MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Apple's Attempt to Ban Alex Jones Backfired in an Unexpected Way

Alex Jones tweeted "When they try to ban you, but you keep on winning" above a celebratory glass of champagne.

|||Twitter/RealAlexJonesTwitter/RealAlexJonesThe drive to keep Alex Jones off the major online platforms may have had some unintended consequences—at least temporarily.

Jones, a noted conspiracy theorist, has seen his professional pages and podcast unpublished and/or removed from Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple. The four companies stated that Jones' disparaging comments about Muslims, immigrants, members of the LGBT community, and several other groups of people violate the hate speech clauses in their respective terms-of-service agreements. But Jones' Infowars app remained available for download via Apple.

A day after the move, people downloaded the remaining Infowars iPhone app enough times that it became the fourth most popular news app on the store, beating out the Google News and CNN apps, reports CNBC.

As CNBC notes, the Infowars app violates the same guidelines that prompted Apple to remove its podcast counterpart, so it seems unlikely that it will remain available from Apple for long. But for now, the push against him may have gotten more people interested in hearing what he has to say.

Jones reacted to the news by tweeting a picture of himself holding a glass of champagne next to his app. A caption said, "When they try to ban you, but you keep on winning."

Photo Credit: Screenshot via Twitter/RealAlexJones

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Krabappel||

    I'm very tired of the term "LGBT community". We don't all have the same opinions, you know.

  • Rich||

    Unlike the "Black community" or the "Hispanic community"?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's all collectivist schlock. I won't deny that groups are discriminated against, but that's collectivist bile as well and should be fought against.

  • Number 2||

    Individuals are discriminated against, not "groups." That is also collectivist bile.

  • vek||

    Don't be retarded dude. Groups are discriminated against as far as the common meaning of such a statement would be interpreted by a sane person. If you're going to try to play semantics just GTFO.

    That said, I don't think groups are discriminated against very much in the western world anymore. That's mostly all made up nonsense in leftists minds.

  • Krabappel||

    I'm not a member of either of those, but yes, those are equally offensive.

  • Tony||

    It's not a term I ever use in conversation. I'm also genuinely annoyed by the term "queer." It's an appropriated slur that conveys no information. Are you gay, straight with daddy issues, or what?

  • Dillinger||

    when I was a kid it meant you had the football and danger was imminent.

  • Rat on a train||

    another smear campaign

  • vek||

    I'm totally going to teach my kids that game, with the correct wording intact someday :)

  • Krabappel||

    TBF, I would call anyone who self-identifies as "an expansive ornate building" pretty queer.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    My goto is "ladyboy."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You fancypants and all your rules.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    *rubes

  • ||

    I'm very tired of the term "LGBT community". We don't all have the same opinions, you know.

    Now imagine you were tired of the term back when it was still 'homosexuals'. Like, you don't have any real issue about who people have sex with or what they do in the privacy of their own home or their business, but you find the idea of someone identifying themselves by their sexuality as stupid as if they identified by their handedness or their smoking habits.

  • Cathy L||

    Do you...not think people identify themselves by their handedness and smoking habits?

  • TuIpa||

    No.

    They might mention them in conversation though.

    Oh, I see, you don't know what "identify as" means.

  • Rat on a train||

    I identify by my mode of transportation.

  • Dillinger||

    I am a Mustang.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I identify by how many cups of coffee I have had. Today I am only a 3, and we in the 123456+ community are sick of being discriminated against by the 0 community (or as we call them behind their backs "tea faggots", and "no-caffers").

  • vek||

    Fuck off you faggot ass 3! Black tea is vastly superior to your dirty coffee! Fucking degenerate.

  • Happy Chandler||

    They weren't the ones to define themselves like that. It was the country that made laws to criminalize their relationships and discriminate against them.

    If sodomy wasn't a crime for so long, if gay bars hadn't been raided, if they had marriage rights, they wouldn't be defined as different. It's like interracial marriage. When it was criminalized and they faced physical attacks and terrorism, it was a large part of who they were. Now, it's nothing. It took probably 40 years after Loving to get there.

    If you don't want them identifying like that, ensure the state and society do not.

  • TuIpa||

    "They weren't the ones to define themselves like that. It was the country that made laws to criminalize their relationships and discriminate against them."

    Are you... actually retarded? What you just described is the exact opposite of actual history.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Wrong.

  • TuIpa||

    Yes huh.

  • BYODB||

    What are 'marriage rights', precisely? Why should the government decide who does or does not qualify for a religious ceremony?

    Oh, maybe you mean all the monetary benefits. It would have been better to get rid of all that malarkey entirely, but in fairness to the 'gay community' that argument was never going to win the day so I absolutely understand why it wasn't the tack taken.

    However, now we're in an interesting place where the government gets to decide who god (or, if you like religion) views as conjoined.

  • Happy Chandler||

    The state recognizes marriages. The state, until recently, treated people differently based on their genitalia. Until the 1950's, many states treated people different based on their skin color.

  • jdgalt1||

    LGBT used to be a useful term. But now it has split, with the tranny community defending their absurd "right" to behave as "traps", thus disrespecting others' choices.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They've added too many letters, so I just call them "alphabet soup people".

    After all, the point of keeping adding letters is so they can attack you as a bigot if you miss one. Might as well skip ahead to the finish.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I only support the protection of this group: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

  • vek||

    You forgot the +! YOU FUCKING BIGOT!!!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yes you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be a community. Look, either you're on the victim train or you're not on it, which is it gonna be?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Streisand Effect app is next on the chopping block.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I find this all very hilarious.

  • Adans smith||

    If you want less of something tax it. If you want more,ban it.

  • Rich||

    the Infowars app violates the same guidelines that prompted Apple to remove its podcast counterpart

    By golly, shouldn't the FCC or *someone* sue Apple, then?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Don't worry. I filed a class action for all of us on LegalZoom. Things should start happening soon.

  • Rich||

    *Outstanding*, BUCS!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I saw an article on HuffPo calling for the removal of Section 230.

    Here 'tis.

    Unbelievable.

  • jdgalt1||

    I wouldn't mind limiting Section 230 to sites that don't edit their comments or ban commenters. If a site owner wants to exercise editorial judgment then he should be responsible for libel and copyright infringements he allows to go through.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    I liked Steve Sailer's take:

    https://tinyurl.com/y8fknrnn

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I just assume all your links go to Stormfront, so not clicking that.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    I clicked.

    Alex Jones Banned by Facebook, Apple, Google, and Spotify
    STEVE SAILER • AUGUST 7, 2018 • LEAVE A COMMENT
    Search Text RSS

    If only those four companies comprised a catchy acronym.

    There's his link.

  • jdgalt1||

    You'd need a five letter acronym. Pinterest pulled the plug on Jones as well.

  • Nardz||

    ...PFAGS?

  • Kristian H.||

    See, what is going on with Alex Jones is the entirely predictable result of trying to run media and the country with lots of people who, for what ever reason, don't have kids, particularly teenagers.

  • John||

    Totalitarian countries that literally shoot or imprison people for prohibited speech can't control the flow of information. These dumb asses think because they can kick a few people off social media they can do so?

  • Tony||

    Maybe their goal is not to altruistically control information for all of society, but to protect their bottom lines, like good capitalists.

  • John||

    Yeah, nothing protects the bottom line like turning customers and viewers away. The people who run the tech companies are fascists. Sarah Jeong wishing for the genocide of white people is who they and you are Tony.

  • Tony||

    You're going to give yourself health problems if you continue to worry this much about the stuff Alex Jones tells you to worry about but which in reality has absolutely no effect on anything.

  • John||

    Yes Tony, defending unpopular or even nasty people is what defending free speech is all about. You don't like Jones and are happy to see bad things happen to him. That is because you are an authoritarian idiot who will rationalize anything so long as your side is doing it.

    It says so much about your character that you think Jones being a bad person is no reason to defend him.

  • Tony||

    Clearly that applies to Sarah Jeong as well.

  • TuIpa||

    "Clearly that applies to Sarah Jeong as well."

    It certainly has. Nearly every article I have read or seen has defended her right to be a gross bigot and a racist.

  • Tony||

    Who was the last person you called a bigot? Was it someone making fun of white people? I bet it was!

  • TuIpa||

    Which has what to do with the accuracy of the usage?

    You know I'm right, and her free speech rights were and are being defended, so you dodge that and try to stupidly change the subject.

  • Tony||

    It would suggest a selective outrage.

  • TuIpa||

    Which has what to do with the accuracy of the usage?

    I mean, you rush to cry "hypocrite" because you know you can't refute the reality of the claim. That much is obvious, it is your move, but it changes nothing.

  • TuIpa||

    And, who said anything about ourage besides you?

    People don't have to be outraged to accurately call a bigot a bigot.

    At least, normal people don't, you might.

  • Tony||

    I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, I'm accusing you of being a racist fuckface.

  • TuIpa||

    Because I proved you wrong, and with no other information.

    Yeah, you're rational and sane.

  • TuIpa||

    By the way, I'm Asian . Can't be racist.

    #yourrulesm

  • Tony||

    I'm as Anglo-Saxon as a human can possibly be. Thus I can't be racist. #NOYOURRULES

  • TuIpa||

    I love that you're,re so upset you can't even pretend to be sane any longer.

  • TuIpa||

    This thread has been such a lovely expose on Tony as a poster.

    1. He says something false
    2. He is corrected
    3. He ignores that, and immediately begins attacking the person he believes to be his opponent
    4. It is pointed out that by his own definitions he ow wrong
    5. He melts down and is left spouting gibberish

    Never change Tony.

  • Ben B.||

    I'm as Anglo-Saxon as a human can possibly be. Thus I can't be racist. #NOYOURRULES

    This doesn't even make sense.

  • TuIpa||

    Especially since he forgot that I'm Asian. He's such a gross racist that he can't even acknowledge my race.

  • Tony||

    I don't see color. No really, it's the internet, and I have no idea who the fuck you are.

  • TuIpa||

    Cool story, and beside the point.

    I'm Asian. Your opinion on it isn't relevant, period. You don't even get to have one.

    And you're a racist for what you've done in this thread.

  • John||

    I'm Asian. Your opinion on it isn't relevant, period. You don't even get to have one.

    Let no one ever say that there is no such thing as a low IQ Asian. Racist stereotypes are never true no matter how badly people want them to be.

  • Dillinger||

    how is where you're from a race?

  • John||

    It is not Dillinger. But Tulpa is a moron with a 6th-grade education. Rarely do you see a first class retard fight like this. Usually, the board retards don't get into it with each other. But today we got to see Tulpa and Tony go at it. Tulpa might be the one guy dumber than Tony on here.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I'm from the Caucasus

  • Happy Chandler||

    Compelling speech by some is what defending free speech is about, right?
    The government has not done this.

  • jdgalt1||

    Bingo. When you're not willing to defend speech you disagree with, the Niemoller quote applies.

  • ||

    Maybe their goal is not to altruistically control information for all of society, but to protect their bottom lines, like good capitalists.

    That explains why, when they decided to get rid of him, demand appears to have gone up.

  • Tony||

    Perhaps some of the most successful companies of all time are all run by morons, who can say?

  • Happy Chandler||

    Or maybe it's just the same people moving to a different source. His app downloads tell us precisely zero about his reach compared to his iTunes.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Maybe their goal is not to altruistically control information for all of society, but to protect their bottom lines, like good capitalists.

    This is the short path to destroying those bottom lines. Welcome to joining network TV as your media model, TwitFaceTube.

  • Kristian H.||

    I was more thinking of how many parents say "That X is awful. You shouldn't see it / listen to it / go there / do that". You'll never guess what happens next! (oh, wait, of course you will).

    And it is worse, the less the 'subordinates' respect you, the more likely they are to rebel at your pronouncements.

    Not being able to kill or imprison the dissidents, simply makes them more noisy and harder to herd. Like, with a cat?

  • John||

    That too Kristian. They are doing everything they can to make the far right seem edgy and interesting. Alex Jones is a nut. But crazy or not, he is a lot more interesting and fun than the totalitarian conformist SJW culture.

  • Happy Chandler||

    How's Glen Beck doing since he left Fox?

  • jdgalt1||

    He has his own network, TheBlaze.tv, and was doing OK for a while. Then he doubled down on a #NeverTrump position and endorsed Hillary. Now he's faded to unimportance. I used to like him, too.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Maybe they're not trying to control information, they just find it not in their business interests to host it.

  • TuIpa||

    Wow, you're all over this article, saying some of the dumbest shit ever committed to print of any kind.

    Why so upset about this? You know you're losing the rhetorical battle, it seems.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Horny Lizard||

    So now we find out if the premise that widely disseminating the insane and lying speech will hasten it's rebuke.

  • jdgalt1||

    We have seen CNN's ratings drop like a stone, but they still have the rest of TimeWarnerAT&T (TWAT) to subsidize them.

  • ||

    I have always been taught that the purpose of that one part (5 total) of the first amendment was to protect "unpopular" speech from government censorship and vengeance.... Since social media is composed of "for-profit" corporations and LLC structures they are not obliged to follow the example of the government unless, of course, laws are passed and effectively withstand judicial scrutiny.

  • jdgalt1||

    Or unless government so over-regulates the medium (example: television) so that it's effectively a monopoly.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Companies dont get to be free and clear from regulation if they insist on being crony capitalists who use the government against the People.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    They welcome it.

  • DajjaI||

    I think they should reinstate him, but we need to do a better job of debunking him when he comes out with ludicrous claims. If we do our job then the platforms don't have to do it for us.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Lies travel the world while the truth is getting its shoes on.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    we need to

    Slaverspeak

  • Ron||

    I always say whenever you try to silence someone you only make them more relevant.

    sometimes its better to ignore them so as not to get people interested into why they are being banned and as many Americans don't like silencing people of any type they will often go to their support. i think Alex is a joke but i almost downloaded his app just as support but my iphone space is worth more to me than his app.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Does Jones podcast violate Apple's terms of service? Did it violate any of the other TOS?

    From what I have seen, there are vague claims that he did violate them, but the claims are short on specific examples of what he said that were violations.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It doesn't matter. The business decided it wasn't worth hosting him. They don't need to say why.

  • John||

    It matters a lot. First, the TOS is an enforcible contract. They can't just ignore it. Second, they have immunity from liability from the content on their platforms as part of the DMCA. But to maintain that immunity, they cannot discriminate against content. The moment they do, and they are here, they lose or should lose their immunity.

    Like everything else, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about here and are just spewing talking points for your team. Go spew somewhere where people are dumb enough to believe you.

  • TuIpa||

    "First, the TOS is an enforcible contract. "

    This defends on MANY factors, but most TOS are in fact NOT enforceable.

    I know you pretend to be a competent attorney, but you're wrong on this one.

  • John||

    You are a fucking moron. Yes, it is enforcible. That doesn't mean it can't be unilaterally changed. That doesn't mean that you can get any damages for them violating it. But the TOS is part of the agreement you make when you sign on. It is why you don't have any damages if they terminate you in accordance with it.

    Technically speaking, it is a contract. I forget sometimes I am talking to morons like you who don't follow the conversation very well and need everything spelled out for them.

  • TuIpa||

    EFF on TOS

    The white paper examines both clickwrap agreements—whereby service providers require the user to click an "I Agree" button next to the terms—and browsewrap agreements—whereby service providers try to characterize one's continued use of the website as constituting "agreement" to a posted set of terms. While neither method automatically creates enforceable contracts, some presentations may still be upheld even if the user never actually reads and understands the terms.

    As I SAID.

    "First, the TOS is an enforcible contract. "

    This defends [sic] on MANY factors


    This is why Popehat kicked you around like a fucking dog. You're a shitty attorney.

    But, because you also CANNOT ever be wrong, you will inevitably post some stupid mealy mouthed justification of your opinion, that we will all remember as Popehat 9, yet another time John fucked up the law.

    You said "the TOS is an enforcible contract. " No qualifiers. Full stop.

    I have given a well respected organization's opinion. And case law.

    You gave yours.

    You are an imbecile and a bloviating windbag. You got power bombed by Popehat publicly.

    And now by me.

    Now go get your fucking shinebox.

  • John||

    This is why Popehat kicked you around like a fucking dog. You're a shitty attorney.

    Dopehat ran away. He was wrong about his own area of law. He ran away.

    And nothing you have posted undermines my point. Just because the TOS doesn't have to be. doesn't mean it can't be or it isn't in this case. You just proved my point.

    Now stop fucking wasting my time. I would give you law lessons, but frankly you are untrainable. I see above that you are Asian or claim to be. It is good to see an Asian with a low IQ, lest everyone get the racist idea that all Asians are smart. So keep posting dumb ass.

  • John||

    Do me a favor Tulpa come here and kiss my ring. figures you are a dopehat fan. He has a gift for impressing people who are too dumb to know any better.

  • John||

    While neither method automatically creates enforceable contracts, some presentations may still be upheld even if the user never actually reads and understands the terms.

    That is exactly what I said. Do you even know how to read? Did you drop out of the 6th grade? God you are a moron. It is okay to be stupid. But to be arrogant and stupid is just too far. You a simpleton. You really are.

  • John||

    This is from your own link dumb ass

    While neither method automatically creates enforceable contracts, some presentations may still be upheld even if the user never actually reads and understands the terms. The key is whether the service provider allows the user reasonable notice and opportunity to review the terms before using the website or service.

    Of course, just because a TOS creates an enforceable agreement, does not mean that every provision of the TOS will be enforced by a court. In our next white paper, we'll examine which particular provisions are most unfair to consumers, including provisions that have aroused the skepticism of courts and regulator

    Do you think everyone is as stupid and dishonest as you are? Moreover, this is talking about if the TOS is applicable to the user. It might not be if the user has no reasonable chance to read it. Nowhere in that paper is the idea that the service might not be held to its TOS considered. This is about whether users can get out of a TOS not the service.

    You just proved my point. Go shine my ass retard.

  • John||

    And of course, you have run away just like Dopehat. I love it you were too fucking stupid to read your own link. Sometimes TOS's are not enforcible contracts on users because they are more or less unconscionable and unenforcible if the user isn't given a reasonable opportunity to read and understand them. But they are always enforcible against the platform, you fucking half-wit.

    But run away and be a fucking coward rather than take the beating you deserve.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Here's the Facebook TOS:
    If we determine that you have violated our terms or policies, we may take action against your account to protect our community and services, including by suspending access to your account or disabling it. We may also suspend or disable your account if you create risk or legal exposure for us or when we are permitted or required to do so by law. Where appropriate, we will notify you about your account the next time you try to access it. You can learn more about what you can do if your account has been disabled.

    By the TOS, they have determination about who violates their policies. They also say they may take action. They don't say they must. If you think the minions of lawyers that these companies have would write a TOS that opens them up to any liability, you're even stupider than I thought.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If ToS are not enforceable contracts then why have them at all?

    Because they are user agreements (contracts).

  • John||

    Tulpa is retarded. But apparently is Asian so thinks he is smart. His own link proved the point. Dumb fuck is too weak of a word for him. Figures he is a dopehat fan.

  • Number 2||

    Interesting comment.

    I seem to recall that circa 1950 or so, a different group of businesses based in California decided that it was against their commercial interest to employ producers, directors, writers and actors who were affiliated with a certain left-wing political doctrine that was unpopular at the time with most Americans, and that exercised their constitutional right not to employ them any longer.

    I also seem to recall that this particular business decision was deemed offensive, un-American, an affront to our values, and all but a crime against humanity. To this day, one can barely watch Turner Classic Movies for more than an hour without hearing how this particular business decision was evil, and how despicable it was to deprive people of a livelihood because of their unpopular political beliefs.

    Funny how things changed when different people are in positions of power.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Shh... shhhhh.

  • vek||

    We need to bring that shit back! If the left is gonna play dirty...

  • GoatOnABoat||

    I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Do you defend Apple's right not to distribute it?

  • Number 2||

    See my comment above.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I think it's time the big tech media companies start some sort of joint commission to determine who can and can't produce content for them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The push against him may have gotten more people interested in hearing what he has to say."

    That isn't "unexpected".

    Ever hear of the marketing term "banned in Boston" or the media term "Streisand effect"?

    Plenty of people never knew they wanted to know anything about Alex Jones until social media banned him?

    Totes expected.

  • mtrueman||

    "Plenty of people never knew they wanted to know anything about Alex Jones"

    I found him to be surprisingly skeptical of the official 9/11 narrative, especially for an American media celebrity.

  • BYODB||

    Long story short is that people like to watch a good car wreck, and Alex Jones has always been a flaming explosion of a car wreck. Not a widely known one, perhaps, just because he's either insane or is an excellent actor.


    Now, putting a giant spotlight on him and saying 'here is edgelord prime' is going to cause a whole lot of people to go look precisely because they're looking for outrage porn. Well, they're going to find it all right.


    That said, boy, I sure hope these companies paid attention to the stipulations that give them immunity from prosecution when it comes to content posted on their platforms. Since their platforms are so large effective policing is almost impossible, I look forward to the deluge of lawsuits for copyright infringement at the very least.


    Is this the death knell of meme's that use copyrighted material? Did Alex Jones just slay meme's?


    Someone should make a meme of this...

  • mtrueman||

    " I look forward to the deluge of lawsuits for copyright infringement at the very least."

    Wasn't it a deluge of law suits that led to no fault auto insurance?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Alex Jones has always been a flaming explosion of a car wreck plane crash

    FTFY

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Since their platforms are so large effective policing is almost impossible

    The heuristic algorithms are evolving complex thought patterns. They police the webosphere.
  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Sunuvabitch html

  • Hellan||

    Interesting blog, helped to clarify many things, definitely this will be a useful article. Good work, excepting these kinds of more useful blogs and articles.
    App Developers

  • vek||

    This is pretty LOL. Somebody in passing earlier today also told me that AJ went onto Bitchute and several hundred thousand people signed up in a single day. I've not really used it before, but heard about it awhile ago. It is more or less an uncensorable YouTube type website that relies on a variation of torrent technology that works through the browser.

    I think if these big tech companies keep going all Big Brother eventually they're going to create some real competitors. A few seem to have perhaps got juuust big enough to be sustainable as smallish, niche businesses already. But you keep booting people off by the tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions by now, and sooner or later you're going to have something that reaches critical mass. I thought Twitter was a retarded ass alternative to Facebook, which I think is retarded to begin with... But Twitter is pretty effin' big nowadays innit? Will Gab.ai or Bitchute be billion dollar companies that actually respect free speech someday? We can only hope.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online