Twitter Bans Alex Jones, A Few Questions For Them

Twitter has, as we all knew they would eventually do, suspended Alex Jones’ account and banned him from Twitter.

https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1037806327584776193

What was the reason for this banning? Apparently, Twitter accused Alex Jones of violating their “abusive behavior policy”.

This is the foundation of the policy that Twitter claims Alex Jones violated.

Basic POlicy

However, the left views “abuse” differently than what is realistic. Realistically abuse is being targeted by someone, involuntarily having to submit to them in some way, and having an inability to fight back.

On Twitter, onlookers voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones and viewed his content. They also had just as much freedom to block him as soon as they made an account. Realistically if the left had a distaste for his content they would have taken the two seconds it took out of their day to simply block him and never heard from him again. If a person voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones with full knowledge that he has had signs of what Twitter calls “abusive behavior” in the past, are they not consenting to the possibility of their engagement also being hostile? Not saying that he WAS hostile, many who reported him were just as hostile as they accused him of being. So the reality is, they weren’t mad at his content being offensive, so much as they were angry at him having a voice at all. They were angry that he had a right to speak his mind!

Can we really say anyone is abusive if the party in question is being voluntarily approached by their opponents? Is the approach of a person’s platform or reply to their tweet not technically consent to their alleged ‘hate speech’ (I do not believe in the left’s version of hate speech)?

However Twitter seems to think, like many leftists, that a person doesn’t need to be the target of the content for the speaker to be considered abusive.

screenshot-help.twitter.com-2018.09.06-22-01-31

In Twitter’s own words, as long as there is a possibility you’ve offended someone, there is a possibility your account is getting suspended. Depending on the demand, Twitter will ban you based on the amount of people who deem your content as hateful.

And Twitter is filled with little cupcakes waiting to press that ‘Report’ button.

This leads me to question, does Twitter have the right to even make this standard on their platform since twitter considers itself a platform and NOT a media? Yes, they’re a private company, but there are laws when it comes to platforms. They claim not to be a media simply because they don’t produce content. However, if they regulate the content that IS produced, can they not be established AS a publishing platform regardless of owning the actual creators who are producing the content? And if they are truly a free speech platform, do they have a right to regulate content like this at all within the sovereignty of the United States? In either direction, did they have a right to rip the rug out from under Alex Jones’ feet over unfounded claims he violated their policy? Does he not have the right to see the evidence, a right to dispute the claims?

When it comes to their platform, they’re either one or the other. It is a slippery slope and they cannot crawl their way out of the rabbit hole they, and other social media platforms, have created for themselves.

 

Advertisements

Social Media Has No Business Parenting US: Back OFF!

Featured

There was a point in time when you hit the age of eighteen, you were on your own. It’s funny how our lives are mere pawns to be used in war at eighteen, yet you need to use your parent’s information for financial aid all the way up until you’re twenty-five unless you divorce them. I had to wait until I was twenty five years old to go to college, I couldn’t receive the financial aid that I needed and I didn’t know that something as absurd as divorcing your parents even existed. I have been on my own since I was eighteen and I have received next to zero help from either of my parents.

People make conscious choices to do things, this isn’t just a matter of free speech, it’s also a freedom to choose what I listen to. Sorry, but the last person who tried to control everything in my life ended up not seeing me again. I firmly believe in the freedom of choice, even if it means hearing things I don’t necessarily agree with. By deeming certain content as “hateful”, they are becoming the parent I didn’t ask for. The parent that I don’t want, need, and quite frankly am insulted to be given. I am not a child to shepherded around.

Banning Alex Jones is like placing parental content filters on America’s computers as though he’s rated ‘R’. It’s insulting to think that you supposedly know what’s best for me to see. You see it as ‘hateful’, yet you don’t seem to have a problem with the Facebook page Death To America consisting of 1,347 people when I last counted it, Twitter having countless accounts registered under Death To America, they’re shaddowbanning conservative accounts.

screenshot-twitter.com-2018-08-10-23-38-17

However, this doesn’t seem to disturb these social media billionaires, they’re just practicing their right to religious practice. Thankfully, twitter hasn’t completely gone off the deep end and is one of the few social medias that hasn’t botted Alex Jones off yet.

Youtube doesn’t seem to mind not listing videos according to what’s popular now either. According to Mark Dice, new algorithms now make sure that what they think comes before what you’re looking for, even if the title is written word for word:

This one reveals YouTube puts mainstream media first instead of by who gets the most views (whom they just recently banned anyways and haven’t changed the algorithms)

This one reveals how YouTube intentionally scrambles your search results try to get you think like you do.

Here’s an example of how this works, there’s also another algorithm that’s gone up. If you search a controversial subject, it will post a link with mainstream beliefs linked to them to try to ‘unbrainwash’ you.

Social media is a platform to voice all opinions. If it were a place for kids to simply play on it, you wouldn’t have to verity you were a certain age. Since when was it legal to shut down another person’s right to publish and distribute to his/her audience? When did corporations have the right to take my chosen media source away from me as though I were some child that had to be moderated? It’s funny how you have to be 18 to hold a youtube account (13 with a parent’s permission), but can still be parented like you’re some little kid that can’t take a few shots of reality.

Alex Jones, though I don’t agree with him and do take him for a nut job at times, should have his accounts reinstated. He hasn’t hurt anyone, hasn’t incited violence of any kind, if the most he has done is presented conspiracy theories then do nothing more than voice your opinion as to why they are conspiracy theories. You do nothing more than bring validity to his claims by cutting off his voice. If  social media is not in fact social then I will treat you like any other controlling parent, divorce you. These are class action lawsuits waiting to happen, people don’t like having their voices cut off, or the content they love taken away from them by force.