Virtually nobody claims Alex Jones had a formal legal right to access any of the platforms he was banished from. But that's exactly the issue. He was effectively vanquished from the public square -- and there's no legal recourse, checks and balances, or oversight mechanism
-
He has his own web space. Losing access to the media networks hurts him but it’s what happens since he breaks the rules. He can share his ideas and then be banned/ignored/discredited for it. That’s the freedom of the idea marketplace.
Do you think the 'rules' are applied objectively and fairly?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Gawker didn't get deplatformed and excluded from the public square based on its political content. It got sued, and people realized it was horrible. See the difference?
End of conversation
-
-
-
No I don’t but that’s the inherent Golden Rule. The one with the Gold makes the Rules. When a user of a network gathers disrepute and harms your brand, then the rule makers get annoyed and ban you.
-
How exactly was he hurting the brands of YouTube and Facebook?
- 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.