Deutsch
English
Have you heard of Alex Jones? While US residents might be rolling their eyes, he's fairly unknown to the rest of the world. Alex Jones is a right-wing journalist, radio presenter and entrepreneur who makes a living off crude conspiracy theories. In his view, the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks, the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting was staged and various politicians are child-devouring satanists. Hard views that naturally polarize. Still, it got me thinking when he was suddenly banned from various areas on the internet.
To be clear, I can barely stand him for more than five minutes in a row and I agree with precisely zero percent of anything he says. And it brought a smirk to my face when various of his videos and posts were pulled from YouTube, Facebook, Spotify and Apple - for a while. Naturally, he (and his followers) assumed the role of the victim and vociferously cried censorship. and I agree to some extent. Something was up. Why now and why (almost) all platforms at once? I have a problem with several large corporations deleting user accounts in an obviously concerted effort, no matter how controversial that user may be. Only Twitter took their sweet time and issued a temporary suspension of his account after a week. Coincidence? I don't think so! The whole thing feels like a stitch-up and that shouldn't happen.
In general, big online platforms and networks are always in a tight spot. They have the right to take action in case of legal or guideline violations (their house rules) but they also stand for freedom of expression which is especially held in high regard in the US where they're headquartered. For instance, while denying the holocaust is a criminal offense in Germany, it is covered by freedom of speech across the big pond and every online platform operator has internalized the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. Consequently, presenters and hosts are fairly thick-skinned. What would be considered mass instigation, an attack on the state or incitement to crime in other countries, is tolerated. To this, an American friend dryly remarked that a strong democracy has to endure extreme views and that whoever felt offended could either sue or move to a country with a dictator where the internet is highly regulated and peaceful.
Still, I feel users, especially those as influential as Alex Jones, deserve a decent explanation that goes beyond the scope of a standard phrase when their accounts are shut down. If a company feels obligated to pull the plug, a detailed list of violations committed against the provider's house rules is in order - and in Joneses case, also an explanation why action wasn't taken sooner. Facebook argues Jones glorified violence, used inhuman language and outright spoke against transgenders, muslims and immigrants. I guess you could say that but it's been that way with him for years. The guidelines of these companies have existed for as long as the portals themselves but it seems they weren't enforced as rigorously in the past - or maybe monetary interests and reach simply took precedence.
In any case, blind and unsubstantiated activism hurts the credibility of companies like YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Apple and others. And it's a golden opportunity to foster and promote conspiracy theories. Alex Jones is now in a perfect position to claim those companies banded together to silence him and, once again, suppress the truth. Veiled hints the US government was the main instigator also ring true for many. He can now comfortably play the victim game that will win him even more popularity and knit his followers closer together.
Here's what I believe happened. The internet giants had long been wanting to get rid of him (which I can understand) and thought the blame would be evenly shared - far from it. Many users can smell a put-up job from a mile away and even die-hard critics that shudder at his every word were scratching their heads as to how things went down. All this was possible only because the guidelines weren't consistently, uniformly and transparently enforced.
Whether posts that don't violate national laws should be deleted in the first place is debatable. It's also worth discussing how many extreme views or lies internet users can tolerate and whether they should be protected to prevent radicalization and splinter factions or to curtail the influence of demagogues. Big questions that touch on politics, social sciences and philosophy and that are not for this small blog author to answer definitively. Still, a concerted frontal assault that looks like anything but a conscientious case-by-case review of questionable content is a no go.
Would you have banned Alex Jones? Should content be deleted at all?
well i know that most of Alex jones content was /is pretty accurate. did i agree with how he presented it ,
no but hes been on a truth hunt for years and speaking out the truth unlike most all media aka Fake news.
if you dont live here then you my not realize whats really been happening. you have to understand why
they the gov/shadow gov, NWO elites trying to crash the USA to be able to bring in NWO which now isnt going to happen thanks to God intervening with our amazing new President Trump. Had hillary won we all be on are way to NWO ...
No posts, that don't violate national laws should be deleted, only if it uses unpermissable language, which is rough and offensive, and violates the good pleasure
It seems to me that any blog or post on any media about this Alex Jones guy just promotes him even more. Reading this made me look him up and his Infowars site.
NO! NO! NO! I would NOT have banned him. He is entitled to his opinion and the people who follow him are entitled to do so.
The Good news is that there's always Zeitgeist, if you're into conspiracy/the truth, whichever way you look at it: https://youtu.be/pTbIu8Zeqp0?t=31m48s that part is about 911.
It's funny and hypocritical how the very platforms that interfere, influence, position and filter information according to their political bias are blocking an individual from expressing his own political opinion.
There is so much political crap on Facebook being posted these days, it's hardly a 'social' network at all, not to mention the graphic videos and images of animals being treated badly. Surely those things are worse than an individual man expressing his opinion.
I think that had Alex's media not been popular, it would still be up and online on those platforms today. For so many platforms to react together is somehow not right. There must have been external political pressure being applied.
And here's another thing. Those platforms have probably made a lot of money out of Alex with all of that data, ad revenue and comments. If they see fit to ban the man, then they should see fit to donate all of the money received via his channels to good causes.
Google and the likes really need to be called to account, especially if they are public enterprises. Not using Google as a verb would be a good start, there are other search engines that don't stalk you, like Qwant, Duck Duck Go and Start Page. Don't 'Google' it!
There's an extremely fine line between some of the more extreme aspects of (legal) free speech and (illegal) incitement to violence and hatred. In a free society we need constant vigilance to ensure that intolerance of the latter is never allowed to stifle the former.
The problem we face today is that ever more extremist views are constantly testing and stretching the limits of free speech. And this problem is exacerbated by the fact that the media grant these extremists the oxygen of publicity. Whether the media write/broadcast in favour of, or against, such extremism, they attract public attention just at the point where the best possible antidote to the extremist's odious views is to ignore them.
Would I ban Alex Jones? I don't know - I have never heard him. But I won't be seeking out his broadcasts because to do so would - to me - seem like some form of endorsement of his views.
That sums it up rather nicely. It’s this „fine line“ that always gets me thinking along the lines of „well fortified democracy“. The situation is similar to a pub with a few guys spouting nonsense at the counter. If you give them too much leeway, it’ll soon it’ll spread to the rest of the group like wild fire.
Perhaps instead of blocking him and others of his ilk, their posts can be put in a "box". In order to read their posts, the person would have to read and sign a warning statement that they understand the post is highly offensive to most people and contains X, Y of Z. There should also be some test to show the reader is an adult.
Firstly, Alex Jones caused immense hurt to the Sandy Hook families and deserves to be prosecuted.
Secondly, whilst he'e entitled to freedom of speech, if he consistently flouts the rules of fair & honest journalism and has no regard for the truth, he doesn't deserve to be given a public platform at other people's expense.
I don't care too much about Alec Jones but I read your blogs and I am disturbed about two things you seem to take for granted as being normal concerns of "good people" like your readers.
1. Conspiracy theory - this is an idiotic identification. We know where this came from. The CIA was trying to shut down and nullify theories of JFK's assassination and came up with this epithet. It has stuck. Yet people get together and plot future actions in every walk of life. Endless revelations and even court cases demonstrate this. Conspiracies are a fact of life. You might as well denigrate "ice-cream theories". Theories about conspiracies are not misguided in general but are often on the mark.
2. Twin Towers on 9/11 - There are literally millions of physicists, architects, engineers, chemists and intelligent people, around the entire world, who cannot stomach the idiotic explanations for 9/11 that the government tried to foist on a gullible public. The standard physical explanations make no sense and are in large part physically impossible. If you choose to join the "nation of sheep" and close your mind to scientific analysis you are welcome to do so but you should never trumpet your acquiescence to obvious propaganda as some kind of shared knowledge. It isn't.
I don’t really care about word origins as we all have our own interpretations. In my mind, he uses the fear and ignorance of his viewers to make a lot of money. Still, it’s not okay to just silence him.
I have never heard of Alex Jones but I have heard the theories about 9/11. I have in fact read a report somewhere where scientists have examined videos and have shown that many of the factors don't stand up to close scrutiny. For instance the fact that a nearby building collapsed with explosions from the base. I find it hard to believe that the US Government could be responsible but in this world nothing should be dismissed without close scrutiny. As for Alex Jones he sounds a nut case. But not everything in this world is as it seems. Take for instance the Skipol poisoning
in the UK. James Bond becomes real life.
His views on 9/11 won him a lot of publicity which is why I cited them as an example. There are far more outlandish statements and theories by him online. I’ll gladly amid the official explanation of 9/11 is debatable though.
I too thought Alex Jones was a nutcase. I was wrong. I decided to really listen to him and decide for myself if he was koo-koo for cocoa puffs or not. I gave him a week.This is what I found out. He is loud, mouthy, brash, obnoxious, pushy and constantly interrupts people he is talking to. I also found out that he has the gift of extreme logic, intelligence and foresight. He is honest and is 100% an American Patriot willing to go the distance for our country. Keep in mind what is main stream today was conspiracy not more than five to ten years ago. I could not mention Global Elite, New World Order or Communism having infiltrated the Democratic Party without being laughed at. It's out in the open today. Five minutes is not enough to appreciate where Jones is coming from. Trust me,it took me a lot longer than that to finally get a hold at where his thought process' were at. And as for these companies being private. Sorry, but Facebook went public a few years ago. Either way, they have an obligation to treat everyone fairly and it is quite clear they are doing exactly what the IRS did with Conservative groups... shutting them down.
As always, I did extensive research before writing the article and no, I still don’t share his views in the slightest. Still, I readily apply myself to prevent the permanent suspension of his accounts for dubious reasons. That’s all I can give you. :)
Your friend is correct, it does take a strong democracy to withstand extremism in any form. As a redheaded revolutionary (actually an anarchist) said before the American Revolution, "I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". But really, most conspiracy buffs are fun to listen to as it is getting harder and harder to find the shallow end of intelligence and yet, there they are.
Interesting, this quote is generally attributed to French author and philosopher Voltaire in Germany. The concept seems to be so strong that it doesn’t really matter who came up with it.
1. Never heard of Mr. Jones until yesterday (9/4).
2. As you are probably aware the USA is not a Democracy but a Representative Republic. (That's a mouthful).
3. The real problem is the 2nd amendment not the first. Take away the second and it will be easy to eliminate the first.
Censorship? I'm against it.
If I have the choice to change stations, or flip through a channel I do so.
If something I don't agree with or like, or believe, I don't object to other people's belief or opinions.
As far as conspiracies, they happen daily amongst business collusion, government collusion, groups working together in private places to turn events to their liking, etc.
Been that way throughout history.
Also, in your beginning statement about 9/11 and discounting the belief in conspiracies, I have an opinion but will never know the answer.
I'm a retired airline pilot. Flew the same two aircraft, 757, 767. Hard to believe the orthadox story of light airplane pilots being able to even find New York or any other city without extensive knowledge of the computer systems on those planes. They are not your normal apple or Microsoft systems.
But, a side from that, I am puzzled on how the South Tower came down first, when all the fuel from the right wing , and most from the left wing up in flames outside the building as we were constantly shown. Yet the North Tower was hit head on first many minutes earlier and all the fuel exploded from within.
Alex Jones has his own venue; his web site. Anyone who wants to consume his garbage is welcome to visit his web site. Sorry; people like Alex Jones add nothing of value to any part of society and do not need to be legitimized. He panders to the worst the world has to offer and those who are begging for whatever he's peddling know where to find him.
There are crackpots and then there's for-profit crackpots like Alex Jones.
In a country like Russia, Turkey, KSA, China and more, journalists have been jailed, or even murdered that were not in favor of the governement and rulers. Not one but tens to hundreds. But in those cases it is not worth it seems to adress those. Hmm, what made you climb in your pen in this case, while this fear mongering manipulator is not harmed a bit? Is mister Jones a defender of democracy and free speech ? Would we in Europe tolerate Mr. Goebbels anno 2018 to do his dirty job?
Of course Alex Jones is an asshole, but as they say, everyone needs their asshole.
Of course our President Trump is an . . .
I agree with your frustrations and share them but I believe that you misunderstand something rather fundamental about American Constitutional Law.
Freedom of Speech is assured by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, That Amendment and its concept of "Freedom of Speech" bar ONLY governmental action. Individuals and corporations remain entirely free to censor, limit, or ban ANY content that they wish,
If Mr. Jones is being censored by some government agency or law, that is wrong and he will prevail. If, on the other hand, corporations that provide internet backbones or publish newspapers, or operate websites wish to bar his tirades, they are free to do so under US law. That is their right to control their property.
If you or I don't like a corporation refusing to allow someone to use their service based upon content, then you and I are free to refuse to deal with that corporation. If enough of us so boycott that corporation, we may be able to force it to change its policy, but no law or Constitutional provision requires a corporation to afford "free speech" to anyone.
Basically, Freedom of Speech means that we have the right to speak our mind but not the right to make someone (or some corporation) listen to, repeat, broadcast, or publish what we want to say.
While I can't think of anything good to say about Alex Jones, I wonder if a radical left-winger would have been treated the same by these "Leader of the Free World" companies...
No. Alex should not have been banned. Surely this proves that something sinister is going on? Definite collusion by the likes of Google etc.
I followed the Sandy Hook situation, and a lot of things don't make sense. Take a look at the Robbie Parker interview. Very strange behaviour from someone who had just ' lost' his child. A lot of other anomalies are investigated.
As for being anti-Islam, this is not racist because Islam is an ideology, and not a race. I have also studied this religion and it is definitely worthy of criticism, to put it mildly.
As far as I know he has never incited violence or murder, unlike Isis websites which do this on a daily basis. Have they been shut down?
People who disagree with what Alex has to say always paint him as an extremist and also contort what he says into versions of some type of conspiracy - and they will never, ever have something good to say about him. That's OK. It is one of the benefits of access to information that an individual can form an opinion.
I happen to have the opinion that there is validity in some of the thoughts and ideas that Alex has. For example, Alex warned that the major tech and social-media outlets would start to censor information long before they actually started censoring Alex. At the time he was criticized for pandering a conspiracy; yet Alex has proven to be correct.
What is a travesty is the censorship and power that "thought police" are wielding. The tactic that is being taken by some - especially organizations on the left - to shut down any dissemination of information that differs from the prescribed doctrine is one of the primary tactics used by the Stalinist, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi), and Fascism.
Protecting the right of access to information and dissemination of information is paramount. And when certain outlets (e.g. Google, Facebook, Twitter) have a monopolistic ability to control what information is readily available and to control what information is easily feed to people on a daily basis, it is the responsibility of those organizations to remain neutral rather then censoring - or in a worst case scenario, have government regulations imposed to insure equal presentation and access.
If these actions are not nipped in the bud then they will metastasize and you can be next. As it is said: First they came after Alex Jones...
I listened to him once when he ran his show on MySpace and realized he was a fraud making wild claims about everything.
When he went after the families of the Sandy Hook killings he put the nail in his own coffin. 20 sixth graders and 6 adults were murdered in cold blood and he said it was a hoax!
Happy to know some corporate bosses have a conscience.
Freedom of speech is one of those "fundamental" but difficult principles. Yet, democracy not only allows it but encourages such expression, Jones is obnoxious and mouthy, in my opinion, but he is entitled to his viewpoint....until he crosses over into "hate speech" (yet another tricky area to define).
In an age when regulators are seeking to establish ruies of conduct for the Internet and Social Media Jones must be a very easy target for the providers to hit - as an example of them being seen to be doing something. Maybe in the hopes of showing that they are responsible and do not need governments et al to intervene.
Is this a good enough reason to launch a "shut him up" strategy?
To me, that would depend on your viepoint.
Mine is that it was long overdue BUT that does not give the instgators the right to ignore Jones right to his opinion being heard....distasteful though it may be.
As Stewart Wallace commented, they are private companies and though I believe they are free to do what they want, I also believe there is a real danger in their control over content. If you want to hear anything positive on Trump see FOX. If you hate Trump and want negative you go to NBC,CBS,CNN etc. The last bastion of people expressing views other than main stream media are the social media sites and now they are slanting the news by content they allow. People need to realize they are being spoon fed by big companies.
What's wrong with proganda? All governments do it. We all do it in our day to day lives. It's called an opinion. It is up to an individual to believe it or not. When the government has the last say of what you can and cannot listen to or read is the end.
Censorship nothing more nothing less,
Way to many fragile people out there now claiming that opinions hurt their feelings!?
Time to grow up if you are unable to change the channel then don't complain about what you see or hear,
The mad thing now is that we have the likes of the BBC, Sky and huge mainstream media corporations wanting a peiece of the internet pie because they have just awoken to the fact that their biased material has lost them customers,