If I was kicked out of Arby’s because I walked in naked yelling “kill the Jews” your headline wouldn’t say “Arby’s thrust themselves into a fraught debate over their role in regulating behavior in their restaurants.” These are private platforms, they can kick out anyone they want
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
1. First Amendment only applies to government, not private entities like Apple, etc. 2. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should say it. 3. I don't believe in hell. That makes me sad. Because it would be a good eternal place for Alex Jones.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They are private biz's, offering a service with conditions which each user must agree to. Failure to adhere to the conditions has a penalty, Jones can still peddle his vomit in other ways, this is NOT a Freedom of Speech issue!
-
They should be regulated like a public utility.
-
Why, they are not public utilities, they are not part of the critical infrastructure, you don't HAVE to have them in order to survive, If a platform was down, you can still pick up the phone & dial 911, your heat still works, you still have electricity.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not what can be said online. What private companies choose to allow on their platforms online.pic.twitter.com/PX874htWiW
-
Wouldn't they just 'show such content the door' by not watching such material? Why the ban? Why the removal of content?
-
Because they are under no obligation to disseminate defamatory and inflammatory content. My only problem with the removal is that it took so long for the platforms to act.
-
Rather amazing that four separate companies reached that conclusion on the same day...& who gets to decide what's deflamatory & inflammatory material?
-
Each platform decides on its own based on whatever factors it chooses. Rather amazing that it took them years of disgusting lies and statements targeting Sandy Hook parents for it to happen.
-
I think he's a bit of a twit but free speech doesn't mean we allow only the speech we like or agree with...
-
If by “we” you mean the government of the United States, you’re absolutely right...mostly. But his website is still up. His podcasts are still available. He’s not being silenced. So in that sense “we” ARE allowing free speech that many of us dislike.
-
Given the reach of these platforms he's obviously been in some way silenced. Legally, probably nothing is wrong here, these massive media companies are largely a vast unregulated frontier. But is this form of censorship wise for a free society built on free speechm Certainly not.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Apple, Google, Facebook and Spotify don't regulate what can be said online. They regulate what can be said in their online platforms. That Nonbrain-Balloon named Alex Jones still has his own website to spread his lies.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What is there to debate? The man has his own website. There is nothing preventing him from streaming his own media from his own servers. Suck it up.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You're doing yourself a disservice by framing this as an issue of free speech. Again: All these platforms are private actors They are not bound by the right to free speech Their terms of service and contracts they form with subscribers allow the termination of said account.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Who are they protecting with this censorship , If you don't like it unfollow or block, simple
-
Protecting our democracy from targeted misinformation and malicious propaganda dodo.
-
Misinformation comes from both sides of political divide
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.