Twitter was going to ban conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Then Jack Dorsey intervened to save his account


Well he decided in favor or the guy who broadacast and pushed hard bullshit theories about pizza parlors and democrat pedophile rings to his listeners. Which caused some idiot to wander into the pizza joint armed and looking to kill people.

The company itself is wonderful at banning people complaining about getting death threats from the alt-right/incel/assholes instead of banning the people actually making the threats.

They are willfully enabling the broadcast of ideas that are a threat to peoples lives (including mine and my families). They are by that association fucking close enough.



How do you know he doesn’t? The existence of a line doesn’t imply a consensus about where that line is.

There’s a big difference between the IBMs of the day entering pro-active business relationships with Nazis and services not banning them.

An ad agency working for Spencer would be enabling Nazis, an airline seating him would not. A bookstore selling his books… probably enabling. I think Twitter is somewhere between bookstores and airlines.

Yes. I just think this insistence that he was driven by shareholder value ends up being a way to ignore the actual ideological or tactical reasons that drove his decision.

To me it seems like a bad business decision, I don’t see any reason to insist he made a bad business decision instead of accepting that they’re legitimately trying to find the proper balance for free speech.

Possibly, I think he’s trying to keep Twitter neutral. If there’s a factor beyond just ideology he’s worried that if he goes too far banning major Conservative figures then half the country writes off Twitter as a Liberal thing they don’t want to touch.

Now at that point there probably would be a fiscal penalty to that, but I think he legitimately wants Twitter to be this neutral ground for connecting people and exchanging ideas, and he doesn’t want half the ideas to jump ship.

Of course, I don’t think there’s any fear of Conservatives writing off Twitter while Trump is still tweeting.



Because if he did he would have long ago said something to the effect of “our company is predicated on tolerance of different views and therefore we will not tolerate intolerance.” The line between tolerance and intolerance is a clear one, although Spencer and Jones and their ilk do try to blur it.

Also because, like most free speech absolutists, he’s proven himself to be a thoughtless nitwit on these matters.

I’m not discussing the IBMs of the day, I’m discussing the domestic German banks and steelworks and publishers of the day, all of who thought they could make a Reichsmark off of and control those crazy right-wing populists (who might also stave off the taxes the Commies or social-democrats would have imposed).

An airline is not giving him a platform any more than a lunch counter is: it’s providing what’s known as equal accommodation to a paying customer. There’s no in-between here. Media outlets, ad agencies, social networks, bookstores, publishers (including vanity presses), magazine festivals and anyone else offering a platform for speech under their own rules and standards are under no obligation in that regard – if they choose to provide Spencer with a platform they are enabling him.

I’m not ignoring either. I provided a description of the ideology of convenience he and other SV techbros use and laid out the short-term consequences he wishes to avoid.

He doesn’t have to. If he truly wants that he can invite the U.S. government to make it a common carrier (spoiler: he won’t because, among other things, it’s the Ro-o-oad to Serfdom and putting a “break up my monopoly” sign around his neck).

It won’t be half the country but the Know-Nothing 27% that already writes off most of the MSM outlets as a “liberal thing”. Those media companies may be struggling for other reasons, but they’re doing perfectly fine without Cletus the Slackjawed racist watching or (heh) reading.



I agree. History doesn’t look kindly on those who enable right-wing populists and Nazis and violence-inciting conspiracy theorists. I don’t know why people are stretching to make excuses for those who give them a platform and especially for those (like Remnick) who should know better.




Once again for the recently-arrived posters: it may be useful to have a poke at this thread before posting your “new” arguments in defence of Jack/Jones/et al.



I have seen the political forums on the chans and they are indeed useless as every 15th word is an uncomplimentary reference to people of the Hebrew persuasion, but Twitter is different from a discussion forum. I never see Alex Jones’ tweets because I don’t follow him and I don’t follow anyone who retweets him. He is invisible to me on Twitter. You can also block anyone you want there.

Alexis de Tocqueville talked about there being freedom of speech in America, but that there was a limited range of opinions that were considered socially acceptable. If you expressed an opinion outside of that at the local tavern, people would change the subject or stop talking to you. I can see that you may be advocating that kind of shunning, but of course the decisions on what opinions to shun were not made by a handful of tech ceos, but by people choosing on their own. They can do that on Twitter by blocking or in many cases by just not following.

As a Liberal, I read widely and talk with people of wide ranging views. I value these discussions like we are having in this forum.



Only as a matter of scale. BB BBS will soon implement an Ignore User feature but that doesn’t mean moderation will be lifted from the site so that Nazis and conspiracy theorists can roam freely and incite violence (quite the opposite).

If your argument was only about a handful of tech CEOs having the power to shun I’d agree, but in the context of anti-trust or common carrier regulation and not free speech. If you want to make it about free speech you have to acknowledge what kind of intolerant scumbags are being allowed by the (selectively) tolerant platform owners to use their platforms despite public pressure from their other users.



You are missing the point.

Twitter gives Nazis a hub to organize, to rally, and to voiciferously agitate against the physical existence and well-being of others based on race, religion, and nationality. I mean, shit, just this week Twitter finally chose to kick off people advocating genocide against the Rhoingyas (damn autocorrect). Twitter didn’t boot Assad until earlier this year.

Twitter has shown that it chooses not to host certain people, and yet their CEO stands up for the greatest alt-Reich preacher of them all, Alex Jones.

Please, spare me your fake tears for the poor Nazis.



Twitter–just ignore it. You’ll be happier.



Twitter is largely responsible for enabling Donald Trump’s rise to power. Ignoring what happens on the platform does not make us immune from the consequences.



Twitter is also a hugely valuable networking tool for activists and academics, particularly those from marginalised communities. It ain’t all clickbait and vanity.



All the more reason to enforce policies to keep the platform from being overrun by fascists. The lack of moderation (or at least selective enforcement of the rules) has allowed Twitter’s usefulness as a tool for evil grow far faster than its usefulness as a tool for good.



Thank you for this video, it makes me think and that is the best thing…



The general left consensus, supported by this story, is that Twitter’s management are not merely incompetent but are instead actively malicious.

It’s a useful thing owned by bad people.



Maybe so. In any case it’s currently enabling lots of bad people to do lots of bad things and is therefore a thing we can no longer afford to ignore.



I might disagree about the “useful” part given its wretched design and the endumbening (cromulent word, that) character limit but I grok your larger point.




Some others need watching, as well. A lot of the street-level neofascist organising these days is on Gab or Discord rather than Twitter.



Nicely put. Thanks. Saves me the trouble of figuring out how to put it succinctly.



+1 … I personally had many accounts banned for “automated or bot-like behaviour” despite every single one of those accounts being real, non-automated and all of their tweets being original compositions.

Their “rules” are a joke and their CEO has demonstrated himself to be a poor businessman and morally bankrupt… How are those daily active user numbers jack? Too shit to regularly report lest all the advertisers will flee to Facebook/Instagram? Your Monthly Active Users plateaued 3+ years ago… you know… kinda around the time you returned to ‘save twitter’

1 Like