Twitter’s CEO Explains Why The Platform Didn’t Ban Alex Jones

The other day, Facebook decided to remove a handful of pages related to Alex Jones– the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the Infowars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page.

“More content from the same pages has been reported to us – upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies,” a Facebook spokesperson said, according to The Guardian.

Additionally, Apple removed a bunch of podcasts related to Alex Jones, including “The Alex Jones Show” and four InfoWars-related podcasts.

Twitter, however, is defending its decision to NOT ban Alex Jones.

We didn’t suspend Alex Jones or Infowars yesterday. We know that’s hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules. We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified.

— jack (@jack) August 8, 2018

Truth is we’ve been terrible at explaining our decisions in the past. We’re fixing that. We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories.

— jack (@jack) August 8, 2018

If we succumb and simply react to outside pressure, rather than straightforward principles we enforce (and evolve) impartially regardless of political viewpoints, we become a service that’s constructed by our personal views that can swing in any direction. That’s not us.

— jack (@jack) August 8, 2018

Accounts like Jones’ can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors, so it’s critical journalists document, validate, and refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions. This is what serves the public conversation best.

— jack (@jack) August 8, 2018

Many more details here: https://t.co/58dc4fwjQz

— jack (@jack) August 8, 2018

I’m pleasantly surprised. It makes me cringe to think that social media platforms are determining what is “hate speech” and what is NOT, but they’re well within their right to establish rules. All we ask is that they apply them FAIRLY.

People do not seem to be satisfied by Jack’s answer.

HATE SPEECH IS NOT against Twitter rules? Since when? Spare us this pathetic attempt at spin, please. You made your bed, you’re going to end up being as heavily regulated as Facebook if you don’t stop letting trolls and hate speech fester.Bots DO artificially amplify his tweets.

— Ale (@aliasvaughn) August 8, 2018

This is, by all rights, *your* platform. You know that this person will use your platform to cause and promote harm at scale. There is no reason to allow that.

— EricaJoy (@EricaJoy) August 8, 2018

BOOM! I 1000% agree with you @EricaJoy. What Twitter CEO is deflecting. Yet, another example how the priveledged always get their way.

— RonGarcia (@RonnieJoel83) August 8, 2018

Bullshit. I’ve been suspended for using an expletive and once for telling someone he was the character in a Harriet Beecher Stowe novel. Your narrative that Alex Jones hasn’t violated your TOS is not only utterly ridiculous, it’s a lie.

— Pinky Slivotitz™❄ (@ACreativeMuggle) August 8, 2018

The rules don’t apply to people Jack likes.

— Robert Caplette 🏳️‍🌈 (@TattooedEnigma) August 8, 2018

That’s crap and you know it. Both him and PJW have said stuff that would have regular users suspended many times over.

— Mike Stuchbery 💀🍷 (@MikeStuchbery_) August 8, 2018

He has violated EVERY ONE of your “hateful conduct policy” rules. Every. One.

Removing him is not a “kneejerk reaction”

Continuing to give him a platform makes you complicit.

— The STSTCast (@STSTCast) August 8, 2018

Thoughts?