[ProAm]

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.

[52-6F-62]

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.

[lancesells]

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.

[ProAm]

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.

[lancesells]

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.

[scarface74]

He can speak all he wants to. No one stopped him from publishing on his own website.

[cobythedog]

What about if the speech involves inciting violence? Is there a line that is drawn?

[ProAm]

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.

[cobythedog]

I'm not legal expert so I can't be certain, but to a layperson like me it sounds like he is asking people to commit violence:

"mainstream media is the enemy, but now it's time to act on the enemy"

"legally and criminally its time to move against these people"

[ProAm]

I agree, but the inverse is the the tech companies and government use this type of punishment to silence and quell dissenters or stop any type of change it doesnt like.

Context, satire, and meaning is extremely tough to convey over the internet and leads to a pretty wide margin for interpretation to suit your (or who ever it may concern) needs.

No easy answer