It is worth separating out the (less interesting) legal argument around the 1st amendment from the practical reality.
The reality is that private companies like Google, Twitter, etc. have more power than the government to restrict speech. In fairness, tech companies have been reluctant to wield that power and have been pushed into it.
>The reality is that private companies like Google, Twitter, etc. have more power than the government to restrict speech.
Is that a bad thing?
The worst a company can do is drop your account - they can't even stop you from moving your content elsewhere. Governments can have you killed. Governments should be more restricted than the common citizen or even corporation.
What if you flip this around: private companies like Twitter, etc, have provided a mass-media platform to far more people than who could ever broadcast globally in the past.
Is it so wrong for them to think maybe this wasn't a universal good?
A thought experiment, what if in the past the ink and paper makers had banded together and prevented a newspaper from being able to publish? Is that OK because the ink and paper companies are private and not the government?
There's been plenty of examples of yellow journalism where the press incited the public into war, so there could be legitimate reasons private ink and paper companies wouldn't want those messages broadcast.
The difference being that in this case, ink, paper and even printing presses are readily available to everyone. The free private one-stop platform they were using before is stopping them from publishing, but for negligible cost almost anybody can publish what they like using their own private platform.
It's a valid question to ask. To me, it's clear that the answer is it's better not to censor. But there are, of course, plusses and minuses...
Here's my perspective.
I remember the start of the second Iraq war very clearly. Something like 70% of Americans believed, falsely, that Sadam Hussein was behind 9/11. As someone that didn't believe that, it was almost surreal. It was like everyone had gone mad. Most MSM sources were basically de-facto propaganda arms for the US govt.
On that wave of public support, we ludicrously and tragically invaded Iraq.
I think if you replay that scenario with Twitter existing, there's a very good chance you don't hit that 70% number and a pretty good chance we don't go to war.
It's simply too easy now to be exposed to alternative narratives. And the false venere of infallibility that "the news" has historically had pretty much fades away when you see reporters duking it out on equal footing with everyone else on Tiwtter.
So! I think the banning of Alex Jones is just step 1 of a plan to "fix" this problem; it's an attempt to reassert the ability to control the narrative and what the public thinks.
I know that all might sound a bit conspiracy-theory-ish, but, well, how else to interpret things like this?
More broadly, it's surprising to me that so many people who believe in freedom of speech, democracy, etc in their governments, are so gung-ho for autocratic, censored governening structures in the online realms.
Twitter is more important than traditional press; shouldn't it have similar protections?
It seems to me that you've gone off topic here without offering detailed support of your arguments.
Re: "Conservatives have a far, far lower bar to censor people than Twitter, et al. (i.e. /r/The_Donald on Reddit)" This is a generalization with only one example for support.
It isn't that complex and to be 100% honest, once you know how it works, its very easy to test for yourself with extremely consistent results. The bans are more a result of me testing their belief in the first amendment for my own curiosity rather than anything you need to apologize for. I intentionally bait conservatives that claim they are pro-free speech to watch the hypocrisy and to confirm my belief in their dishonesty is correct.
The loophole used to "justify" my bans is almost always:
User who doesn't agree with conservative narrative posts facts viewed as damaging -> Conservatives report you as "spamming" -> powers that be ban you as a "spammer" due to moderation mechanisms based on N reports.
Sometimes it involves human intervention as well, sometimes not.
> PC case maker CaseLabs says it has been 'forced into bankruptcy and liquidation' by US tariffs (Prices went up 80%!) -- Thanks Folks and I await your censorship ban.
I know they are going to do that after I posted that, even included it in the title, and was banned. :)
I was also banned for similar posts on a couple news sites.
-----
Pretty much any major "Conservative" subreddit has banned my account (or another one of my Reddit accounts) at this point. Voat/Gab, I'm banned platform wide.
It really just allows the tech giants to determine what messages should be said. Its not the government, but still entities that largely rule the internet. I see your point, its just murky waters.
The tech giants didn't take his website down, the RSS feed is still live and can still be subscribed to in the podcast of your choice. How did the tech giants determine anything?
Personally I would say let people speak. Leave it up to the individual to filter messages they dont want to read. Twitter (FB, Google, etc) are fighting a PR battle these days, and are being leaned on by the gov as well. No easy answer.
I think there’s probably an argument in there that those services are so curated by their algorithms that it’s not so easy as people filtering what they read, especially users not so well educated in how those platforms shape the window they look through.
Funny thing is, it’s likely the people who never went looking for Jones saw less of him than the people who did.
Maybe the people looking for his kind of messaging were just waiting for a note like “ready your guns”.
And again maybe the real danger lies in the ones who are on the edge of that and start getting hints of it and what’s more, increasingly fall prey to it and so seek it out more and their curated window is all the more filled with it. Suddenly you have large swathes of people believing that the end is nigh, Obama is a reptile, men are under attack, and it’s time to ready their rifles against their neighbour.
More should probably be questioned about the curation process those companies employ.
Personally, I think there's a some sort of line there where you have to use some sense and say this person shouldn't be allowed to say or use our platform. There's got to be a line somewhere for hateful, terrible people. It's not about different viewpoints or opinions when you get to the point of something like White Nationalists or Islamic fundamentalists.
I don't think they should be arrested or put in jail but what's the harm in booting some awful people? I know someone will respond to "what happens when they disagree with what you say"? Yeah, that could happen and I get pissed and life goes on. People get banned daily from all the platforms for really dumb things. Hell, you can't even have a female nipple on Instagram.
I agree those are horrible people, but I just ignore them. I'd rather be the one to make that choice for myself than let people at Twitter, Google, FB, etc... who have a monetary invested interest make the choice.
I get that and 99% percent agree with you but I also don't think there's harm in limiting the influence of these people. You and I might be able to ignore it or parse it in a rational manner but some disaffected teenager might buy into it.
Context is very important here. Alex Jones was punished for "he tweeted out a link to a video in which he calls for his supporters to get their "battle rifles" ready for the media and others." which is not really trying to incite actual violence.
Some locations on earth the ability to communicate the need to stop violence is necessary. Ethnic cleansing being done by your government? Do you want the people to unite and stop that?
I really dont have a good answer and can see both sides, personally Id err on the side of letting people speak.
The reality is that private companies like Google, Twitter, etc. have more power than the government to restrict speech. In fairness, tech companies have been reluctant to wield that power and have been pushed into it.