obviously. I am a firm believer in strong 1st amendment rights but this is a ludicrous debate to me. people like Alex Jones that argue in bad faith deserve the right to say things, but they do not deserve the right to broadcast speech via a private company, and I think twitter had a moral obligation to prevent holocaust deniers and sandy hook truthers from broadcasting on their (not government owned) platform
tldr - twitter should ban Alex Jones
I'm really interested in how twitter people feel about this
TC 170 / 3 yoe
Want to see the real deal?
More inside scoop? View in App
More inside scoop? View in App
blind
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
FOLLOWING
Industries
Job Groups
- Software Engineering
- Product Management
- Information Technology
- Data Science & Analytics
- Management Consulting
- Hardware Engineering
- Design
- Sales
- Security
- Investment Banking & Sell Side
- Marketing
- Private Equity & Buy Side
- Corporate Finance
- Supply Chain
- Business Development
- Human Resources
- Operations
- Legal
- Admin
- Customer Service
- Communications
Return to Office
Work From Home
COVID-19
Layoffs
Investments & Money
Work Visa
Housing
Referrals
Job Openings
Startups
Office Life
Mental Health
HR Issues
Blockchain & Crypto
Fitness & Nutrition
Travel
Health Care & Insurance
Tax
Hobbies & Entertainment
Working Parents
Food & Dining
IPO
Side Jobs
Show more
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
comments
But the fact that a small handful of tech companies can so quickly "de-platform" an unpopular person is disconcerting, especially since this ban was spurred by another partisan activist group.
Edit: also 170k TC? Ask for a raise man.
Companies should have editorial control over their platform just as much as movie studios did during the red scare. Unfortunately there's a visible effort by those who want to co-opt it to go after more than just the clearly detestable.
tldr: No.
I think the mistake was for them to cite hate speech (Facebook esp.) as the primary justification (something something constitution). 'Inciting violence' would’ve been a more defensible rationale, but may not be something that holds up in court (strongest evidence is mainly in one video). But it doesn't have to, AAPL/FB/TWTR are free to deem him a harm to the community (I would agree) and ban-worthy (I wouldn't agree).
What I think this boils down to is precedent (not to say this is somehow suddenly a super slippery slope and we should all panic). I think the right decision would have been to take the video that was was inciting violence down (‘put your guns by your bedside get ready for the war’ etc), with a temp ban + warning not to upload content that incites violence.
The fact is the decision (which came ‘from the top’) was in-part ideologically fueled, which makes it that much more complicated. And I don’t mean to say liberal vs conservative, just differing meta ideologies and their interpretations of what ‘doing the right thing' is. In any case, it’s too easy in our tweet-ified age to yell what you see as so obviously right and the only valid argument, without realizing such behavior actually prevents progress in the right direction.
So no I don’t think Twitter needs to ban him. But they do need to come up with creative ways to enforce the kind of community they want on the platform.