Twitter permanently bans Alex Jones and Infowars accounts

“Twitter has permanently banned the accounts of right-wing conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones and InfoWars for violating the company’s abusive behavior policies, the company said Thursday,” Sara Salinas reports for CNBC.

“The ban appears to be related to a heated exchange between Jones and a CNN reporter Wednesday, which Jones live-streamed on the Twitter-owned video service Periscope,” Salinas reports. “Jones ranted at the reporter, as well as Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, following back-to-back congressional hearings where Dorsey addressed online election interference, as well as accusations of political bias and conservative censorship on the platform.”

Salinas reports, “The ban comes weeks after Jones’ accounts were removed or suspended by other major tech companies including Apple, Facebook and YouTube.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: You knew that was coming.

White House probes Google after President Trump accuses it of left-wing bias – August 29, 2018
President Trump attacks ‘left-wing’ Google search results – August 28, 2018
President Trump: ‘I would rather have fake news’ than censorship – August 22, 2018
ACLU: Apple’s ban of Alex Jones and Infowars could set dangerous social media precedent – August 22, 2018
President Trump blasts social media ‘censorship’ – August 18, 2018
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I ‘fully admit’ our bias is ‘more left-leaning’ – August 20, 2018
Twitter bans Alex Jones from posting on Twitter for seven days – August 15, 2018
Apple is monitoring Alex Jones’ Infowars app for content violations as it becomes 3rd-most downloaded app this week – August 9, 2018
Alex Jones: Infowars has racked up 5.6 million new subscribers in the past 48 hours – August 8, 2018
Tim Cook sends Mark Zuckerberg, YouTube, and Spotify scrambling over Infowars’ Alex Jones – August 8, 2018
Jack Dorsey explains why Twitter isn’t banning Alex Jones and Infowars – August 8, 2018
Infowars’ Alex Jones blasts Apple, Google, others; warns on internet censorship – August 7, 2018
Apple’s ‘Infowars’ move thrusts tech giant into the debate over censoring content on internet platforms – August 6, 2018
Apple removes most of Alex Jones’ Infowars podcasts from iTunes Store – August 6, 2018


  1. Alex Jones can host his own garbage on his own server, on his own domain.

    No one should be forced to host his content.

    When the US government takes down I’ll be worried about censorship.

    1. The US government isn’t worried about InfoWars. They are focused on taking down Facebook, Twitter, and Google. The free speech guarantees in the constitution apparently do not protect private media that the government regards as unsupportive of its policies.

      That seems consistent with the President’s call this morning for Congress to somehow repeal the constitutional requirement that libel actions by public figures must prove that the libelous statement alleged a verifiable fact that was untrue, and which the publisher knew it to be most likely untrue.

      It is time to get worried.

      1. “The US government isn’t worried about InfoWars. They are focused on taking down Facebook, Twitter, and Google. The free speech guarantees in the constitution apparently do not protect private media”

        NO! They are interested in regulating social media monopolies that are CENSORING right wing free speech. Please don’t use the term “free speech” from now on. You don’t recognize it on all sides and certainly you know NOTHING of what it means and do not support it. And please spare us of the BIG EXCUSE of a private company. Except for you, we all know what is going on here ..,

        1. Just answer this : How does the Federal Government regulating social media companies differ from regulating newspapers, which is expressly prohibited by the United States Constitution?

          If the Government can tell Facebook or the New York Times how to exercise their editorial judgement, it can tell you what you can and can’t say, too. That might be OK for you now, but what if somebody you don’t like ever becomes President? Admittedly, that is pretty unlikely once the Ministry of Truth and Ministry of Love get control.

          Now, let’s watch you dodge the question while insulting anybody who thinks the Constitution is more than an outmoded scrap of paper.

          1. When did Bing, MySpace, and SnapChat go out of business? Assuming they didn’t, the market leaders in each product category are not monopolies. In fact, there are fewer newspapers with a national circulation than there are social media companies.

            Achieving market leadership by pleasing customers better than the competition is called free enterprise. Suppressing competition by imposing government control is basically socialism. When the government takeover is accompanied by the suppression of dissent, it is often called fascism.

            So, again, what is the difference between Facebook and a conservative magazine that allows the Government to infringe editorial freedom in one but not the other?

            1. When companies such as Facebook, Twitter, et al. have over 90% of the market, sounds like a monopoly to me. If they don’t want government regulation, then they should not practice conservative speech regulation. Simple …

            2. So, if you don’t want to be forced to praise the government, just praise the government “voluntarily.” That same approach could completely eliminate rape. If you don’t want to be forced… Simple.

          2. Okay, partial answer. But newspapers and TV stations are indeed regulated, at least partially, by libel laws.

            What you’re suggesting is that a conservative FB, Google, and Twitter be established for those so inclined. But these companies are not restricting their service to liberals only.

            If I understand you correctly, we cannot force Fox News to include liberal commentary. Fair enough, but Fox News is not open to public contribution. Companies that are should be adherent to Constitutional rights of their contributors, or sign negotiated agreements with all of them, not EULAs.

            1. Actually, I believe that the Fox News online presence is open to public contribution. Even their on-air programming occasionally airs comments from viewers. None of these services have ever represented that they are open forums that will publish absolutely everything submitted. Just like the letters column in your local paper, they have reserved the right to be selective. There is nothing about being electronic rather than printed that takes them out of the protection of the First Amendment.

            2. The broadcast networks as such (Fox, NBC, etc.) do not require any licenses. The affiliated stations (including the few owned by the networks) hold individual broadcast licenses. Obviously, the Fox News and Fox Business cable channels (like MSNBC and CNBC) need no government permits because they do not use any broadcast bandwidth.

              Again, Facebook, et al., have never claimed to be open forums, except to users who comply with the providers’ conditions of use.

      2. I totally agree that libel laws, as they currently exist, are the way to handle these matters.

        But I keep bringing this up, but never get an answer. These are companies that offer communication and broadcast services to the public. Are they allowed to trample on just any moron’s rights?

        Can the phone company intentionally bleep words from conversations just because they own the network?

        If anything, this shows just how wrong Citizens United is.

        Yes, I support Alex Jones’ right to be a jackass with the law, let libel handle the rest.

        And in the spirit of free speech, F*ck you Alex Jones, and your listeners too.

        1. From Facebook’s point of view, leaving it up to the libel laws just means that they will get sued along with Jones… and they have deeper pockets to pay a big judgment.

          The phone company, like a railroad, is a common carrier. They have to take all comers as the price of enjoying the power of eminent domain and quasi-government status. Similarly, there are restraints on broadcast outlets because they are trustees of the public airwaves (though precious few restraints since the Fairness and Equal Time doctrines went away). Neither case applies to a private business in a competitive market.

            1. First question asked of every entering law school class: can A sue B without any good reason? Answer: Yes. Absolutely so, but he won’t win.

              Second question: what would it take for A to win a lawsuit against B? Answer: A must prove three things by a preponderance of the admitted evidence. First, that B had some legal duty to A. Second, that B breached that duty. Finally, that A was economically harmed by B’s breach of duty. The next three years of law school just flesh out that outline.

              So, a “censored” group would have to show: First, that Facebook had a legal duty to publish the content in question. Second, that Facebook failed to publish it without an adequate legal excuse. Third, that the group was harmed by Facebook’s wrongful action. The evidence for the second two seems pretty shaky to me, but the evidence of the first seems entirely lacking.

              How does A establish that B has a duty? By evidence that B is either committing a tort, a civil wrong analogous to a crime, or breaching a contract. Can’t be a contract unless some money or other economically valuable thing changes hands as consideration for the contract. Can’t be a tort unless the law creates the duty alleged to be breached (and, in the US, such a law cannot violate the Constitution).

              Where is the law or contract requiring a publisher to print everything that comes along, and how would such a law pass constitutional muster?

            2. Agreed, SUE!

              If Denny’s can be sued for discrimination as a private company, unless I’m wrong, see no difference.

              I suspect this will be a slam dunk case as leftist hate speech is peddled for profit, far more prevalent and promoted and will open Pandora’s box as to what IS hate speech.

              Bring it on …

          1. Fairness and Equal Time doctrines, well where are they to defend conservative voices on Twitter, Facebook, Apple, et al? Do you even care?

            They are all national companies, publicly traded and in the communications business. Was it Denny’s, a private company that got in trouble for discrimination?

            What we have here is a huge CONTINUING PATTERN of censorship favoring the left and discriminating against the right.

            I know you see it happening and are all for it because it helps your team just in time for the midterms. You have totally forgotten a sense of fairness and hide behind terms of service and private company. Guess fairness and Constitution need not apply in the USER world.

            Fingers crossed despicable Alex Jones can sue these private companies for censorship. Because it is so easy to prove the left hate speech is much more rampant and worse, gladly sold for a profit on iTunes.

            Long overdue Congress is looking into it this week. The last thing I expect from the media is fair coverage of this important issue. Hell, they allowed Lois Lerner to use the IRS to discriminate against Tea Party groups. This is where this all started — the Obama Injustice Dept.

            All your exchanges on this topic are the SAME. Absolutely NO sense of balance and fairness. No empathy for conservatives freedom of speech. Legal semantics DEFENDING censorship and discrimination. And you are proud of it, very sad …

      3. “That seems consistent with the President’s call this morning for Congress to somehow repeal the constitutional requirement that libel actions by public figures must prove that the libelous statement alleged a verifiable fact that was untrue, and which the publisher knew it to be most likely untrue.”

        So under this scenario, Trump’s Obama birther rants would be libelous. Brilliant Donald…simply brilliant. What a stable genius you are!

    2. Will Rogers said any man has a right to preach on any street corner from atop a soapbox, but oughtn’t expect the government to pay for the soapbox.. it ought to be enough that they didn’t run him in for disorderly conduct

  2. Jones violated terms of service, nothing more, so Dorsey’s company can get rid of his media, right? It’s not a free speech issue at all for the time being, in my opinion, so this move is not big gub’mnt censorship which I would abhor.

    But whenever I stumble upon his show, he entertains because I love the broad landscape of the political/social spectrum that his mind traverses.

      1. Suppose that you run a website. Alex Jones decides to use your site to baselessly label your daughter (rather than a Parkland survivor) as a traitorous whore, publishes her phone number, home, and employment addresses, then invites his national audience to “treat the bitch appropriately.” As an opponent of censorship, I’m sure you will enthusiastically spread his message.

        No, you won’t, and neither should Facebook.

          1. did everything TxUser outlines he would be in a great deal more trouble than being sued for libel. Maybe America’s laws are not as robust or civilized as other countries, but uttering threats and inciting violence against a person, even once removed, will result in criminal charges where I live, in the civilized world.

          2. 100% correct!

            A mature, Intelligent solution for fairness that avoids one sided hypocritical censorship. Certainly, there are enough laws on the books to handle these situations as you pointed out.

            As I have been advocating, also add a site disclaimer (not all views and opinions here are yada, yada) to spell it out for further clarification where they have stand on free speech. Too easy to accomplish and it is already done and aired everyday.

            I respect your opinions on this subject coming from the Left. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, all Hell would break loose non-stop …

          3. “he would be sued for libel, but yes he can do that.”?

            If threats, harassment and inciting violence are also criminal in America then Alex Jones wouldn’t be sued for libel as you said, and no he can’t do what TxUser outlined because it is criminal.

          4. “Because the answer is obvious. YES he can say whatever he wants about my daughter, and YES, he would be sued if it’s libelous. Duh!”

            No he can’t say whatever he wants because in the example you are commenting about the action is criminal. Alex Jones would be facing criminal charges. He would not be sued. He would be tried. You could probably also bring a libel suit but it seems you completely missed TxUser’s point that the actions are criminal harassment and therefore censorship isn’t the issue. At. All.

          5. “Tried for what, calling my daughter names? Re-read what TxUser said”

            Wrong again. TxUser’s example was about criminal harassment not censorship or libel. I’m really under your skin. You replied three times and double posted a comment. Angry troll is angry!

  3. If the government could put an end to liberal biased fake news media spreading their lies and hate while using their “rules” to shut out the truth I’d vote for it.

    1. You would vote to revoke freedom of the press. So would lots of other people. Historically, Americans were prevented from doing that by public servants in all three branches of government who were committed to the Constitution, even when that was unpopular. We now seem to have a perfect storm with none of the three willing to defend the First Amendment.

      1. “We now seem to have a perfect storm with none of the three willing to defend the First Amendment.”

        Correct. No one willing to defend free speech and censorship of Alex Jones. You being the biggest offender here …

        1. Somebody who can draw a moral equivalency (at least twice in this thread) between

          (1) A racist Denny’s manager who refuses to serve African-American patrons, notwithstanding a law passed in 1964 that makes that illegal, and

          (2) A social media company that refuses to assist someone in driving the parents of murdered children from their homes

          is so obviously in Crazytown that he has no moral right to complain about anybody else.

          1. 1. Yes, the 1964 law protects against discrimination. In 2018 we need a law passed to prevent discrimination against conservative opinions on social media.

            2. “assist someone in driving the parents of murdered children from their homes” you mean like Twitter, Apple or Facebook drove the car and bought the guns or bullets to something that never happened?

            As I have posted before, all these companies have to do is post a disclaimer and remain TOLERANT.

            If not, government regulation guaranteeing free speech is the only option and long overdue …

          2. Yes it did happen. InfoWar stirred up its followers to harass the parents to the point that one couple had to move six times.

            Again, nobody with a smidgen of moral character could draw an analogy between FORCING Facebook to assist Jones in doing that and PROHIBITING Denny’s from blatant racial discrimination.

            As for Congress passing a law requiring the two situations to be treated the same, are you aware that the Constitution treats them differently? The First Amendment prohibits Congressional interference with free expression while the 13-15th prohibit racial discrimination.

            The document doesn’t draw a false equivalence between the two situations. They aren’t “nice people on both sides.”

            1. “InfoWar stirred up its followers to harass the parents”

              Was Alex Jones going to the doors to harass the parents, answer no. Are the followers responsible for their own actions, answer yes.

              If you want to play the guilt by association game, OK. How about Maxine on CNN preaching to her “followers” to PUBLICLY badger, harass, insult, shout down, follow Republicans whenever they go in public. Some have shown up at Republican households in the middle of the night with bullhorns and loud music.

              So, using your rationale should CNN, NYT, WP and the rest of MSM censor and ban Maxine?

              I have long given up the thought to expect fairness and moral equivalency from you …

            2. The prohibition on shouting fire in a crowded theater applies even if the shouter doesn’t personally trample anyone to death. It isn’t “guilt by association” because making terroristic threats (as we call them in Texas) is itself a crime even if nobody follows through on the threat. The critical element is that the threat is uttered knowing that the victim will reasonably fear serious harm.

              That is hardly the same as calling on people to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition their representatives for a redress of their grievances. Certainly, there are lines that should not be crossed. If Rep. Waters or anyone else expressly calls on people to cross that line in a tweet or posting, of course Twitter or Facebook should sanction her. Do you have any examples of her making a terroristic threat on social media without a response?

  4. Any social media platform that keeps any and all politics away or in some sort of out of the way spot is all right by me. Toss religion and sex into that pot if you want so that those interested in facts and civil discussion can enjoy them without the vitriol and personal insults ad nauseum.

    1. It would be so nice if we could sit down for cocktails at a swank nightclub and chat about life, love, and liberty. Two adults conversing in a relaxed atmosphere, easily making eye contact and awash in hormonal possibilities, makes for far superior interchanges than do the sterile, politically front-loaded face-slaps we’ve sadly gotten used to on the damned internet.

      1. You mean conversation without the personal insults going back and forth and the intelligence and morality to ignore someone when they ask you to. Sounds like a fantastic idea, anytime you are in the free and civilized world let me know cause that’s what we do quite often.

        1. like GoeB and applecynic and others couldn’t have a serious real world conversation. They would stare at their feet and mumble nervously. You know the type. Loud as a motorbike but wouldn’t bust a grape in a fruit fight.

          1. Yes, you are a Coward, unless you tell us who you really are instant avatar.

            I read you are on an insult tour and supporter of the foreign snowflake. It is OK for him to incessantly rant, rave and hurl ad hominem attacks against our president and over 300 million citizens.

            Then he melts down, whines and cry’s to his buddies when called on it. That’s not fair play, that’s a spoiled and self righteous child who can’t handle it.

            You know NOTHING of my dinner conversation and it is none of your business…

  5. Ha, I wouldn’t be surprised if the owner of the DNC, George Soros, had a role in these social media outlets suppressing right-wing sites.
    If I had to guess why, he probably doesn’t want to waste anymore of his millions on losing elections. So his solution is to prevent left-wing fucking snowflakes from reading anything that challenges their notions.

      1. And Mr. Prosecutor your evidence is?

        While I have no evidence, I have to say that is an interesting possibility. Soros tentacles are everywhere gaming the system away from the will of the people. Know you know that and you have no problem with it.

        Please preach to us about honesty again …

      2. “While I have no evidence…”

        That expresses a popular current approach to science, politics, and society in a nutshell. Prior generations tried not to reach conclusions without evidence. Today, we have a government that has literally tried to purge “science-based” and “evidence-based” from its vocabulary. Don’t like somebody’s ideas? Don’t cite evidence to counter them, just attack the speaker personally with allegations that also lack evidentiary support.

        Thank you for your honesty.

      3. TxUser, maybe you should consider putting on a tin foil hat, might raise your IQ up to around 70ish…

        From a recent Soros memo: “Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandlists.”

        Links below.

        Amazing how easily duped snow-flakes are when it comes to them unwittingly letting left-wing billionaires leverage their collective stupidity so these billionaires can buy the means to reshape the world how they want.

        1. The sole source for the Western Journal article is the Free Beacon article, so that is one link, not two.

          Your quotation is not from George Soros. It is taken out of a 48-page memo written by David Brock for Media Matters for America, which has received less than 3% of its funding in donations from Soros.

          The whole point of the memo is to detail how conservative groups have used social media to push their agenda. It argues that liberal groups should push back by identifying untrue statements being pushed via Facebook, Twitter, etc. and countering those lies with the truth. Your quotation represents one of several goals Brock suggests for Media Matters and its allies to work towards over the next four years.

          Even if the quote were not ripped from its context, what about it suggests a conspiracy? The President has hardly been quiet about his own efforts to ensure that “Internet and social media platforms, like Twitter and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists.” Of course his “fake news sites” include NBC and the New York Times, rather than InfoWars and Breitbart, but the goal itself is identical.

          Mr. Trump’s approach for insuring this is rather different, however. Brock suggests mobilizing grass roots support to promote good journalism and fight misinformation by pressuring the media to identify false stories as such. Trump suggests using throwing the resources of the United States Government behind Big State control over public communications. One is simply a liberal copy of what conservatives are already doing. The other is profoundly inconsistent with the principles underlying the First Amendment.

          1. I never said there were two different articles, I said “links”. What are you trying to point out?

            Doesn’t matter that the doc cam from Brock. Extremely rich people who pay millions of their own money to get their select people elected and their policies and propositions put in place are the ones that are obviously and logically behind the push to squash right-wing information sources that could result in these rich people throwing away millions of dollars of their own money on lost elections and propositions.

            You think its a coincidence that this meeting was held early in ’17 (with 4 organizations, 3 of which I found have received funding from Soros) and now we are at this point of massive social media censorship?

            In fact, Soros attacked FB and Google earlier this year for being a “menace to society”, said their “days are numbered” then went out and bought shares in both these companies (and Apple). He also said they “exploit the social environment” and that “this is particularly nefarious because social media companies influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it. This has far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy, *****particularly on the integrity of elections*****.” (replace “integrity” with “outcomes”)

            He’s a billionaire and you can bet dollars to doughnuts that he (and probably other left-wing billionaires) are behind this because they don’t want to keep throwing away millions of their dollars on lost elections.

            As for Trump attacking the press, it is precisely because they aren’t objective. The MSM exists to cheerlead for the left, block for the left, protect the left, and promote the left.

            Like the conspiracy card you played. Its classic leftisim.

            And why can’t their be diversity in sources of news and views? Just because some may post things that aren’t true or exaggerated doesn’t mean many or all of the rest of them (of the same political tribe) should be closed down. Isn’t having a diversity of different views just as good as having a diversity of different races/people from different cultures?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.