Eric WeinsteinVerified account

It seems to me that an analog to the Lockean Proviso applies here. A private entity has a right to deplatform, as long as remaining opportunities to connect with audience remain roughly as good. When all coordinate at once to deplatform, there is an extra burden of justification.

"extra burden of justification" meaning that Jones would have to present a clear and present danger or some such thing.

I think it’s possible that he does present real danger. I don’t think we’d be where we are today, when the idea of truth and facts becomes mailable depending on ideology, without Alex jones.

That's a legitimate line to argue, imo. I think that line is more defensible than saying an oligopoly just has a right to shut people out because they are private.

It’s the only arguement that works. I’m seeking knowledge on this. I detest Jones and nearly everything he says, but I don’t want this type of thing to happen to the free thinkers I follow, who just might save us all.

but there is a clear distinction between Alex Jones and Neil deGrasse Tyson; there is a clear distintion between Paul Joseph Watson and Secular Talk and so on.. because there a precedence that involves and point it to everyone..

or would you consider that Creationism should be in college because is an issue of "freedom speech"? No, social medias like this and twitter could be regulated to avoid harmful information.

They should probably be able to regulate themselves, as they seem inclined to do, but I absolutely don’t think some government agency should be regulating from the outside. That would be disastrous.

We're seeing the Leftist elite realizing they're losing control of the American government, so they're executing an ideological coup through the companies that control the means of communication. Like Communists seizing TV stations in banana republics. But more 21st century.

Jones is such a terrible representation for alternative thought, I am loathe to defend him. I support diverse thought of all kinds. I also support companies having the right to control what happens in their domains. I find it strange that the right thinks jones is their voice.

So would a private hospital have the right to turn away an injured person from their ER just because they don't like her politics? And even if they had the legal right, would it be ethical?

Hospitals could and did. They passed laws to prevent it. Doctors take an oath against it. That's why this is such a shitty comp: Are you suggesting that the gov't pass laws to guarantee a platform of the speakers choosing? Should techies have an oath like the Hippocratic oath?

It might be nice if the people who worked for social media companies took some kind of professional oath not to let their personal political views bias who has access to the most important communications tech in the modern world.

Forcing someone to take an oath to work? For freedom? If the industry is so critical to survival it should be privatized like a utility. It isn't though. Jones still has platforms. And if platform(s) want to best their competitors by banning/hosting him, they should be able to.

You don't think doctors should take a Hippocratic oath?

I’m not sure, but I lean toward yes. I don’t think it’s a good comparison though.

I don’t like Alex Jones. What I detest is the 4 actors believe that I cannot think, reason and come to my own conclusion. I am so simple minded that I must be protected from all the big bad wolves lest I be eaten. That should scare us all.

Exactly what I’ve been arguing all damn day.

Collusion looks obvious. Is it time for the market [ppl who value Free and/or uncensored Speech] to move on and create new spaces where dialog and exchange can be had? Or, would that create a new echo chamber?

Your suggested answer would seem to invalidate the original question about free speech. Yes, it is possible for Alex Jones to move to/create a new space where his speech can be heard. (Not that he doesn't already have one.) These companies are not stopping his speech. (cont)

[cont.] They are just saying their private space/technology can't be used to project that speech. Presumably if the NY Times refuses to publish your op-ed, you would not call that an infringement of your free speech?

I don't disagree. I'm merely sad to see these forums change as they have. I have always appreciated (namely) twitter's rough and tumble atmosphere where there was such diverse disagreement.