A successful no-platforming means we can talk about Alex Jones again


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/11/19/voldemort-algorithms.html


#2

giphy


#3

Yikes, is that an Alex Jones Beautiful Agony video?

No wonder his wife divorced him. If I had to witness that boiled-ham-orgasm-face on a regular basis ever I’d have stepped in front of the high speed rail to NYC.


#4

But I prefer not to, even if I can. Enough of this lunatic.


#5

Indeed, never mind algorithms. Wouldn’t we be better off forgetting about him completely?

It occurs to me it’s been ages since I’ve heard anything about Limbaugh, and aren’t we all better off for that?


#6

What did Conservatives say when private “lifestyle center” malls with no first amendment rights for visitors started replacing the public square? I’m pretty sure when the shoe was on THAT foot, they said, “tough shit.”


#7

inaction is a decision too.

Indecision is worse than wrong decision.


#8

By talking about him, even to criticize him, you’re effectively “teaching the controversy.” Let’s just let him fade into obscurity.

ETA: but of course Doctorow knows better than most that controversy is good for engagement, and bad press is good press.


#9

The Howard Stern effect?


#10

we can talk about Alex Jones again

But why would “we” want to, though?


#11

It’s okay if we do it but not if they do it?

BTW, how long before Alex Jones has a Mastodon instance?


#12

I think I can speak for several of us here that are devotees of boiled ham orgasms, that that is the typical facial accompaniment to the phenomenon. It’s obviously not for the faint of heart.


#13

My sister still gets herself off to his radio show on a daily basis. It’s. Just. Heinous. To. Contemplate.


#14

Um, you know what? I’m good. Let’s not talk about him.


#15

Rule 34 is harsh but fair.


#16

That’s true, but it highlights the reverse of what’s wrong with these platforms. Media companies always had the power to decide what to amplify (that’s the whole point), but Facebook and Twitter are toxic because they don’t decide, they just short-circuit a billion reptilian hindbrains together in a screaming feedback loop of Hadean noise. If you say “the problem is powerful gatekeepers”, they’ll nod and say that’s exactly why they dogmatically refuse to edit anything, so that users are in charge of the content. Except they aren’t.

Central gatekeepers are a problem. The old media paradigm gives you Hearsts and Murdochs and doesn’t leave space for thoughtful conversation. But the new paradigm of no gatekeepers is a failed experiment in going too far the other way; it gives you Jones and Turmp and a thousand others, and it bolsters the power of Murdoch in the remaining old-media world, and it actively persecutes attempts at thoughtful conversation.

We need editors, and we need diverse media. The internet can help that happen. We just need to stop with this fucking insane mass hallucination that Twitbook represents the final immutable form of the internet.


#17

Because she didn’t deserve the indignity of sharing a name with an American far right conspiracy theorist?


#18

How would he monetize that, other than masticating about his Goop?


#19

If he gets one it’ll end up being banned by most other instances.


#20

LOL, As soon as I clicked on the link this is the first thing I saw and Literally, LOL’ed. Touche!