Alex Jones tweets?

I heard about Alex Jones being banned from several websites, most notably Twitter. First of all, I would like to note that Jack Dorsey, the CEO of twitter, defended his decision not to suspend Mr. Jones’ accounts on August 7, saying:

jack
@jack
We didn’t suspend Alex Jones or Infowars yesterday. We know that’s hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules. We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified

A month later, we have Alex Jones and InfoWars banned from Twitter; but why?

In an ABC article from today, September 7 (abcnews.go.com...), they cited an exchange between Alex Jones and CNN’s Oliver Darcy (youtu.be...) as the reason he was banned. This is not the first time Mr. Jones has done something like this. Let’s not forget these two children calling each other, and everyone else, every name in the book: youtu.be...

But that lovely fight was in 2016. This is now. What changed? I haven’t been able to find anything, including the exchange between Mr. Jones and Mr. Darcy, that expressly violated Twitter’s code of conduct. If I’m incorrect, I would gladly recant this whole post.

That being said, let’s look at who does have an account advocating violence:

This “person” mobile.twitter.com...

All of these people: mobile.twitter.com...

Oh and these too: mobile.twitter.com...

I’m not a fan of Alex Jones. I think he’s a lunatic. But I do believe in equal justice and exposing hypocrisy. If they’re going to ban Alex Jones for harassing a reporter, in real life, not even on Twitter, then they should consider banning others who do advocate violence against the president. That is against the Twitter code of conduct, after all.

a reply to: scolai

Midterms

a reply to: scolai

I think Alex Jones is a lunatic as well, and I am a constitutionalist so I always keep saying -- private company, private company.

But lately I've been changing my mind and it's conflicting with my views.

I believe the corporations are getting so insanely large that we are moving towards a future where the constitution may become pretty much obsolete. When these corporations get so large that most of everything that is happening in our daily spheres is regulated by them, leaving very little for the constitution, the constitution will become pretty much inconsequential.

Let me explain. The freedom of the press, freedom of speech and so on only regulates the government. But these companies are getting so large, the government is beginning to use them as mouthpieces. There are talks of government data being stored on corporate clouds. They are becoming so large and powerful that they are in essence becoming governments themselves. Google is a government, Amazon is... heck Facebook is the largest government on the planet with the most citizens -- over 2 billion now.

What happens when they own all the news media, serve as pulpits for the politicians and have vast powers that shape and regulate our countries -- all while hidden behind the veil of privacy and unregulated by the constitution.

This is what I'm conflicted with but I see as a possible solution -- any corporation that reaches a certain limit and becomes a 'too big to fail', gains such power that it can shape nations, and falls in the category where it may have to be bailed out from failure by taxpayer money -- it must become regulated by the constitution.

This, of course, would cause corporations to split apart and keep themselves smaller without government intervention -- but it would also prevent a dystopian future where 10 billion people can be reached with one message from an office in Silicon Valley or in Beijing, and the future of the world is shaped unregulated and any opposition silenced.

I do not wish anything removed from the constitution, it is fine as it is, but amendments can be added. The regulation of super-corporations via the constitution may have to be a future amendment.

a reply to: scolai

The risks of censoring someone like Jones far outweigh the risks of letting him speak. With the former, he will be forced into the underground, will develop a persecution complex, and his followers will see him as some sort of martyr. With the latter, with his speech competing in the marketplace of ideas, reasonable people can easily refute his machinations for what they are.

a reply to: Kharron

no..the constitution cannot become obsolete...only companies wanting to do business within the USA unwilling to follow the constitution...they can leave

Free speech is dead and buried.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Maybe they can go somewhere that is less tolerant of free speech. Might I recommend Canada or the UK?

To my knowledge as a staffer, Alex Jones can still post on ATS: if he was a member, agreed to the T&C that we all agree to, and posts within it.

Those that do not eventually have a discussion with a staffer, sometimes with my own self, to point out what is wrong and help get you back on track. It is a sorta slow process as the rest of staff has comments and input to be addressed as well until as a whole the consensus is that the issue is resolved or at least explained well enough that it shouldn’t be a continued problem.

All that said, unless he has been banned on an unknown account. Alex Jones has no problem here irrespective of any staffer’s opinions on him personally or his professional persona.

And that is a very key word there, persona. He may or may not resemble how he acts publicly while in private.

a reply to: scolai

sounds good to me

a reply to: BlueJacket

So bakeries must make gay wedding cakes on request despite legitimate conflicts personally or previous contracts for other projects?

a reply to: Kharron

But lately I've been changing my mind and it's conflicting with my views.

Wow are you feeling okay? Are you actually waking up? I agree with your post. There are already some laws on the books to govern these huge corporations like antitrust and anti monopoly laws but I think you have a point about creating new regulations for the new situations.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I think it would be fun to have him aboard here at ATS. I like Alex Jones as a person. I think he is fighting the good fight in his own crazy way. He is definitely an American patriot as strange as he is.

I also think that he would get ran off by the ATS community before the staff even had a chance

I think we should do an Alex Jones AMA. Speaking of AMA's what happened to ATS doing AMA's?

a reply to: scolai

Twitters house. Their rules.

I wont be tricked into defending a turd like Jones.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Kinda ran out of victims people that wanted to do them.

And for all we know AJ might be here without identifying himself. As could any number of people. Dan Aykroyd has long been a topic of speculation and wonder as to membership.

awww poor Alex Jones.

You fly all the way to DC and then publicly attack the CEO of twitter, and then wonder why you get banned?

Helloooooooooooooo? Anyone with any common sense?

Would have never happened if he hadnt have targeted the guy in a public fashion like that, with cameras all around, acting a fool.

Private companies have rights to do what they want, and if I basically tell the CEO of one to go eff himself, I expect not to be on that platform anymore.

Actions=consequences

I listened to Alex Jones from time to time, subscribed to his channel on Youtube and followed him on Twitter. I found him entertaining and sometimes offensive, but enjoyed the opportunity to expose myself to thoughts and views I couldn't find anywhere else. These social media outlets have the right to ban him but I'm sorry they did.
I think the real reason for silencing him was the size of his followers and his constant attacks on he left. Jones was low hanging fruit in their eyes. They could shut down an opponent with a large following and most people wouldn't care due to the outrageous nature of his style and broad claims of conspiracy. Jones was easy pickings.
Will Hannity be next? Many of the left hope so.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: scolai

Twitters house. Their rules.

I wont be tricked into defending a turd like Jones.

What about someone you agree with who has differing views that cause them to be ostracised by the main stream media?

Will you then?

If so, hypocrite.

originally posted by: Whatthedoctorordered
awww poor Alex Jones.

You fly all the way to DC and then publicly attack the CEO of twitter, and then wonder why you get banned?

Helloooooooooooooo? Anyone with any common sense?

Would have never happened if he hadnt have targeted the guy in a public fashion like that, with cameras all around, acting a fool.

Private companies have rights to do what they want, and if I basically tell the CEO of one to go eff himself, I expect not to be on that platform anymore.

Actions=consequences

So.. here's the lesson kids.

Don't speak your mind to those who control you. And if you must, do it safely from your basements, and never criticise them harshly. Or you get china'd all over.

I mean, telling someone what you think of them, is one thing. You have to bend over first. For them to see you're not being an asshole.

What a joke...

a reply to: Sparky63

The precedent has been set.

It sure as hell wont be the "cut the heads off the westerner" folk, nor the "Kill all white men!" folk.

they're not breaking community standards. Especially on facebook, which has a majority of "cut their heads off" folk employed as moderating staff.

a reply to: SummerRain

Mainsteam Media is a private enterprise and are free to act how they choose.

The first amendment is a protection from government, not each other. The only solution to the latter is to begin giving benefit of the doubt. Become worthy of reciprocal respect by giving it first.