In case you hadn’t heard, tech companies still aren’t done wiping Alex Jones and Infowars from their platforms. Some of the biggest — Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google — banned his content Monday, but now even Disqus, LinkedIn, and Mailchimp have fallen in line; Twitter seems to be the only holdout.
Without defending Jones, some conservatives warned of a slippery slope in the tech companies just erasing someone from the Internet, and wouldn’t you know it: CNN published an op-ed by Rafia Zakaria arguing that the stripping of Infowars from social media platforms went a long way toward recognizing that hate speech is “a form of terrorism.”
Conservatives who felt icky defending Jones despite some of his more atrocious claims found a friend Wednesday in the form of The Weekly Standard’s Jonathan V. Last, who argued that banning Jones was a good thing and more bans would be even better.
https://twitter.com/JVLast/status/1027269306730590209
https://twitter.com/JVLast/status/1027269307569500161
https://twitter.com/JVLast/status/1027269308689342465
https://twitter.com/JVLast/status/1027269309553360899
https://twitter.com/JVLast/status/1027269310509658112
https://twitter.com/JVLast/status/1027269311625396224
It sounds nice, but look at how unevenly the moderators on Twitter police what is “hate speech” (like Kathleen McKinley using the psychiatric term “gender dysphoria” in a tweet about transgender troops) and what isn’t (Sarah Jeong’s tweets about hating those “groveling goblins” known as white people).
And that seems to be the major concern: who will wield the ban hammer, and will social media platforms really do it in good faith? “Tech companies shouldn’t give Jones a pass; they should get rid of the Farrakhans of the world, too,” Last writes. “The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.”
But where’s the call from the media to sanitize Louis Farrakhan from Facebook and YouTube? It looks like this outrage cycle is going to burn out in the media before midnight tonight, and Farrakhan’s still there.
In any case, Last’s argument didn’t convince many who responded:
As long as you let me pick what gets banned, and I am pretty sure you won't agree with me.
— Ankylus (@ankylus) August 8, 2018
What if the standards are dishonest and unevenly applied? I would think that claiming to be an open forum and then booting based on political views while claiming some undefined view of “hate speech” should open one up to claims of false advertising.
— Jack in the East (@talkradio200) August 8, 2018
What about those of us who already know how to mute, block, and ignore?
— William Belcher (@EdB_Ohio) August 8, 2018
You understand that, in this day and age, you can limit what content you're exposed to on your own without the aid of billion dollar tech corporations deciding for you, yes?
— Louie Lozano ✒???? (@LozanoAuthor) August 8, 2018
And who would you entrust to decide these reasonable standards?
— The Worst Guy (@theworstguy) August 8, 2018
https://twitter.com/NetConscience/status/1027273466817462273
https://twitter.com/m5drummer/status/1027301734983577601
@Jack, this clown @JVLast offends me. Will you ban him please, thank you.
— Mean-Deplorable Jay ❌ (@jay6018) August 8, 2018
I started watching one InfoWars show and have never watched another. I thought conservatives promoted free markets? I consider you more dangerous to the "community" than InforWars. This is just step one for the "establishment" to censr speech they do not agree with.
— Ron Dodgers (@romopar) August 8, 2018
You must be European. Sorry. This is Murrrrrica.
— bigalpo (@bigalpo1) August 8, 2018
What you're really saying is you want the Internet to be safe for sissies like you.
Not safe safe, but rather, a place where there's no competition for your neutered, submissive brand of pseudo-conservatism.
You people are just pathetic.? https://t.co/vyoNNCKMcV— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) August 9, 2018
“Sissies?” That sounds like hate speech.
My father, uncles, and son fought wars with real bullets not just words so you have the right to say and write stupid things. You’re welcome.
— Ann Boger (@ann_boger) August 8, 2018
In normal times I would have faith. But far too many see things in stark black and white. Banning in this environment seems dangerous.
— Joe Elliott (@scribblingsage1) August 8, 2018
https://twitter.com/MAGAMom2/status/1027329694591602688
https://twitter.com/Nuclear_jelly47/status/1027333970055323651
But what makes you think the left will enforce in good faith? They haven’t before.
— Banastre Tarleton (@BloodyBan) August 8, 2018
He KNOWS they haven't enforced it in good faith. Great example is @RealCandaceO getting temporarily suspended for the same tweets of @sarahjeong with only the race in question changed. He wants to soapbox lecture.
— Michael (@Michael2014abc) August 8, 2018
The problem always lies in determining where that line is. Who makes the determination and how do they separate themselves from their own personal motivations for the good of the community? Best way to avoid issues is allow it all, don’t silence anyone by force
— CHOseph A Bank (@eyeonrox) August 9, 2018
I used to read and enjoy the print edition of the Weekly Standard. This saddens me.
— John (@john_jjsjr) August 9, 2018
Yeah you are trolling.
— CREOLE DADDY NATIONALIST BARBER? (@Tagg1957) August 8, 2018
This last one wasn’t inspired by Last’s piece, but we have to use it somewhere and this is as good a place as any:
I'm ok with Alex Jones being thrown off facebook because racist conspiracy theorists who destroy lives shouldn't be given platforms on large media outlets. pic.twitter.com/0iqgCJxPSp
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) August 8, 2018
Related:
WTF: CNN op-ed cheers Alex Jones suspension, calls hate speech 'a form of terrorism' https://t.co/qSHO7t2KXI
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) August 8, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member