Recently, Twitter made a significant decision and banned conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his platform, Info Wars. This follows the move a week earlier by Twitter and several other companies like YouTube, Apple and Facebook, of suspending his accounts.
Why? Jones has a history of spouting false and vile things from his platforms, and he has broken the rules of Twitter several times before. He has typed some truly detestable Tweets, like peddling conspiracies about the Sandy Hook shooting and Pizzagate. So, by no means is Jones a reputable member to have on the site.
I abhor Alex Jones, but if Twitter is banning people like this, how are they going to decide who else to ban? People break Twitter rules all the time, and they don’t get banned.
This is precisely the crossroads that Twitter and other social media outlets are facing. Are you going to allow the free exchange of ideas, or are you only going to only allow certain ideas? Are you going to regulate speech, or are you not? And, if you are, what criteria are you going to use to make this determination?
This process of determining who and what ideas will be allowed is very important. Specifically, when these social media companies are facing very realistic accusations that they are censoring, or “shadow-banning,” legitimite conservative voices.
You would assume that they would ban those who break their rules, or at least consistently break the rules, but that’s not what they’re doing now. They’re picking and choosing.
If they’re going to regulate speech, which they can, they should have a fair process to govern who can and can’t use their platform. Right now, they’re picking and choosing who to ban.
To see this, all you have to do is Google notorious racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan — who has referred to Hitler as a “very good man” and has even been referred to as “black Hitler.” He has Tweeted some absolutely heinous things over the years, and he still has his Twitter account.
It’s Twitter’s right to ban Alex Jones. They’re a private company, they can ban whoever they want, and they don’t have to have a reason. They can ban Alex Jones because he’s a dolt and pedals stupid “super male vitality” pills on his website. They can ban him for thinking there are lizard people or that the government is putting chemicals in the water to turn the frogs gay. They have no obligation to allow him to use their platform.
However, if they want to be a reputable company and a place for people to share news and ideas, they need to be consistent and reliable. Sure, they can ban whoever they want, but if they are censoring ideas, they need to be very careful. They need to decide how they are going to apply their standards in a fair, unbiased way if they want to remain a respectable company.
Michael Jones is a senior in business at Auburn, the communications director for the Auburn College Republicans and a contributor to The Lone Conservative, a conservative blog focusing on college issues.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
