Deep State Fascism Kills Free Speech!

[manticore]

The Deep State strikes again, banning an angry charlatan from Twitter after only allowing him to become a nationally famous figure and bilk X million dollars out of vulnerable idiots, rather than X + 1 million dollars.

What happened to Free Speech?!

Only conspiracy theorists are talking about the 'deep state'. A lot of other people are having serious discussions about how the banning of loathsome right-wingers might rebound on others, as has happened before, as detailed in the Jacobin article posted above. And there are drifts on various platforms that are affecting people with dissenting views right now.

Jones isn't an 'angry charlatan' - the 'anger' is part of the charlatanry, it's not real. And he's not been banned for being a charlatan, or milllions of people would be banned.

This is one hell of a complicated issue, but if you want to reduce it to such simplicities, you go ahead.

[Benevolent Despot]

Outwitting the censors, Alex circumvents media ban by doing some sort of Scooby Doo skit with masks: https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1037978557555900416/video/1

I can really see why this guy is public enemy number one...

[Blumf]

"This isn't even my final form!!"

[Bhazor]

When he inevitably kills himself Columbia will fall into a recession.

[darby o chill]

Paypal bans The Alex.

"We've made a decision to end our relationship with Infowars websites, including PrisonPlanet," a PayPal spokesman said.

"We undertook an extensive review of the Infowars sites, and found instances that promoted hate or discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions, which run counter to our core value of inclusion," the PayPal spokesman said.

Meanwhile on Infowarts:

[Benevolent Despot]

Yeah, this is the rapidly progressing state of institutional censorship. Next it's banks denying service for political views, denied accommodation, travel, jobs. In America's case the government is probably the protection from censorship by institutions and companies rather than the threat. Paypal's freedom to do so, I guess - Alex can still set up his own banking system if he wants! This is why I keep saying that it would be better to cultivate societal respect for free speech rather than rely on the state to moderate the petty tyrannies of the private sector.

[marquis_de_sad]

Dunno about 'rapidly progressing', Paypal has been like this for a while.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I'm sure everyone defending twitter will be totally cool with this.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1047078882699034624?s=19

[marquis_de_sad]

Why when I go against a website's terms of service do I get kicked off?!?!

[biggytitbo]

Depends whether you want social media giants in the thrall of the perpetual war state deciding what is a genuine threat and what is strong, colorful rhetoric, and all those other fine line things when it comes to freedom of speech.

[Pdine]

Free speech in US terms was framed at a time when access to the public sphere amounted to speaking in the public square or printing handbills. No-one assumed you would be able to voice your opinion in globally accessible media. There were no globally accessible media, and even national media was tied up far far tighter by proprietary gatekeepers than the current state of social media. At the time of the first amendment, you could say what you liked, but no one owed you any degree of amplification.

The modern concept of free speech - that everyone should have equal access to privately-owned global social media - is just a completely different concept. We might want to pursue it, but it's not reasonable to maintain it's a natural evolution of the original idea.

[Paul Calf]

Why when I go against a website's terms of service do I get kicked off?!?!

When I go against the landlord, it's only right that I should be evicted from my farm, yes?

When I disobey the police, it's only right that I should be punished, yes?

[marquis_de_sad]

When I go against the landlord, it's only right that I should be evicted from my farm, yes?

When I disobey the police, it's only right that I should be punished, yes?

That's right, these things are the same as banning someone from a website.

[jobotic]

We must afford the far-right total freedom of speech by which ever platform they demand. After all it's no less than they would.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/02/pro-refugee-italian-mayor-arrested-suspicion-aiding-illegal-migration-domenico-lucano-riace

[Pdine]

That's right, these things are the same as banning someone from a website.

The first one is very similar: contracts terminating on breach.

[Zetetic]

https://isitup.org/metricmartyrs.co.uk

[Paul Calf]

That's right, these things are the same as banning someone from a website.

Perhaps instead of hiding behind smug irony, you could detail the ways in which they're different?

[marquis_de_sad]

Perhaps instead of hiding behind smug irony, you could detail the ways in which they're different?

We've both been asking facetious questions, so you can climb down from your high horse.

I don't see the point in bringing in these analogies in, at best we're going to get diverted. And I don't see that the things you mention are the same, especially as they're so vague. What do you mean by "going against" a landlord? Or "disobeying" the police?

Twitter is strict on its users making threats, especially death threats. I don't think it's likely that the academic quoted above was making a serious threat, but nor am I surprised that Twitter would do something about it, because it routinely does so.

[sevendaughters]

police?
Twitter is strict on its users making threats, especially death threats. I don't think it's likely that the academic quoted above was making a serious threat, but nor am I surprised that Twitter would do something about it, because it routinely does so.

Yep. It's liking joking about having a bomb at airport security now. You just can't. One friend of mine jokingly threatened to kill another on twitter. In context it was hilarious because of how trivial it was. However: he is now perma-banned, appeal upheld, sockpuppet banned, IP noted, no trial, straight to chokey.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Yep. It's liking joking about having a bomb at airport security now. You just can't. One friend of mine jokingly threatened to kill another on twitter. In context it was hilarious because of how trivial it was. However: he is now perma-banned, appeal upheld, sockpuppet banned, IP noted, no trial, straight to chokey.

And that's good is it?

[Pdine]

And that's good is it?

It's what Twitter's terms and conditions said would happen. It's not good or bad, it's just the outcome of using a service without sticking to the conditions you agreed.

[sevendaughters]

And that's good is it?

I didn't really pass judgment either way. It was pretty amusing at the time but clearly heavy-handed. I don't think widely-adopted technology has ever been cut out for granular solutions.

[darby o chill]

May I remind you we are not here to bicker about censorship.

_{We are here to laugh at Alex Jones.}

He's suing paypal now

[manticore]

I didn't really pass judgment either way. It was pretty amusing at the time but clearly heavy-handed. I don't think widely-adopted technology has ever been cut out for granular solutions.

I suppose, given the problem of threatening words on twitter and they way they're used to intimidate people, twitter users should really be self-aware enough to hold back their use of language.

A permanent ban in your friend's case sounds wrong though. Why on earth hasn't Giles Coren been subject to the same measures, given that his threats weren't a joke, and weren't between friends?

[sevendaughters]

there was plenty of whataboutery in our circle, especially because i. loads of us say worse things and ii. the tweet was @ his friend rather than a public declaration of murder. maybe someone ratted him out, maybe twitter's trigger finger is super itchy. my view is that it's someone else's party and not an essential right, and to a certain extent a banning is a blessing.