Alex Jones has been pulled from multiple platforms

Twitter is the one that didn’t suspend him? That’s a shocker.

I heard these are 30 day bans though, unless something changed recently and the YouTube one is only for live-streaming. He’s still putting up videos on his channel but I haven’t checked today.

YouTube was only for live streaming, but now he doesn’t even have any of his accounts on YouTube. Search him up and the Infowars/Alex Jones channels don’t come up. As of the 30 day bans, I haven’t heard of that, but I could see it. 

Twitter being the only one to not pull him down is a shocker to me too. Hopefully they keep it that way too. I’m sure they’ll get some backlash if they don’t take him off, but I think there’d be more people supporting Twitter for keeping him. It’d also help their image with this whole being principled with the first amendment issue.

people need to stop with the fake outrage and fake apologies. Personally, I want rather deal with an flat out racist than a low key one. It's the low key ones that do all the harm anyway.

Apparently because he was inciting violence through hate speech which went against their guidelines. Not sure what exactly, but yeah. As for why they pulled him off now, I know iTunes was the first one to pull him off and then it just trickled down from there. Seems like it’s been building up for awhile though, such as YouTube banning his live streams a couple of weeks ago.

I personally think corporate censorship can be very dangerous especially when they act as an oligarchy. I get that these major platforms can do this, but whose to say that down the line when a video talks about Israel vs Palestine and the person comes off as a conspiracy theorist, they won’t be banned. I know that they’re saying Jones wasn’t banned for his conspiracy theories, but it’s already been proven that when videos have words like Syria, Palestine, etc in their titles, YouTube pulls the ads off that video, so you can’t make money which stops said person from making more videos since there’s no income. It’s a slippery slope.

You have to the right to free speech but no one has to provide you with a megaphone. Youtube and whoever else are also under no obligation to host content from someone who routinely slanders and libels public figures.

Glad to see everyone in this thread full throatedly supporting the NFL in its decision to ban national anthem protest by players, and vigorously defending the rights of bakers to not cater homosexual wedding ceremonies. Lot of closet civil libertarians here, huh. Who knew?

I thought it was rather clever (as is most of what I say) but sure, if you want to get into it...

Yes, if Jones violated the terms of service they're currently within their rights to not host his content (sort of dubious that he was banned from every platform within 24 hours though... almost makes it seem like it wasn't a specific terms of service breach. If it were, shouldn't they have kicked him immediately following the violation?). Should this be the case? Definitely up for debate. I for one think that the hold Facebook and Google have on information is rather monopolistic. Since the internet is the new public square of the 21st century, I don't think the US government would be out of line to step in. Internet bill of rights? Make social media a public utility? Maybe, who knows. That's up to the lawmakers I suppose. But it makes me rather uncomfortable that tech oligarchs have such a massive degree of control of the flow of information.

You're right, they aren't exactly apt comparisons.  The generalized point I made is that those who rush to defend the rights of private companies in the face of government regulation in the case of Alex Jones ought to consider these principles in other situations. In fact, I would say that the NFL has a much stronger right to make rules and guidelines for their players. A small family owned bakery has a much stronger right to make choices about which types of events they are willing to cater. Social media platforms that are the primary source of information for billions of people should be more regulated than tiny mom and pop bakeries. Here's a way to put it simply: new NFL terms of service -- no kneeling. Don't like it, don't play, hm? Sounds a little anti free speech when you put it like that, no? 

Did Alex Jones commit illegal defamation, slander, or libel? I don't know, I don't watch his content. I certainly haven't seen it reported that way. The reason they gave was hate speech and incitement (hate speech isn't illegal, and I'd be shocked if he committed incitement that would hold up in court). If he did, shouldn't this be a legal matter? Why are Facebook and Google the arbiters in this arena? US law is EXTREMELY lenient on all of the aforementioned because it has long recognized the importance of journalists and media personalities feeling free to report or opine on what they consider to be true. 

In short: did these companies have the right to ban Jones? Yes. Should they have that right? Maybe not. Should people who get worked up over the NFL being able to tell their players to stand, or a baker being able to refuse service to someone for any reason, really be righteously pontificating about the rights of private companies to control their own affairs? Hahaha good one.

Cc dazed

Zeb31

Better? Wasted about an hour on this because you called me out (though I stand by my original post and think it was the best point made in the thread when it was posted aside from dazed's) so I hope you actually read what I wrote and watch the videos with an open mind. Otherwise I'll stick with snarky and succinct. I have a ton more to say, so if you want to press me feel free.

I don't think too many people have actually said that NFL can't make rules regarding the anthem stuff. I think it's dumb, but that has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment either.

As for the gay wedding cake thing, I actually do think there's a decent argument to be made that it's a "free exercise" issue, but I don't assign the titanic importance to it that some people do and don't think it's worth fighting over. Regardless, it's not really analogous to this. If Youtube tried to say that an entire class of person couldn't upload videos to their site, they'd obviously lose a civil rights lawsuit over that. Banning one person/entity from using the site for specific things that person did isn't really "discrimination" in the legal sense.

A guy who propagates silly conspiracy theories like the CIA putting chemicals in tap water to make people turn gay getting his videos taken off Youtube isn't some great loss to society. It's not like his fans can't get plenty of Alex Jones from other venues. It's more about Youtube understandably not wanting to be associated with that kind of thing.

It’s time to have a real discussion in regards to making social media sites a public utility.