Donald Trump Delivers Pizza to FDNY
'Absolute Legend': Man Mocks UCLA Anti-Israel Protestors (WATCH)
Border Patrol Agent Accused of Whipping Illegal Immigrants Wins Award
Rep. Jamaal Bowman Declares Racist Daniel Penny Guilty of Murder Even Before the...
Here’s CNN’s EXCLUSIVE Framing of DOJ Civil Rights Chief Lying to the Senate
Title IX Reforms and Campus Protests Prove Government Will Not Protect You
Pro-Hamas Activists Tie Themselves to Flag Pole After Raising Palestinian Flag
Hims CEO Looking to Hire Protesters Who Know Moral Courage Beats a College...
Biden Continues to Earn the Respect of Other Countries by Calling Japan 'Xenophobic'
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Tells Viewers If They're Too Stupid They Can Change the...
A Year After Biden Said We 'Ended Cancer' Patients Continue Dying From Shortages...
Pfizer CEO Proudly Boasts of Saving the World from COVID
The Time Has Come to Get Serious About Punishing and Removing Campus Tyrants
A Heartbeat Away: Supercut of Kamala Harris' Word Salad Is MAJOR Cringe
Columbia Law Students Urge School to Cancel Exams, as Violence has Left Them...

Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last argues that "we need more banning"

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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:

https://twitter.com/NetConscience/status/1027273466817462273

https://twitter.com/m5drummer/status/1027301734983577601

Advertisement

“Sissies?” That sounds like hate speech.

https://twitter.com/MAGAMom2/status/1027329694591602688

https://twitter.com/Nuclear_jelly47/status/1027333970055323651

Advertisement

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:


Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement