BAN Alex Jones or The Leftists Will Delete Their Accounts
Socialists, Communists, and Anarchist have always been undesirable in the eyes of the government yet for some reason its the far left advocating censorship on social media. They seem not to realize they will get the ban first. Now we have Wil Wheaton and other high Profile leftists threatening to delete their twitter accounts unless Jack Dorsey bans Alex Jones. Why would people want Jones banned if they can just mute him anyway? They claim it is to stop "abusive information" but what does that mean? Does that mean there must be an arbiter of truth who can guarantee something is not a lie? Many on the left call for censorship but then cry foul when their side gets censored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtfaXlmLoiM&list=PLxQaod7tWvYLYmszYH2QVZbaCZTfh3yIQ&index=1
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The complete and total lack of self-awareness from people associated with the far left never ceases to amaze me.
These groups—revolutionary anarchists, socialists, and communists—know full well the government doesn't like them, spies on them, infiltrates their ranks.
They know full well that given the opportunity, their voices will be shut down, yet for some reason they actually advocate censorship.
We saw many people associated with the right get banned, and they cheered for it.
And then, when Twitter came and banned some of the people associated with the far left, they complained about it.
Well, surprise surprise, this is exactly why people who are pro-free expression have defended the right to an individual's free expression, even when that speech is detestable.
Because if they have the power to ban them, they have the power to ban you.
But now, we are seeing some activist action from some high-profile personalities.
First, we have DeactivDay.
This stands for Deactivate Day, or it's a portmanteau.
The idea is, all of these people starting tomorrow are going to suspend- I'm sorry, they're going to deactivate their Twitter accounts.
If you deactivate your Twitter account, after 30 days, your account is permanently deleted.
The plan is, within 30 days, if Twitter permanently bans Alex Jones, they will reactivate their accounts.
However, if Twitter doesn't do this, they will let the 30 days lapse, and their accounts will be completely deleted.
So there are a few other bits of activist-y, blocklist-type things going on that we'll talk about, but today, I want to take a look at what's going on with censorship, because it is going beyond just Twitter.
There's been a huge wave of censorship across the board, starting with Alex Jones, and now seeping out even into the far left.
So how exactly do you think the far left responded to this kind of censorship against their cause?
But before we get started, let me give a quick shoutout to today's sponsor, Newsvoice.
The app gives you a personalized news feed by aggregating major news sites, as well as international and independent media.
Each news story shows multiple sources, which are all tagged with their bias and perspective.
Check out the Newsvoice app by clicking the link in the description below.
It's available on Google Play and iTunes, and it's totally free.
There's a famous quote, be the change you want to see in the world, and this is an app that allows the community to weigh in and have their voice heard.
So if you want to see the change, it's time to step up and be the change.
Now, for those of you that follow my channel, you may have seen the video I made about Rational Disconnect.
He is a smaller YouTuber.
He has a few thousand Twitter followers.
But he tweeted this in response to the banning of the Proud Boys and Gavin McInnes.
These are two verified accounts.
And he said, But then, when another individual on the far left was
banned, this is how he responded.
This is some BS. Tim is one of the most patient, good-natured people on this website.
Bring him back.
And he shows that Timbo, at Demotimvator, was suspended.
When the right was getting banned, he was happy.
And when the left got bans, he's upset.
Count Dankula had a comment, and he said, If you lick the boot long enough, eventually you'll be
under it, a before and after.
I don't support this happening, but you cheering on this stuff has normalized it
and made it publicly acceptable.
This is the world you built.
But I got your back. You know where to find me.
And he shows a couple accounts who have cheered for censorship,
and then on the other side, them complaining about censorship.
The reason is totally obvious.
I find that many of people feel that the ends justify the means.
Personally, I don't feel that way.
But when they see their enemies censored, they're happy because they're winning.
But keep in mind, they're the fringe extremists too, and Twitter is gonna ban them because Twitter wants to sell diapers and kids meals and burgers.
Now, of course, I took the opportunity to post my own nonsense.
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
And we can see the contrast between cheering for censorship and complaining about it.
I posted this poll to Twitter.
As of the filming of this video, we have about 3,000 votes, and this is really interesting.
I said, should the government regulate social media companies to protect speech?
And it is split evenly.
37% yes, 37% no, and 26% are unsure.
Across the board, people really don't know how to handle this, and opinions are rather divided, even among the right.
But what I find really interesting about all of this is that the left And the right overwhelmingly are taking a conservative position.
The idea being that these massive multinational corporations are private entities that can function as they see fit.
Typically, the left is on the side of regulation, saying, we shouldn't let massive multinational corporations do whatever they want.
And the right is on the side of, well, we don't want government interfering in the free market, and the free market should do it at once.
But now we are seeing people on the left say private business and people on the right saying private business.
But strangely enough, there are even people on the right who are libertarians saying, maybe we do need some regulation.
To me, there's something really nefarious about individuals who would argue.
That social media is so influential, Russia is manipulating our elections by using social media, recognizing just how powerful social media is in the political landscape, but at the same time not call for some kind of regulation when Twitter is just banning whoever they want, and it is often biased.
No, don't get me wrong.
I'm not saying regulation is the right way to go.
I really don't think I'm smart enough to know exactly what anyone should be doing.
But from my Twitter poll, we can see that even among those who follow me, the... It's divided.
Not everybody knows exactly how this should be handled with half saying it should be regulated and half saying it shouldn't.
But don't let that stop the mainstream left for calling for more censorship.
From Mashable, Deactiday, the growing Twitter movement urging users to delete their accounts over Alex Jones.
This is the image that's been shared far and wide.
August 17th is D-Day.
Show Twitter you won't be part of a place that tolerates bigotry and abusive information, specifically from Alex Jones.
Deactivate your account on Friday, August 17th.
Twitter has 30 days to make it right.
After that, account deletions become permanent, and Twitter has lost all of us for good.
Twitter has already suspended Alex Jones for seven days, and he was asked why, and he gave his response.
But I want to talk about something before moving into that.
You have a large group of people demanding that Twitter remove someone for abusive information.
And what does that mean?
They don't think Alex Jones is right?
They think he's crazy?
Or they think he's lying?
Lying is free speech.
Though you can be sued for defamation, slander, or libel, I don't like the idea of people lying, but I recognize that if we say you can't lie, who determines who is a liar?
People are allowed to say what they want because sometimes things are unbelievable, and then we realize they were true.
Well, Twitter did suspend Alex Jones for seven days, and this story from The Hill explains what Jack Dorsey was thinking when he suspended Alex Jones.
In an interview with The Hill, Jack Dorsey said, We're always trying to cultivate more of a learning mindset
and help guide people back towards healthier behaviors and healthier public conversation,
the 41-year-old co-founder of Twitter said.
We also think it's important to clarify what our principles are,
which we haven't done a great job of in the past, and we need to take a step back and make sure
that we are clearly articulating what those mean and what our objectives are.
Alex Jones was banned by Apple, Facebook, Spotify, YouTube, but Twitter argued he didn't break any rules on their platform.
However, they said that on Tuesday he did violate its policies by linking to a Periscope video in which he urged his followers to take up battle rifles in the crusade against censorship.
Dorsey said, Alex Jones often speaks metaphorically.
around the tweet and the periscope that the content was inciting violence,
which is against our terms of service, and we took action.
Alex Jones often speaks metaphorically.
I don't think he was actually telling people to go and buy guns to attack censorship,
because that's telling people to attack an abstract concept.
He was obviously being metaphorical.
However, many people thought that it was literal, even though you can't literally take a gun and shoot censorship.
It doesn't- that's not possible.
But nonetheless, Dorsey said, you know what?
That is incitement to violence.
We're gonna suspend Alex Jones.
Jack Dorsey says that he wants to guide people's behavior.
And I do agree that giving people a warning is better than outright banning.
But this also means that Twitter has a set of behaviors they find acceptable, and a set of behaviors they don't find acceptable, and they are going to coerce you into agreeing to their point of view and functioning in their way.
Essentially, there are beliefs, opinions, and statements that are totally legal, and not necessarily against the rules, but you will be punished and guided back into the right way to behave by a massive multinational corporation.
I gotta say, that concerns me quite a bit.
I don't know if it concerns you.
Look, if someone's actually advocating for violence, yeah, that's problematic.
We can't have that.
But Alex Jones dances on the line, and I think he does it on purpose.
Telling people to take up battle rifles against censorship, well, you know he's not literally telling them to go buy guns because you can't shoot censorship.
But it's close enough to where Twitter said we're going to have to tell them not to do this.
And this means that certain metaphors aren't going to be allowed on these platforms.
But it isn't just D-Day.
There's another action being taken on behalf of angry Twitter users urging more censorship.
Shannon Coulter tweeted, Good morning.
To encourage Twitter to drop Alex Jones, I just blocked the Twitter accounts of every Fortune 500 company with a Twitter presence.
Ready to mass block Twitter's most lucrative advertisers with me?
There are three quick and easy ways instructions are in this thread.
This has nearly 40,000 retweets.
It has 37,099 retweets.
In her thread, she tells you exactly what you can do.
She says that you can download a block list, and by clicking it, clicking Block All and Subscribe, you will immediately block every Fortune 500 company.
And this is her way of saying we're not going to be subjected to the advertisements of major companies if they still support Alex Jones.
Why is Twitter so important?
Why do people want Alex Jones banned from Twitter?
Well, look.
If they don't like Alex Jones, they can simply block him.
They can block whoever they want.
They can mute whoever they want.
This is about restricting ideas from the public sphere, and both sides are arguing for it.
Now, the right argues much less for it than the left.
Many people on the right tend to be more libertarian and are saying, hey, people should have free expression.
There are people on the left who also believe in free expression.
For instance, Count Dankula is center-left, rather centrist, but he's also for free expression, as are people like Sargon of Akkad and Chris Ragon.
But again, there are many people who want to restrict certain ideas on Twitter.
What that says to me is that Twitter is the battleground of political debate, and it's mostly the left that is willing to use unprincipled or dirty tricks to win against the right, because there are alternative platforms.
Will Wheaton announced that he was going to deactivate his Twitter account, but said that he would be on CounterSocial, a social media site typically used by those who are concerned with Russian meddling.
Wil Wheaton said, Thanks for listening.
If you just can't live without my dumb jokes, resistance posts, and pictures of my pets,
I'll still be at Instagram and Facebook, at CounterSocial, and of course, WilWheaton.net.
And for those that aren't familiar, CounterSocial is the first social network platform to take a zero-tolerance
stance to hostile nations, bot accounts, and trolls, who are weaponizing our social media platforms and freedoms
to engage in influence operations against us.
And we're here to counter it, with advanced user protection features such as KosoGuard identity alerts to minimize your attack surface, Your online footprint instantly becomes safer.
And you can tell if Will Wheaton is using this and telling people to follow him there, just what kind of group is going to be active on this platform.
And then there are platforms like Gab, which they say are free speech, and you end up with a lot of people who are more on the right.
And then there's Mines.
Mines is the platform that I use that when I'm, you know, when I'm not on Twitter or Facebook, and I gotta say Mines is more of a...
Broad, libertarian kind of perspective.
You've got people associated with left libertarianism, you know, more anti-war activists.
You've got people on the right.
I find Mines to be probably the better of alternative social media networks.
And I don't think it's even fair to call them alternative because they're a viable platform.
I've got 45,000 followers on Mines, and I get a ton of interaction, and that's really impressive.
But the real point I want to make here is that the left and the right are segregating themselves to alternative platforms.
And the battleground is Twitter.
The reason why everybody has to be on Twitter is because that's where the public is.
And that means if you want to influence the public, you have to be on the mainstream platform.
Obviously, if you want to be in an echo chamber, you can go to CounterSocial for the left, or Gab for the right.
And I'm not saying those platforms are exclusively left and right, but if Wil Wheaton's advocating for one, and we know Gab advocates for free speech, but is dominated by more right-wing personalities, then yes, people are starting to self-segregate themselves.
This is bad for Twitter.
Because if people are saying, Twitter, you must ban Alex Jones, the only reason they're doing it is because they know they're on a battlefield, and they want to restrict certain ideas.
If they want to only hear themselves, they can go anywhere else.
But they want to make sure that you can't hear Alex Jones.
The last thing I want to say is that Twitter argues they don't ban people based on politics, just behavior.
Well, we can see from The Verge that the left believes not banning is a political choice.
So there really is no winning for Twitter.
This story says, by not banning Alex Jones, Twitter is making a political choice.
There's literally nothing Jack Dorsey can do.
He banned the Proud Boys, but he didn't ban Antifa.
He did ban some people associated with the far left, but the question remains, why is it that a group like Antifa, which has been labeled domestic terrorists by the Department of Homeland Security, is fine and able to function?
Now, people have argued, where has Antifa ever said anything violent on Twitter?
And that's not the point.
The point is, Jack Dorsey says they're going to ban extremist groups, and they're looking at offline behavior.
In which case, why isn't Antifa banned?
I don't think anybody should be banned.
I don't think Antifa should be banned.
I don't think the Proud Boys should be banned.
I don't know actually where the line is, because honestly, I don't think I'm smart enough.
Look, some people do need to be banned, and certain behaviors do need to be restricted.
I don't know what those are, and I tend to err on the side of free expression simply because I don't know where they are.
And I certainly don't want them to ban me.
What if I did a news story that was controversial and people didn't believe it?
Am I going to get banned?
It's possible, and that's a scary future.
Suffice it to say, those who advocated for free speech have been right all along.
Because when we see the reaction from people associated with the left, we're not surprised.
They cheer for censorship until they get censored.
Is that surprising to anybody?
I don't think so.
Because Twitter is the political battleground.
So is YouTube, so is Facebook, but Twitter really is where the fight is happening, the war of ideas, and it's almost ground zero for the culture war.
I don't know if it necessarily is, but I really do think so, and I think that's why censorship is so important.
Censorship is a dirty trick to win against your opponents when you can't argue with them, or they overpower you in terms of their will.
So I don't know exactly what's gonna happen.
But I do think people are going to start moving to isolated social media platforms like Gab, like Countersocial.
I know Gab might say that their goal is to be free speech for everybody, but you know what kind of crowd that's going to attract.
And Countersocial says they fight bots, and you know what kind of crowd that's going to attract.
People are going to isolate themselves, and this is the divide getting really, really bad.
Because at least when you're on Twitter, there is a chance for crossover.
But if we all move to platforms that are only certain groups, there is no crossover.
And I can only imagine that's going to make the culture war get a whole lot worse.
But let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
What are your thoughts on censorship?
How do you feel about the great Jack Thanos-ing of Twitter?
Let me know.
We'll keep the conversation going, as I said.
Thanks so much for watching.
Stay tuned.
I've got new videos every day at 4 p.m.
and new videos up on my second channel starting at 6 p.m.
