[WisNorCan]

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.

[krapp]

>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.

[majormajor]

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?

[influx]

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.

[pixelbath]

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.

Nobody's taking down infowars.com, afaik.

[dilap]

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?

https://twitter.com/chrismurphyct/status/1026580187784404994

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?

[EvilEndures]

Conservatives have a far, far lower bar to censor people than Twitter, et al. (i.e. /r/The_Donald on Reddit)

Why does no one call them out on their echo chambers that ban anyone who calls BS?

Even their "free speech" platforms do this. (i.e. Gab)

There is no private party that genuinely protects people's first amendment rights.

[xpe]

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.

[EvilEndures]

I have been banned from:

Voat

Gab

16 Republican subreddits

Multiple GOP "news" sites

I can try to come up with a comprehensive list if it's really worth it?

[dj-wonk]

I'm sorry to hear you've been banned from so many places. I would be interested in your story. Do you want to make a post about it?

[EvilEndures]

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.

For instance:

https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/96h0dy/pc_case_...

> 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.