Apple Permanently Bans 'Infowars' App From the App Store

[thisisnotmyname]

One of this guy’s myriad followers shot up a pizzeria and threatened several lives. Others have spent years attacking and harassing the Sandy Hook parents and ruining their lives. Still think it’s all fun and games, and about simple disagreement of dissenting opinions? It would do everyone a world of good if people would stop pretending like every conflict in this world is as basic as a discussion of opposing viewpoints over coffee.

He's a total jerk and it's really hard to feel sorry for him. I don't like using an individual or group's audience to judge their legitimacy though. One major religion had followers who flew planes into buildings. Another had followers who bombed abortion clinics. One major political party had a constituent shoot up a baseball game. Another major political party had a constituent run down demonstrators with his car. I don't think we should start asking for Democrats, Republicans, Christianity, and Islam to be banned from the internet (even though it could improve the place). Alex Jones has done enough personally for you to impugn him without having to resort to what people who listened to the show did.

I'm nearly an absolutist when it comes to free speech and I realize I'm in the minority in that opinion. Lots of people support free speech as long as it doesn't offend their own sensibilities and in doing so believe they are strong supporters of the concept as well but it's the speech that is objectionable, that's repugnant to the majority, that most needs protection. Further, when the platform for speech reaches such a scale that non-governmental entities removing speakers they disagree with will stifle that speech then I think it needs protection from those private parties. An oligopoly of internet giants all removing speech they mutually dislike can relegate it to being unheard and speech that is not heard... well trees falling in forests comes to mind.

 

[nviz22]

Great news! Alex Jones has no place in media because all he does is spread conspiracies, hysteria, and lunnacy. One of the biggest con-men around.

 

[Jsameds]

Great news! Alex Jones has no place in media because all he does is spread conspiracies, hysteria, and lunnacy. One of the biggest con-men around.

So does religion. Shall we ban that too? How about Flat Earthers? Anti-vaccers? Antifa? All politicians?

Tell me, where do you draw the line?

 

[LinusR]

The IPCC's spaghetti graph would like a word with you.

Science should not be orthodoxy. We should continue to question and validate and learn from new data as they are obtained. We've had a pause or plateau in warning, we had adjustments to predicted warming, these are all good things and part of the process of understanding the world and how it works. Simple saying, "Mann had a graph with a steep curve at the end in 1998, end of discussion," wouldn't be healthy for anyone. Further, despite evidence to varying degrees of warming that then doesn't lead one to the sole conclusion that it was man made. There are many potential contributors and many forms of natural variance that we don't yet fully understand. Stop labeling people as "denier" (or "alarmist") and realize that science is driven by questions and never fully settled.

While I fully agree with you that a vital part of science is repeated and iterated questioning of conclusions and observing and interpreting new data, I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion. If 99.9% of meteorology/physics/etc. experts come to the same conclusion, having analysed and interpreted all existing data, who is any non-expert without the insight and experience to claim otherwise? What is their statement based on? It can't be facts, because those were used by experts who came to a different conclusion.

If you can come up with an opposing theory that explains global warming (or any other scientifically explained phenomenon) just as well as the experts' one(s), the stage is yours. But, and that's my actual point, most of those people I called deniers earlier don't have the qualification to make such a claim. How big is the proportion of scientists claiming climate change is not human made? And how big is the proportion of climate change deniers who are not scientists (i.e. do not have a degree in meteorology/physics/etc.)?

Of course, questioning and validating is crucial, again, I agree with you. But if people only claim "I disagree because I'm not convinced" but fail to come up with a scientifically sound theory explaining their point of view, then that's not questioning, that's just being ignorant.

 

[hagar]

So does religion. Shall we ban that too? How about Flat Earthers? Anti-vaccers? Antifa?

You make a very good point. The world would definitely be better of without all these.

Think back to when the App Store was first opened. How much backlash Apple got over the concept that it was a walled garden store, and the option to independently load external apps on your iPhone was blocked by the OS software (you could jailbreak and play the cat and mouse game until Apple plugged the software holes). Basically, that this was being set up in a very bad way and would leave a lot of room for Apple to control what you could or couldn't do or what content you could or couldn't see on your own devise.

Remember that time? Remember the countless number of people who said they should be able to put whatever Apps on their phone as they wanted. If they wanted to use the App Store, great, but they shouldn't be actively prevented from loading third party apps on a phone they purchased. Basically, like how things run currently on MacOS.

This is an example of when Apple not only distributes what someone can install on their phone, but also actively prevents you from having the choice to install software via 3rd party solutions. This is what the original backlash spoke of. Not to the specifics of the WHOEVER is deleted from the app store this week, but the mechanisms by which it is possible. You'll find this story all over the place over the past few years, whether it's Apple using their leverage to charge whatever fee they want on app developers (feel free to read about Spotify), to blocking perfectly valid apps because they may compete with what Apple software does (feel free to read about Valve), or because an app has sexual content (remember all of the non-relevant apps that were deleted in the wake of that particularly ******** company initiative?).

You make some valid points regarding a walled garden versus open market. And I'm aware of both advantages and disadvantages. What I'm wondering is why conservatives make this a political issue by stating this is a left wing attack on their freedom. The right should distance themselves from a despicable person like Alex Jones, not defend him or use him to make this a political move.

 

[JayMysterio]

Well since there is still hate speech, or the advocation of violence on all the aforementioned platforms that can be found at the drop of a hat, the rules are by default being applied unevenly.

Once again, it is what you are saying. As I've learned on this forum and in this very thread. There is and isn't hate speech. What some consider hate speech isn't hate speech at all it seems. And that all speech is protected, seemingly as long as it's speech the person isn't offended by it.

End of the day, Jones was warned repeatedly he was crossing a line, and Jone's arrogance led him to believe there would be no repercussions. Unlike in the kneeling situation, Jones broke specific rules repeatedly, was warned, and it was the company's right to enforce those rules.

 

[WRChris]

Great new. This guy is about as bad as it gets. A civilised society has no place for hate speech.

Or free speech apparently. I’m no Alex jones fan but the guy should be allowed to talk and not be targeted by companies because they don’t agree with him and his followers. I know some people who listen to aj and they are some of the nicest people I have ever met.

 

[Neepman]

Everyone who believes in freedom and free speech and expression should be appalled by this. I would rather have such view points out in the open for examination or ridicule.

 

[Jsameds]

Once again, it is what you are saying. As I've learned on this forum and in this very thread. There is and isn't hate speech. What some consider hate speech isn't hate speech at all it seems. And that all speech is protected, seemingly as long as it's speech the person isn't offended by it.

End of the day, Jones was warned repeatedly he was crossing a line, and Jone's arrogance led him to believe there would be no repercussions. Unlike in the kneeling situation, Jones broke specific rules repeatedly, was warned, and it was the company's right to enforce those rules.

I don’t really care for opinion, the fact remains that the rules are being applied unevenly, and that’s plain wrong.

 

[thadoggfather]

Jones is free to continue threatening people and spewing bile all he wants.

Where did jones threaten someone?

Or is this just fake news

 

[Jsameds]

Everyone who believes in freedom and free speech and expression should be appalled by this. I would rather have such view points out in the open for examination or ridicule.

Everyone willingly marching into 1984 simply because this time it fits their particular agenda.

Very disturbing. The public are so easily duped.

 

[Nuvi]

Truly civilized “societies” let their members decide for themselves

Yep, those countries already decided and they don’t tolerate hate speech (via democratic process of legislation). Nordic countries, which according to almost every measurable metric are the most civilised countries in the world also have very strong laws against hate speech which trump (pun intended) free speech. It’s worth mentioning that these countries rank among the highest also in freedom of press. That said, hate speech represented in Infowars wouldn’t be tolerated there.

 

[Neepman]

One of this guy’s myriad followers shot up a pizzeria and threatened several lives. Others have spent years attacking and harassing the Sandy Hook parents and ruining their lives. Still think it’s all fun and games, and about simple disagreement of dissenting opinions? It would do everyone a world of good if people would stop pretending like every conflict in this world is as basic as a discussion of opposing viewpoints over coffee.

There are close to 330 million people in the USA. The number of nutjobs harassing parents of dead kids is below being even remotely statistically significant.

 

[truthertech]

Great new. This guy is about as bad as it gets. A civilised society has no place for hate speech.

No one has a Constitutional right to use any of these platforms, so this isn't a free speech issue. However, whenever people use the term "hate speech," it always brings to mind the hateful, vile things that many of them (not assuming you have) have used against the person they are celebrating being banned. It's amazing how it doesn't connect in their brain, or maybe they simply don't care, the level of their hypocrisy and that they are arguing that they should be censored as well.

One of the best recent examples was on the CultCast podcast, (which is usually apolitical and a great fun podcast if you haven't tried it), where one of the hosts was using an extreme amount of profanity and hate speech towards AJ, and he was so worked up that he started yelling that "there should be no tolerance for the intolerant." LOL.

It's also interesting that people who dislike AJ would want him banned. He has been melting down more than usual, e.g., his extraordinarily juvenile, nutty performance when he tried to interfere with Senator Rubio's press conference, and you'd think his critics would love to see his lunacy on display to folks.

 

[Neepman]

No, actually they don’t and that’s a fact. Nordic countries, which according to almost every measurable metric are the most civilised countries in the world also have very strong laws against hate speech which trump (pun intended) free speech. It’s worth mentioning that these countries rank among the highest also in freedom of press. That said, hate speech represented in Infowars wouldn’t be tolerated there.

The only way that model works is with homogenous ethnic populations and Sweden and Norway are finding out these days it ain't working so well anymore.

 

[Jsameds]

You make a very good point. The world would definitely be better of without all these.

Whoosh!

 

[JayMysterio]

I don’t really care for opinion, the fact remains that the rules are being applied unevenly, and that’s plain wrong.

Ironically, it's your opinion that the rules are being applied unevenly. The companies seem to disagree with you.

 

[hagar]

The IPCC's spaghetti graph would like a word with you.

Science should not be orthodoxy. We should continue to question and validate and learn from new data as they are obtained. We've had a pause or plateau in warning, we had adjustments to predicted warming, these are all good things and part of the process of understanding the world and how it works. Simple saying, "Mann had a graph with a steep curve at the end in 1998, end of discussion," wouldn't be healthy for anyone. Further, despite evidence to varying degrees of warming that then doesn't lead one to the sole conclusion that it was man made. There are many potential contributors and many forms of natural variance that we don't yet fully understand. Stop labeling people as "denier" (or "alarmist") and realize that science is driven by questions and never fully settled.

If more than 99% scientists claim climate is changing, and the current trends we are observing, back up these claims, we should not all be questioning their statements. It's not because one scientist claims AIDS does not exist, we should all question the usefulness of condoms. Science advances gradually, and yes, sometimes mistakes are made, but it's still the most reliable process to advance the truth we have today. And that truth currently states the climate and planet are moving in a very dangerous direction. The smart and logical thing to do is to act on it, and stop polluting our planet. Better be safe than sorry.

And it's not like the solutions to climate change are some weird controversial voodoo. It's simple: less pollution by not burning fossil fuels. The only reason why people are against this are: politics, power and money. When we change our society and economy, there will be winners and losers.

It's beyond me, we are taking such a huge risks with our planet, because the potential losers have hijacked the scientific debate and turned it into something political. Climate change is happening, whether you believe it or not, and whether we as a society have an answer for it or not.

 

[Jsameds]

Ironically, it's your opinion that the rules are being applied unevenly. The companies seem to disagree with you.

No it’s not opinion, I have already demonstrated this earlier RE Sarah Jeong.

Also there are tens of thousands of examples of hate speech on those platforms right now. Same goes for advocation of violence, yet they remain.

The rules are not applied evenly. It’s a demonstrable fact.

 

[now i see it]

Such a brouhaha. AJ is an entertainer. Anyone with half a mind can figure out after listening to him rant for a few minutes that he's a crank out to stir up the pot. Really, it's doubtful anyone takes him seriously. His "show" is just that. A show. He's kinda amusing some times... and not -everything- he talks about is wrong. Just most of it. There's definitely nuggets of truth in his rantings some times. I personally don't have the patience to listen to him rant, but he never swayed my thinking one way or the other. The OFF button is easy to push.

But AJ broadcasts on shortwave radio too and nobody can turn that off. He doesn't need any apps or podcasts. He'll still be broadcasting to the world until he throws in the towel. Liberal media shutting him down only strengthens and furthers his cause.

 

[rezenclowd3]

 

[SgtPepper12]

As much as I think Alex Jones is sort of crazy in his presentation of at the very least questionable "facts", I think that was a wrong move, for several reasons, namely:

• I really do believe free speech is important. Now, you may say, they are private cooperations and they can do as they please, but when you have multiple cooperations with a quasi-monopole actually sync to ban one person from their platforms, that does ring a few bells. Again, de facto nothing criminal, but I think it's a weak move and sets an uncomfortable precedent.
• Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. He isn't even always completely wrong in that regard, but he just loves to puzzle unrelated stuff together and weave it into some pattern, just to be completely convinced by it for no good reason. If you ban people like this, that doesn't exactly make the whole situation look better for anyone (See Streisand effect)
• They are not applying consistent guidelines. It's not like there is some very specific rule that Jones violated. He did cross a few lines of decency when he claimed school shootings are performed by actors, but so do others on these platforms. In the end, what I see here is a clear political bias, that they are of course allowed to have, but it makes them look pretty weak.
• Alex Jones and his followers will now go more-or-less underground. People will now have their platforms safe-spaced, but the "evil" is not gone. They move elsewhere, and if anything grow more radical and even less careful. I don't see any net positive beyond making overly sensitive people feel less threatened, whatever the benefit of that is exactly.

So, I'm not saying that people like Alex Jones are in any way worth defending, but I'd say it is definitely not a wise decision. Especially considering that the more these companies give in to public pressure, the more they will be held responsible for the contents they are providing. From a business perspective that is plain stupid. They don't want this.

 

[thadoggfather]

I don’t know why people’s
Opinion of Alex jones matters at all / is relevant to Apple’s action of trampling on free speech in lockstep with the other tech overlords

If you loved him it wouldn’t be acceptable to ban him then or something? Or replace Alex jones with your favorite pundit. Now it changes doesn’t it?

But because you find him obnoxious and has peddled some
Stuff proven to be not true (cnn does the same and I would
Argue way worse) but you can make up your own mind. Without a platform now your mind is made up for
Ya

I don’t want cnn banned even tho I loathe them and find their rhetoric and false information to be outright harmful to the public. Because I respect free speech. So if
You feel that way about jones, how does this change that?

 

[thisisnotmyname]

While I fully agree with you that a vital part of science is repeated and iterated questioning of conclusions and observing and interpreting new data, I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion. If 99.9% of meteorology/physics/etc. experts come to the same conclusion, having analysed and interpreted all existing data, who is any non-expert without the insight and experience to claim otherwise? What is their statement based on? It can't be facts, because those were used by experts who came to a different conclusion.

If you can come up with an opposing theory that explains global warming (or any other scientifically explained phenomenon) just as well as the experts' one(s), the stage is yours. But, and that's my actual point, most of those people I called deniers earlier don't have the qualification to make such a claim. How big is the proportion of scientists claiming climate change is not human made? And how big is the proportion of climate change deniers who are not scientists (i.e. do not have a degree in meteorology/physics/etc.)?

Of course, questioning and validating is crucial, again, I agree with you. But if people only claim "I disagree because I'm not convinced" but fail to come up with a scientifically sound theory explaining their point of view, then that's not questioning, that's just being ignorant.

How self selected to one perspective are climate scientists? Unfortunately I think the debate started with such a politicized landscape that many people who went into the field did so not for the sake of scientific curiosity but rather because they had a preformed opinion on the matter and wanted to be part of the cause.

There are plenty of unanswered questions that could greatly affect our understanding of the matter though and you don't have to be a climate scientist to be able to ask them. First of all, the link with man made emissions. This initially came from correlation of the hockey stick graph with the timeline of use of fossil fuels. Then we had models based upon CO2 and later methane that were intended to reinforce those conclusions but those models haven't held up to real observed temperatures (my original reference last post to the spaghetti graph). Some have claimed that because of the magnitude in rise contrasted against the relative consistency of the last 1000 years it has to be man that changed. Well the Neoproterozoic (sp?) era was about 15 degrees celsius hotter and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was five or more degrees celsius hotter and you definitely can't pin either of those on man. The impulse on both those events was far lower but now we're talking about measurements that happen far more frequently (as opposed to indirect sources used to determine temperatures in both of those time periods) and that can have error themselves. The data (which is the underpinning of your stance) has all been adjusted. We need to, if we took it in raw form it wouldn't be correct. We have heat island effects, different measurement devices, even things as simple as placement of the sensor that all affect the readings. When we're talking about differences of a fraction of a degree all of these adjustments matter. When comparing surface based sources which are more subject to these variances to satellite based measurement which are not you also get variance (satellite data showing little to no warming). Finally, natural variances that we don't fully understand and can't adequately quantify the effect of account for half or more of climate variation. That big fireball in the sky has a major impact on our temperature and it goes through periods of higher and lower activity. The oceans' temperature variances aren't fully understood and they act as giant heat sinks for us. Even geo activity has effects.

Then there are the outcomes. Models haven't accurately predicted temperature change for the last 20 years. Early proponents of man's effect on climate predicted disastrous effects that haven't materialized. Additional CO2 in the atmosphere also has beneficial effects (e.g. on plant life). We can differ in our opinion as to how serious the issue is based upon our observance and understand of the outcomes.

Then finally you get into potential policy change to deal with the more dangerous potential outcomes of climate change. Many are put forth with unequal impact on "rich" and "poor" nations which seems discordant with the global nature of the issue and the predicted apocalyptic impact. Then there are wealth redistribution aspects of transferring funds from rich to poor countries as a sort of reparations for the situation. Then you get into cap and trade approaches which arguably allow big contributors to continue contributing especially if you roll in carbon offsets to the mix. Some technical approaches with very little fiscal impact are dismissed outright (i.e. pumping reflective particulate matter into the ionosphere). There are definite motivations beyond the science in each of these policy recommendations. Regardless of where you stand on any of the scientific questions you can still have objections to any of the policy proposals being made in response.

So yes, I feel there's room for intelligent people to have different stances on the very wide range of issues under the umbrella of climate change without be blind to science.

 

[JayMysterio]

No it’s not opinion, I have already demonstrated this earlier RE Sarah Jeong.

Also there are tens of thousands of examples of hate speech on those platforms right now. Same goes for advocation of violence, yet they remain.

The rules are not applied evenly. It’s a demonstrable fact.

In the case of Sarah Jeong there was mention about how her tweets were satire. Those on the right like yourself often choose to post specific singular quotes out of context of the entire conversation. If Twitter saw those tweets as satire, she isn't much to your selectively outrage, breaking their rules. Once again bear in mind. Jones broke those rules over and over and over and over, was warned, and he didn't care. Now he's paying the price. It isn't political speech. It's a business sticking to their established rules. Something many actually criticized Twitter for because it gave Jones so many chances.

To paraphrase the saying, just because you have the right of free speech, it doesn't mean it frees you from consequences of said speech. Jones finally had to learn that lesson.