....Kochs, Soro's, but they are banning someone widely known as a crackpot?

It's fine if you're happy to see him go, but none of this is right.

Like I said, I doubt he's the only one, or going to be the only one. He is probably one of the most high profile and or the loudest whinner after the fact.

If it were up to me I'd have issued him a warning and let him remain on the platforms. But this isn't the first time it's happened to him. He was caught up in Youtube's crack down on hate groups, misinformation channels, conspiracy theorists, and general crackpots...

I know several UFO channels were hit, some prank channels were hit, and some conspiracy channels were hit.

Hell there was a MOOC channel that had officially licensed free Berkeley classes on it that got taken down a while back because they were accused of violating the americans with disabilities act and the DOJ ruled that the videos must be accessible to people with disabilities!

These things happen all the time.

These companies are more powerful and richer than (without looking it up) half of the nations int he world, but they are just like bakeries.

Swish, I think we should give BpG the benefit of the doubt in this convo. I think he is genuinely concerned about what it means if someones speech is infringed by private industry.

Hate organizations and their leaders and prominent members

A hate organization is defined as:
Any association of three or more people that is organized under a name, sign, or symbol and that has an ideology, statements, or physical actions that attack individuals based on characteristics, including race, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation, serious disease or disability.

These companies are more powerful and richer than (without looking it up) half of the nations int he world, but they are just like bakeries.

Perhaps the disconnect we have is whether or not we agree that Facebook is an oligopoly. I don't think Facebook is one for social media. This is why it's easy for me to say that they should be free to do as they wish to protect their brand from tarnishment. If they were the only game in town I'd be more concerned too.

It's very easy to get around without feeling you need a FB account. My wife has never actually opened one, for instance.

The only thing I care about in any of this is A) the perceived political targeting on a civilian. B) That if these companies are going to gang up (fine I won't use the word collude) and target individuals they be openly affiliated with their political party.

1a not withstanding they ARE trying to suppress him at a minimum.



The players should be allowed to kneel and Alex Jones should be allowed to be an idiot.

Um, yeah they are. This really isn't a whole lot different than the NFL deciding that players/employees can't use their platform to protest on company time. Companies should be able to determine when, what and how employees and customers use their product.

So long as the government isn't stepping in and saying Alex Jones isn't allowed on the internet anymore, these businesses should be well within their rights to do it.

If you want to argue that "hate speech" is a really loosely defined guideline and companies can be real hypocrites as to what's allowed and what's not, then yeah, I completely agree. That's a different argument. And the same thing applies to the NFL too honestly. But if the government isn't involved, then it's not a free speech violation.