Big Tech's Ban on Alex Jones Fans the Flames of His Conspiracy Theories
Deplatforming controversial content is perfectly legal—and often counterproductive.

In 2018, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website, Infowars, were banned by YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple for violating these platforms' hate speech policies. Four years later, the largest social media platforms have prevented the promotion of a documentary about him as well.
Private companies are well within their rights to make the content moderation decisions they deem appropriate. Jones' belief system, which his millions of listeners must find compelling on some level, is predicated on the idea that there's some kind of totalitarian world government lurking in the shadows, either attempting to seize control or already in control of us. It's from this logic that Jones' skepticism of major tragedies and events stems. He has suggested, for instance, that 9/11 and the Sandy Hook school shooting might have been pre-orchestrated, designed by those in charge, and he subsequently faced defamation lawsuits from the parents of some of the shooting victims. Big Tech, the media, and each presidential administration—except Trump's—are all frequent targets of Jones' unrestrained ire and boundless grievances.
But when Big Tech firms uniformly decline to platform anything Jones-related, they may be fueling the flames of his paranoia. As the old saw has it, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
I went to the movie premiere of Alex's War last Saturday ahead of its release date, which is today, and walked away with a heightened appreciation for Jones' charisma but stronger disdain for his shoddily substantiated theories. Though he's forcefully asserted that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump, Jones has provided meager evidence to back such claims up, and even admitted in the Q&A afterward that his stolen-election beliefs were somewhat pre-formed. But that didn't stop him from assembling with his acolytes at the Georgia Capitol where results were being certified, and at the January 6 rally in Washington which turned violent. (Jones left prior to the breach of the Capitol building.)
Still, when Big Tech platforms suppress Jones, and the work of those interested in Jones, like Alex's War director Alex Lee Moyer—who made the Sundance and SXSW rounds via her first documentary, which explored the world of incels—they lend credibility to his conspiracy theories and increase the illicit appeal of his views to the audiences who continue to seek him out, who may in fact be enchanted by the heightened allure.
For example, Instagram blocked Moyer and team from doing paid promotions for the documentary; TikTok removed the Alex's War trailer because it contained or promoted "hateful behavior"; Google Ads said the trailer was in violation of its policies, too, and warned Moyer not to try again; Meta said the trailer could not be promoted due to "inauthentic behavior or violations of our Advertising Policies and Community Guidelines," but failed to specify what those violations entailed.
These tech platforms are well within their rights to deplatform or suppress whoever they want; they deliberately set community standards, which are consented to by users, and sometimes, in content moderators' eyes, transgressed by conspiracy-mongers like Jones. But by deplatforming both Jones and those who critically engage with his ideas, they're unintentionally hyping his beliefs. By making them illicit, platforms are implying that they're dangerous, rather than laughable or uninteresting. Jones' whole point is that there are shadowy figures in power that are subjugating and manipulating us; he, like Trump, fixates on media malfeasance and double standards, which is a compelling message to his roughly 5 million followers (as of 2016, though such numbers are hard to pin down, especially as his feeds have been whack-a-moled out of existence). That message is plausibly made more compelling if Jones can lodge a fresh grievance against Big Tech.
There's no reason to believe such censorship will snuff Jones out. It may, in fact, do the opposite. He's a shrewd businessman, successfully hawking supplements ("Super Male Vitality" drops!), bulletproof vests, and other doomsday-prep materials; he maintains a huge audience; he's been on Joe Rogan's show repeatedly (which has outraged some Spotify employees); he's the subject of a new documentary. He knows how to parlay controversy into earned media for his kooky theories, and the result may be the very opposite of what those who would deplatform him are trying to achieve.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the claims that "private companies can censor whatever they want" if they really were private companies.
* No lobbyists weighing the scales in their favor
* No cozy little relationships with just one political party
* No campaign contributions
* No "former" employees taking government jobs, and vice versa
Get my drift? These companies have ceased to be private businesses once they start cozying up with government.
Left out no collusion among companies as well.
I don't mind collusion among themselves; cartels always collapse as market pressures come into play.
I absolutely mind collusion involving the government.
I without a doubt have made $18,000 inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather
extra cash on-line.... https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Except here they collided woth infrastructure suppliers to prevent any alternatives for being brought forward. This included web hosts and domain registrars.
Yes, but they couldn't have done that without government assistance, or at least benign neglect which was not available to other companies.
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. rfv. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
Reading this article:>>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
Difference being... Government is the only legal use of GUN-FORCE/DEMANDS.... The USA would be a lot better off if that simple and undeniable understanding was well acknowledged.
What is a law if it can't be enforced by GUNS?? Oh yeah; Its just a suggestion that no-one is going to obey.. And what is too much law? An ARMED [WE] mob of gun-packing dictation/enslavement.
Or what about
* No legal privileges not enjoyed by their competitors with a different business model.
Look, you can make a perfectly reasonable case against IP and libel/slander laws. You can make a perfectly reasonable case to say companies that publish restricted IP or slander shouldn't share in the legal liability for it. But, when the government says some (brick-and-mortar) market participants have to abide by these laws while others (digital) don't, there's no getting around it - the government is picking winners and losers. How it comes to be that even questioning that is some sort of violation of libertarian principle is beyond me.
* No lobbyists weighing the scales in their favor
Freedom to petition the government to redress grievances
* No cozy little relationships with just one political party
Freedom of association
* No campaign contributions
Freedom of speech
* No "former" employees taking government jobs, and vice versa
Freedom of contract
And Jeff once again ignores the resources available to him even from this website. Including when private entities work with government agencies they can fall under restrictions of the constitution.
So when emails are released showing the CDC working with Twitter and Facebook it can indeed fall under 1a violations. Prof Volokh has discussed this and it is a well known and adjudicated concept.
Since the Sandy Hook families successfully forced a settlement out of Remington, I'm sure everybody is afraid that simply talking about Alex Jones will get them sued by those same litigious families. They're still suing Alex Jones despite what should be a lack of ability to show any kind of damages resulting from Infowars.
So this is all the families fault?
Screw Alex Jones and his idiot followers.
Weird how evidence of election fraud only requires depositions that claim they saw workers roll their eyes when they saw a Trump ballot - but suddenly when its little children that get murdered, Alex Jones insists he needs to lick the blood to verify its real.
This has nothing to do with the level of evidence, it has everything to do with an ideology and doing and saying whatever you can when the indefensible needs defending.
The real problem isn't Jones, the real problem is his listeners who are too dumb to properly examine and weigh what little evidence there is.
Alex Jones is a prophet channeling the spirit of Saint Reagan.
Anyone who disagrees can expect Nardz or Sevo to slit their throat in the middle of the night.
Be honest. Were you fired this week? Is this why you're drunker than normal?
I'll tell you as soon as you explain what made you stop beating your wife on Thursdays, and why you still beat her on Fridays.
You don't understand the meme you just butchered.
"When did you stop beating your wife?" was funny because, as Perry Mason would say, it assumed facts not in evidence, and in fact not discoverable, since any evidence of past beating has now faded.
When you switch it to "Why do you beat your wife?", the time aspect is gone. It's no longer as inconsistent, paradoxical, whatever you want to call it.
But I don't expect better, since you have long since lost any sarcasm you used to pretend to have. I should ask, "When did you lose your sarcasm?" but it would whoooosh right over you.
Speaking of time, Perry Mason references mean you're a boomer who is robbing the younger generations with your Medicaid and Social Security and other ponzi schemes. You're the problem. As your buddies Nardz, Sevo, and the average middle-schooler would say, do the world a favor and kill yourself.
You need some butt-cream for your torn up asshole, honey?
You'll also have to explain why you rape your children. Then I'll answer your questions.
And you double down. Since you seem to be in the mood for doubling down, I may as well double dog dare you again to mute me. It was fun watching your contortions trying to pretend you couldn't read my subsequent double dog dares to unmute me.
He never said he doesn't dip his bloody penis into vodka after raping toddlers.
That means he does exactly that every day.
You do too. Prove you don't. That means you do.
This is idiotic every time you try it. I get you find jeff to be a hero, but picking up his idiocy while maintaing yours just makes you look stupid.
Whatever you say, baby-raper.
I like this new look.
People are finally going to take you seriously now!
He has been drunk now for over 2 weeks
He passed out he's rallied and has sprung a few leaks
How long before he says his account was hacked?
That is coming. Generally those claims are on Mondays in the roundup threads.
I don't watch/read/listen Alex Jones, though sarcasmic is far too stupid to realize that the idiotic assumption he's made has not once been supported by a shred of evidence, but I would be curious about his record for accuracy vs Reason's (not to mention the rest of the msm).
Claiming martyrdom has been a successful ploy for thousands of years. Why do these people keep falling for it?
The article above is correct that the only effective response to a conspiracy theorist is ridicule and rebuttal. Censorship never works. On the contrary, censorship is perceived (often, rightly so) as an admission that you are unable to rebut the claims.
Unfortunately, people like Jones and Trump thrive on attention of any kind, be it ridicule, rebuttal, accusations, or threats. Like the familiar canard that there's no such thing as bad publicity, I think. My experience has been that ignoring such people works better: change the channel, push the "off" button, navigate to some other website, or just hold your nose until the bad smell dissipates. Which it will if we stop paying attention (and especially our hard-earned $$) to it's source.
Shouting from a pulpit - drowning out the non-believers is in itself a form of censorship.
Only one idea gets through.
Here’s the other reason to watch this documentary… the hard hitting questions posed by Glenn Greenwald. What a case study in journalism and an example for the dinosaurs in the legacy media. With questions like why did social media force you into saying that the parents at Sandy Hook were faking it for money how can you lose? Did he also ask if he could stick his finger up his arse in the outtakes? Take notice Anderson Cooper. This is how it’s done.
One of the best statements from James Lindsay was whe he was talking about groomerschools and he paused and states that as he reads more about the left Alex Jones is looking more correct
That the Sandy Hook parents were crisis actors?
Hmmm.... Name a conspiracy theory that Alex Jones was correct on.
Globalism would be the big one. Of course they’re not even really hiding it.
The chem trails freak I worked with years ago, who loved Alex Jones was spouting about NSA collection hubs and every camera in your house potentially spying on you a few months before Snowden.
The proliferation of pedos in Hollywood and government just sorta keeps happening.
He tends to express stuff in the most extreme form but it usually has a kernel of truth. He was even entirely wrong about gay frogs.
In terms of truth and even calculated extremism, I think a Jones is more of an honest broker than a Joy Reid.
* he wasn’t even entirely wrong
if by "entirely" you mean "remotely", then, yeah.
He's been right about all of them. Name one he's been wrong on.
"there's some kind of totalitarian world government lurking in the shadows, either attempting to seize control or already in control of us...there are shadowy figures in power that are subjugating and manipulating us"
Does anyone seriously doubt that's true?
The whole thing or just the 'lurking in the shadows' part? After 2019-2020, I think it's pretty clear that most of it isn't in the shadows anymore.
Their actions aren't exactly in the shadows, but the actual leadership tries to stay there.
at this point the only thing i'm not sure of is if the pedophiles are at the top, or merely tolerated by the cabal.
You mean the ones running out of the basement of a pizza shop?
It is true that censorship can lead to the 'forbidden fruit' effect. That is true not just of Alex Jones but in education as well.
Keep protecting grooming. You missed a few examples to defend in the roundup.
Who will be there when the deplatformers come for Liz Wolfe and Reason?
Remember when our thing about the internet was "information wants to be free", instead of suppressing inconvenient thought is cool?
So what is your proposed solution?
Not suppress ideas because the political establishment, especially the progressive side, finds them inconvenient?
Okay, would companies be forced not to censor, or would we rely instead on persuasion and market dynamics to convince companies not to censor?
Who said anything about force?
The platforms standards for banning ideas and people are non transparent, subject to far too much pressure by the political Left's interest (to the extent that demands for bans generally come from the Left) and therefore are de facto partisan, and effectively have very little to do with whether the information is bad or good.
So what do you want to *do* about it?
Or is this more of a Henry Ii thing? "Will no one rid me of this turbulent Facebook"?
Facebook's policies are unethical for a supposedly nonpartisan platform and against the principles of free speech and is acting as the brownshirts of the marketplace of ideas.
Not sure if anything coming out of Alex Jone's mouth can be accurately described as 'thought'
Alex Jones had plenty of opportunity to depose the parents and to actually prove his stupid little theory, but with all his resources (money and live audience - even if they are brain dead) he couldn't come up with a defense.
The point is not to defend the specifics of what Alex Jones says and does, but not defending Alex Jones right to say and do leaves everybody else's rights open to attack.
You know nothing. Jones wasn't ALLOWED a defense. The court disallowed EVERYTHING Jones tried to do as a defense. Do a search on YouTube on Robert Barnes.
Ridicule him or just ignore him is the better response. Sure he will still have his bubble with all of his bubble heads, but at least there he can't do much harm.
But you couldn’t ignore him could you?
Reminder that brandybuck is a full "wear the mask, take the vax" Karen who spent all of last year talking about how deadly covid was and ridiculing "anti vaxxers"
You mean the people that were looking at the excess deaths in 2020 and 2021? (about 1 million extra deaths in USA over those two years).
Or the doctors that were explaining that the deaths in hospitals were mostly the unvaxed? (statistically you were 6-7x more likely to die from COVID).
Or are you talking about the people that claimed that we would all die horrible deaths from taking the vaccine? Or even from wearing a mask? and we should put all our faith in miracle cures that were so miraculous that statistics couldn't tease out any benefit. I mean if its a cure.... its a cure... not a 1 or 2% outcome changer.
Wow. The Sciencr still has true believers.
Faulty premise.
Like most cases where a venue decides to kick out a performer, there's rarely an expectation that you'll "silence" the performer. There are other venues that will host them, after all, and especially when it comes to online platforms, it's easy enough to build your own.
So if you assume censorship was the goal, then you get articles like this, "look how stupid they are! They can't even censor someone right!"
If instead you actually listen to what venues say? They tell you why they kicked Jones: because they didn't want him on their platform anymore. Any "silencing" was incidental (and surprising).
So while you are 100% correct that kicking Jones off youtube didn't silence him, you are 100% wrong if you think that shows YouTube failed in their objectives.
There is no doubt that being kicked off of major platforms like YouTube and Facebook greatly reduces a content creator's audience. They might not be completely "silenced" but their ability to reach an audience can be significantly reduced or even virtually eliminated.
Good point. Jones and his Antifa detractors are the same thing in the sense that National Socialists and Soviet Socialists in the 30s and 40s proved to be the same thing. Both believe very deeply in the initiation of force and justify it by mystical superstition or collectivist hysteria--if not both--instead of ethical principles and a rational standard. The LP was growing at 12% per annum before infiltrators from those sorts of ideologies targeted us for destructive infiltration in the 1980s. Creeps often seek out Reason and the LP because NOBODY else can stand the smell of them.
Well; One has to ask ?who? dubbed Alex Jones nothing but a conspiracy theorist anyways?? Materialized reality (as shown in this article) would put Jones in far more of a legitimate box than almost ALL leftard politicians...
Think about that for a minute.
Perfect Example.... Leftards and their Climate Hoax, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Yeah; Who's REALLY the conspiracy theorists...
I've been saying for a while now that the biggest difference between Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow is that Jones has a much better track record.
All Alex Jones is good for is to give fanatical communists something to point at and shriek: SEE? SEE? LIBERTARIAN ANARCHIST. The guy is no more libertarian than Robert Dear or those multi-term girl-bullier Republicans Ron and Randal Paul. The Grab Others' Pussies party and their Anschluss Caucus are straight up fascism behind a cardboard Lynch the Fed stalking horse. The Libertarian Party of Kansas can see the klansMEN behind the masks. Can you?
If this is depicting Reason, you left out the part where they try to have their cake and eat it too:
"Alex Jones is CRAZY!"
"Oh yea? How?"
"Well, remember when Julian Assange explained how the war in The Gulf was just a money laundering scheme and they persecuted him for it?"
"Yeah."
"Well, Alex Jones thinks the war in Ukraine is the same thing! What a whacko nutjob amiright?"
The difference between "conspiracy theory" and fact is about 12 months these days.
Unless its election conspiracy then its more like 19 months and counting.