Twitter permanently bans Alex Jones and website Infowars

[webfact]

Twitter permanently bans Alex Jones and website Infowars

 

FILE PHOTO: Conspiracy theorist, radio talk show host and Infowars.net founder Alex Jones walks up Elm Street past the spot where U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dealey Plaza in 1963 one day before commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the assassination in Dallas, Texas, U.S., November 21, 2013. REUTERS/Jim Bourg/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - Twitter Inc said on Thursday that it had permanently banned U.S. conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website Infowars from its platform and Periscope.

 

The company said in a tweet that the accounts violated its behaviour policies.

 

Last month, Twitter banned Jones and Infowars for seven days, citing tweets that it said violated the company's rules against abusive behaviour, which state that a user may not engage in targeted harassment of someone or incite other people to do so.

 

The ban came weeks after Apple, Alphabet's YouTube, and Facebook took down podcasts and channels from Jones, citing community standards.

 

(Reporting by Laharee Chatterjee and Sayanti Chakraborty in Bengaluru)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-07

[Samui Bodoh]

"...Twitter Inc said on Thursday that it had permanently banned U.S. conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website Infowars from its platform and Periscope..."

 

Good.

 

I am very much an advocate for free speech, but not for hate-filled, conspiracy-theory BS used to sell products and get rich quick.

 

The labeling of the Sandy Hook slaughter of children as a "staged" event with actors was one of the most repulsive actions ever taken by a human being.

 

Good bye and good riddance.

 

[Rhys]

.... poster boy for ?/?

[MajarTheLion]

6 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...Twitter Inc said on Thursday that it had permanently banned U.S. conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website Infowars from its platform and Periscope..."

 

Good.

 

I am very much an advocate for free speech, but not for hate-filled, conspiracy-theory BS used to sell products and get rich quick.

 

The labeling of the Sandy Hook slaughter of children as a "staged" event with actors was one of the most repulsive actions ever taken by a human being.

 

Good bye and good riddance.

 

Basically you said: I'm for free speech but I'm not for free speech.

But hey, their web site, their rules.

May I suggest you look up repulsive actions before declaring Jones' silly Sandy Hook theory so high on the list? There's Ted Bundy, the killing of 50 people at a night club in Florida and thousands if not millions more examples of far more repulsive actions.

Edited September 6, 2018 by MajarTheLion

[canuckamuck]

2 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...Twitter Inc said on Thursday that it had permanently banned U.S. conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website Infowars from its platform and Periscope..."

 

Good.

 

I am very much an advocate for free speech, but not for hate-filled, conspiracy-theory BS used to sell products and get rich quick.

 

The labeling of the Sandy Hook slaughter of children as a "staged" event with actors was one of the most repulsive actions ever taken by a human being.

 

Good bye and good riddance.

 

First time I disagree with you.

Apparently you only advocate for free speech you can agree with. Alex Jones is hard to listen to, so I don't listen to Alex Jones. But if he isn't breaking the law he should be allowed to speak his mind. There is a lot of censorship occurring these days, mostly conservative voices. This should never be allowed, It is the slippery slope to actual fascism.

[Samui Bodoh]

21 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

First time I disagree with you.

Apparently you only advocate for free speech you can agree with. Alex Jones is hard to listen to, so I don't listen to Alex Jones. But if he isn't breaking the law he should be allowed to speak his mind. There is a lot of censorship occurring these days, mostly conservative voices. This should never be allowed, It is the slippery slope to actual fascism.

Well, it is about time you disagreed with me! ?

 

Twitter is a company with rules and standards and has the right to remove users from using their platform. Alex Jones has all the freedom in the world to go elsewhere. Alex Jones does have the right to continue to spew his hate-filled crap, but he does not have the right to spew it anywhere he chooses. 

 

"...There is a lot of censorship occurring these days, mostly conservative voices..." 

 

I have heard Trump say this, but I have yet to hear any evidence to support it; could you point me in the proper direction to find some? Last I heard, Fox "News" was still broadcasting, the Drudge Report and Brightbart (spelling) were still up, and Alex Jones was still on the radio. Where is the censorship of conservative voices?

 

Cheers

[simple1]

16 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Well, it is about time you disagreed with me! ?

 

Twitter is a company with rules and standards and has the right to remove users from using their platform. Alex Jones has all the freedom in the world to go elsewhere. Alex Jones does have the right to continue to spew his hate-filled crap, but he does not have the right to spew it anywhere he chooses. 

 

"...There is a lot of censorship occurring these days, mostly conservative voices..." 

 

I have heard Trump say this, but I have yet to hear any evidence to support it; could you point me in the proper direction to find some? Last I heard, Fox "News" was still broadcasting, the Drudge Report and Brightbart (spelling) were still up, and Alex Jones was still on the radio. Where is the censorship of conservative voices?

 

Cheers

 

You're correct. A common theme / whine from the right of centre is they are being censored. The hypocrisy is breathtaking considering 'right of centre' (I use the term instead of 'far right' as the right wing snowflakes rush to deflect?) propaganda efforts to suppress objections to their anti democratic practises. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by simple1

[Boon Mee]

Big mistake. Death of free speech. 

[manarak]

hmmmmmmmmmmm

I got mixed feelings about this.

 

While I recognize the right for any private company to choose what they publish, I also have a growing concern about pluralism in internet-based media.

 

Infowars still has it website and whatever, but once Twitter, Facebook and other mainstream platforms start to ban it, the next step could be search engines.

Google could say "hey, we are free to choose what we show to users". And they would be right - under current law.

 

Some already allege that conservative content is ranked lower in search results.

 

One thing is different about today's internet media - it's a 2-way communication whereas in the past newspapers and TV, radio were one way push.

 

I think it's time to think about big internet publishers and search engines and censorship of user-generated or third-party-generated content. The danger is that these giants control the whole of information people get, but not only they censor part of it out but at the same time give users the false impression of free speech and of wholeness of information and opinions, when in fact they provide neither.

 

It's a dangerous and slippery slope.

 

 

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Well, it is about time you disagreed with me! ?

 

Twitter is a company with rules and standards and has the right to remove users from using their platform. Alex Jones has all the freedom in the world to go elsewhere. Alex Jones does have the right to continue to spew his hate-filled crap, but he does not have the right to spew it anywhere he chooses. 

 

"...There is a lot of censorship occurring these days, mostly conservative voices..." 

 

I have heard Trump say this, but I have yet to hear any evidence to support it; could you point me in the proper direction to find some? Last I heard, Fox "News" was still broadcasting, the Drudge Report and Brightbart (spelling) were still up, and Alex Jones was still on the radio. Where is the censorship of conservative voices?

 

Cheers

Lots of Youtubers are being shadow banned, demonetized, and banned outright. It has created counter sites like Bitchute which is full of YouTube exiles. I don't use Facebook or Twitter but I understand they also are banning or have tactics to make politically incorrect opinions invisible. Also Mastercard has pressured Patreon to block some people from their service (this is how vloggers get paid). I believe Laura Southern had this happen to her. And that is scary when the financial institutions decide what opinions they will allow.

Yes they are private companies, but they also monopolize their formats.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

First time I disagree with you.

Apparently you only advocate for free speech you can agree with. Alex Jones is hard to listen to, so I don't listen to Alex Jones. But if he isn't breaking the law he should be allowed to speak his mind. There is a lot of censorship occurring these days, mostly conservative voices. This should never be allowed, It is the slippery slope to actual fascism.

He can speak his mind.

 

He just can’t do so via the privately owned Twitter platform.

 

Soapboxes on street corners are still an option if he wishes.

 

This is not a ‘freedom of speech’ issue. 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Lots of Youtubers are being shadow banned, demonetized, and banned outright. It has created counter sites like Bitchute which is full of YouTube exiles. I don't use Facebook or Twitter but I understand they also are banning or have tactics to make politically incorrect opinions invisible. Also Mastercard has pressured Patreon to block some people from their service (this is how vloggers get paid). I believe Laura Southern had this happen to her. And that is scary when the financial institutions decide what opinions they will allow.

Yes they are private companies, but they also monopolize their formats.

 

Private businesses, private rules.

[utalkin2me]

52 minutes ago, manarak said:

hmmmmmmmmmmm

I got mixed feelings about this.

 

While I recognize the right for any private company to choose what they publish, I also have a growing concern about pluralism in internet-based media.

 

Infowars still has it website and whatever, but once Twitter, Facebook and other mainstream platforms start to ban it, the next step could be search engines.

Google could say "hey, we are free to choose what we show to users". And they would be right - under current law.

 

Some already allege that conservative content is ranked lower in search results.

 

One thing is different about today's internet media - it's a 2-way communication whereas in the past newspapers and TV, radio were one way push.

 

I think it's time to think about big internet publishers and search engines and censorship of user-generated or third-party-generated content. The danger is that these giants control the whole of information people get, but not only they censor part of it out but at the same time give users the false impression of free speech and of wholeness of information and opinions, when in fact they provide neither.

 

It's a dangerous and slippery slope.

 

 

I do not personally think it is a slippery slope, I think we have already slipped all the way down it. 

 

If you do not like what google does, you could use another search engine. As far as I know, as a business they are free to write their search algorythm however they please. They could even turn up "pink peanut butter" reaults when you type in "donald trump" if they wanted to. And they do to some extent... everything they do is based on profits because they are a company in a capitalistic society. Again, we have already slipped to the bottom. We see what corporate america wants us to see, we buy what they want us to buy...

[baboon]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He can speak his mind.

 

He just can’t do so via the privately owned Twitter platform.

As an aside, do you think he even believes what he comes out with?

[Samui Bodoh]

25 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Lots of Youtubers are being shadow banned, demonetized, and banned outright. It has created counter sites like Bitchute which is full of YouTube exiles. I don't use Facebook or Twitter but I understand they also are banning or have tactics to make politically incorrect opinions invisible. Also Mastercard has pressured Patreon to block some people from their service (this is how vloggers get paid). I believe Laura Southern had this happen to her. And that is scary when the financial institutions decide what opinions they will allow.

Yes they are private companies, but they also monopolize their formats.

 

Respectfully, I don't think that you have made your case.

 

"...Lots of Youtubers are being shadow banned, demonetized, and banned outright. It has created counter sites like Bitchute which is full of YouTube exiles..."

 

I simply don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that many people are banned from Youtube for many reasons. And, if they are setting up an alternate site to air their views, it is difficult to say that they are being silenced.

 

"...I don't use Facebook or Twitter but I understand they also are banning or have tactics to make politically incorrect opinions invisible..."

 

I don't use them either, so we are both at a disadvantage! However, logic and common sense states that, if politically incorrect views are being made invisible, wouldn't the sound business decision be to remove extreme stuff on either side of the political equation? To assert that only 'right-wing' opinions flies in the face of logic and rational business practices. Evidence needed.

 

"...Also Mastercard has pressured Patreon to block some people from their service (this is how vloggers get paid)..."

 

I'll take your word about Mastercard; I have no idea. Can I suggest that you try Visa? Discover? Amex?

 

"...I believe Laura Southern had this happen to her..."

 

Sorry, I have no idea who this is.

 

"...And that is scary when the financial institutions decide what opinions they will allow.

Yes they are private companies, but they also monopolize their formats..."

 

For what it is worth, I do agree that it is scary when companies utilize their power to censor free speech. I also think that companies have rights, obligations and duties and the right of one individual's free speech does not override everything a company can or can't do. And, if people don't like it, they can go elsewhere; there are lots and lots of companies that provide similar services for almost everything imaginable- Go free market economy!

 

Twitter built the infrastructure of its product, built a user base, created rules and regulations to govern its use and made people agree to those rules before they were able to utilize the platform. I don't use Twitter, but I am certain that there is a user agreement that clearly specifies that Twitter has the right to close down an account if they feel it is justified. And, in the case of Alex Jones, they feel it is justified. And, I agree.

 

Respectfully Mr. C, I don't think you have made your case. I see the voices on the 'right' being heard all over the world; I see little evidence that they are being silenced.

 

Cheers, and thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

 

[Becker]

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

May I suggest you look up repulsive actions before declaring Jones' silly Sandy Hook theory so high on the list? There's Ted Bundy, the killing of 50 people at a night club in Florida and thousands if not millions more examples of far more repulsive actions.

And that is relevant to a thread on banning Alex Jones from Twitter exactly how?

Hey, I have an idea. When Sarah Sanders finally has had enough Alex Jones should take over. His new boss did after all write the book on repulsive actions and statements.

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...I believe Laura Southern had this happen to her..."

 

Sorry, I have no idea who this is.

Canadian far right agitator -  she has been refused entry to a few countries as a security risk. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern

Edited September 7, 2018 by simple1

[Tug]

GOOD

[mercman24]

got facebook MONITORING me because i told some truths about the Muslim religion, even got a warning, any how i have been following the Goodwood Revival (huge classic car race event going to take place this weekend) and this morning i get, *this might be of interest to you* and its classic cars from Europe . wonder how they know i like classic car racing ?? HA HA

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, mercman24 said:

got facebook MONITORING me because i told some truths about the Muslim religion, even got a warning, any how i have been following the Goodwood Revival (huge classic car race event going to take place this weekend) and this morning i get, *this might be of interest to you* and its classic cars from Europe . wonder how they know i like classic car racing ?? HA HA

So you’ve just admitted to breaching Facebook’s user rules.

[milwaukeeboy]

Alex Jones gave a platform to Tommy Robinson.

I have never heard him advocate hate or violence. What is wrong with questioning the narrative of a corporate media that are only owned by a handful of huge corporations with a globalist agenda?

Many of his detractors never have listened to him or have only heard "cherry-picked" excerpts of one of his dramatic or comedic rants.

Jones is not "far right".  He is libertarian and has hosted both Ron Paul and Rand Paul, voices of reason and sanity in an insanely corrupt warmongering, opaque, insolvent U.S. government.

[blazes]

29 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you’ve just admitted to breaching Facebook’s user rules.

Chomper, does that statement of yours imply that you use Facebook a lot (I confess not to be a user, and I have never signed up for Twitter). ?

Perhaps usage of Facebook leads to its users being in a constant state of "confusion"?  Just a thought.

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, milwaukeeboy said:

Alex Jones gave a platform to Tommy Robinson.

I have never heard him advocate hate or violence. What is wrong with questioning the narrative of a corporate media that are only owned by a handful of huge corporations with a globalist agenda?

Many of his detractors never have listened to him or have only heard "cherry-picked" excerpts of one of his dramatic or comedic rants.

Jones is not "far right".  He is libertarian and has hosted both Ron Paul and Rand Paul, voices of reason and sanity in an insanely corrupt warmongering, opaque, insolvent U.S. government.

Among other things he claimed the Newtown massacre didn't really happen and/or it was staged by the government.

[DM07]

Aaaaaaaaw...isn't it saweet, how all those, who follow their orange leader into battle against the fake news media and who want to reign in the MSM, is suddenly all for free speech, when one of theirs is the victim?

Snowflakeism at it's finest!

 

I hope, this vile swine is going bancrupt and will have to sell pencils on a street- corner!

As usual, the right gets "free speech" and "hate speech" mixed up! 

[manarak]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Private businesses, private rules.

One exception to this is when private businesses have a monopolistic market position. for the industry, there are antitrust laws.

Similarly, Microsoft and Google have been sentenced several times to be more fair to competitors because of their dominant position.

 

I believe that currently Google and Facebook have a monopolistic position for online content. According to polls, many people don't have any other source for news.

 

If big tech starts to excessively censor content, plurality may have to be protected by law.

Edited September 7, 2018 by manarak

[Guest]

2 hours ago, manarak said:

hmmmmmmmmmmm

I got mixed feelings about this.

 

While I recognize the right for any private company to choose what they publish, I also have a growing concern about pluralism in internet-based media.

 

Infowars still has it website and whatever, but once Twitter, Facebook and other mainstream platforms start to ban it, the next step could be search engines.

Google could say "hey, we are free to choose what we show to users". And they would be right - under current law.

 

Some already allege that conservative content is ranked lower in search results.

 

One thing is different about today's internet media - it's a 2-way communication whereas in the past newspapers and TV, radio were one way push.

 

I think it's time to think about big internet publishers and search engines and censorship of user-generated or third-party-generated content. The danger is that these giants control the whole of information people get, but not only they censor part of it out but at the same time give users the false impression of free speech and of wholeness of information and opinions, when in fact they provide neither.

 

It's a dangerous and slippery slope.

I'm very much with you on this matter.

 

I stopped using Facebook once it was impossible to see variety of topics and points of views. Click 'Like'  on one, very active users post and the whole timeline is full of his or hers posts. Annoying, which often resulted muting the users.

 

I currently use Twitter. If Twitter starts to filter different kind of opinions, even the crazy ones, I'll move on and possible start using and promoting IRC once again. I need a platform where different kind of opinions can meet, communicate and yes occasionally fight as well.

 

If there are some people who can't separate facts from fiction, it's on education system of the users country, which needs an overhaul. 

 

If the ISP's start to filter the IRC or similar, non centrified, discussions, then it's time to go deeper and start using TOR networks. Obviously even TOR networks can't guarantee 100% messaging authenticity, but at least it's far more difficult for those who were filtering the Facebook etc traffic, to control the information flow.  

 

The more there is filtering in the Internet, the more resistance against the filtering will arise. We and the Internet was born free and we are going to keep it in that way.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, manarak said:

One exception to this is when private businesses have a monopolistic market position. for the industry, there are antitrust laws.

Similarly, Microsoft and Google have been sentenced several times to be more fair to competitors because of their dominant position.

 

I believe that currently Google and Facebook have a monopolistic position for online content. According to polls, many people don't have any other source for news.

 

If big tech starts to excessively censor content, plurality may have to be protected by law.

Then split big tech.

 

You’ll not get far arguing against private business, private rules.

[lanista]

Alex Jones is basically a TV salesman pushing crappy products to millions of low IQ Americans.

What worries me is this is could be a practice run to get rid of RT TV which is one of the few sources of real news presented by American researches and reporters most of whom were fired by main stream media.

Freedom of speech and the public right to corporate and political awareness has almost gone.

[manarak]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ll not get far arguing against private business, private rules.

hammering a slogan doesn't make it more relevant.

 

but I agree, interests of the mainstream and of politicians are congruent, so who would support plurality when masses can be better controlled through online monoculture

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then split big tech.

 

You’ll not get far arguing against private business, private rules.

Tech companies and even technologies come and they fade away. In this discussion we can concentrate to the few existing ones and their policies or we can talk about more fundamental issue of free speech.