Alex Jones and Infowars banned from all social media

[Wokko]

On the same day.


First they came for Alex Jones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lPhSreTkXc&app=desktop

Now yeah, the guy is a whacko, but this kind of targeted censorship from social media monopolies is concerning to say the least. If they can do this to Jones then they can do it to any wrongthink that they like. Also points to collusion that they all do it on the same day.

Scary stuff.

[Mugwump]

I don’t know who the guy is, but a cursory look at his “products” makes it clear he’s not much loss to th public square.

Media outlets have always had the power to ignore people whose views they do not like, and in truth, I think the modern media giants are probably more more inclusive by nature than the old Melbourne newspaper oligopoly. I also think there are people whose views are so patently absurd that they don’t belong in polite company, and this is part of the media’s job. The BBC, for example, is supposed to be balanced. That doesn’t mean giving time to total whack jobs.

Should they start to ban people with genuinely mass-acceptable views on the right, I’d expect that their subscriptions will suffer, or another insurgent organ will grow up to take that space (as Breitbart has today, not always helpfully).

The problem with Niemoller’s famous speechlet is that context matters. “First they came for Streicher ....” does not work so well. Though it is good to be vigilant about it, I struggle to get too exercised about this, at this point.

[thesoretoothsayer]

1. That Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Spotify all banned Jones on the same day does, at least, give the impression of collusion between the companies that dominate the online space. Is that not cause for concern?

2. These companies often ban or suspend users without identifying what online content caused the ban. Instead, as in this case, they refer to vague notions such as "hate speech". This is an intentional tactic to avoid scrutiny and deny users recourse. It's kind of like if you get a fine from the govt. and the reason given for the fine is "you broke the law".

3. These companies cannot have it both ways.
They cannot claim they are simply "platforms" (and so retain their immunity to liability under Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act) whilst, at the same time, curating their online content. If they choose to act like publishers they should be legally treated as publishers.

[Pies4shaw]

No one capable of independent thought thinks this is a bad thing. Like Robinson getting jailed, negative things happen to people who can’t function appropriately in society and don’t want to follow basic rules of acceptable discourse.

[David]

[Pi]

^
whats your model for 'regulation' ? once a service becomes a public utility it becomes heavily regulated and mirrors the will of the bureaucratic majority.

Usually when that happens new less regulated services pop up to challenge them, market forces etc. Minds.com , Bitchute are a few that will eventually supplant the likes of Facebook & Twitter in the same way You tube got people off the couch away from the major networks.

Does your model for regulation prevent new platforms from fair trade if they challenge regulated government services?

There is little difference between a government monopoly or a corporate one
and they both generally agree one thing, making up 'rulz' to inflict on the rest of us so we are speaking the new speak.

[thesoretoothsayer]

[stui magpie]

Breaking up google and facebook and treating them as public utilities. That'll work. Great use of billions of dollars of tax payers money to nationalise services that users would leave in droves shortly after the government assumed control, rendering the investment worthless.

More money to public media won't improve the quality or get more people watching it, I have no idea what you're on about with civil rights and employment contracts.

[thesoretoothsayer]

Left-wing take on why banning Alex Jones might not be good for the rest of us.
In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/08/07/in-a-corporatist-system-of-government-corporate-censorship-is-state-censorship/

[David]

[HAL]

What if I asked about your model for regulation prevent new platforms from fair trade if they challenge regulated government services?

[stui magpie]

[David]

I guess that's the argument: that the services they provide are essential. I think there's at least some truth to that (think of Google, for instance!), though I agree that they're not wholly analogous to, say, a phone service.

[stui magpie]

Facebook is far from essential
Google is the best known and used search engine, but there are several others

AT&T was the US equivalent to Telecom or the old PMG department. Ours was a government owned monopoly, AT&T was a private monopoly.

If your civil rights hobby horse is the separation of work and personal lives, keep on rocking on it because, just like a real hobby horse, it might feel good but it aint going anywhere.

[David]

^ On the contrary, I’ve seen some pleasing signs of late. When it happens to progressives or in relation to progressive causes (like in the Tasmanian cricket lobbyist case), liberals (in the US sense) all of a sudden realise that they care about the issue. I’ve seen op-eds advocating my view on the ABC site, The Guardian and elsewhere in the last week alone, while in the US there’s been a significant outcry over a liberal Disney director being sacked for politically incorrect jokes on Twitter. Early days yet, but I feel like a pushback is starting to happen – and as I said, if libertarians and other right-wingers really care about free speech, then they need to get on board.