Alex Berenson goes home devastated - Berenson permanently suspended from twitter

My message to Twitter which they did not respond to:

Hello Twitter,

I am appalled that you choose to single out my account on the basis of one tweet

while ignoring the hundreds and thousands of other accounts which contain hateful speech.

Why do you single out my account while ignoring the other accounts?

How is it fair to suspend my account while not suspending others?

(So, quite literally Twitter does not have answers for their problems.)

high school xc coach wrote:

supposedly this is the tweet that made it happen.

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/08/alex-berenson-twitter-ban.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

That Tweet is pretty accurate… The vaccines don’t actually prevent infection. The CDC and Fauci have admitted as much. At best, they minimize your symptoms when you contract the virus and perhaps minimize your ability to spread the virus to others. Which is a good thing… it’s just that previous vaccines for other diseases actually prevent you from getting infected. That Tweet certainly is not misinformation.

eaRWw wrote:

He can start his own friggen website. Or go stand on a street corner and yell. He has no right to expect a private company provide him anything, especially a platform for misinformation.

Except that this “private” company gets Section 230 protection. It would be as if AT&T kicked you off your cell phone plan because you said something in a conversation that they didn’t like… The government gave these tech companies protections assuming that they would be “platforms” and not “editors”. If they remove the Section 230 protections, then Big Tech should be able to moderate the content. But that’s not the case… they are like a telecom and providing a platform.

Harambe wrote:

Berenson built a huge platform denying COVID. Then when 650k dead Americans proved him wrong he humbly admitted his mistakes and moved on.

Lol JK he decided to rail against the only thing keeping ANOTHER 650k Americans from dying: vaccines.

He usually walked a good line of “misleading but not wrong” but the vaccines have just worked too well for him the keep the grift up. So he started claiming they don’t work at all and got Twitter-slapped. There’s a lesson here somewhere….

I actually wish you were right. If the vaccines work so well then we would not need a vaccine mandate from private companies. Because they protect the people who get them. Right?

DougC wrote:

eaRWw wrote:

He can start his own friggen website. Or go stand on a street corner and yell. He has no right to expect a private company provide him anything, especially a platform for misinformation.

Except that this “private” company gets Section 230 protection. It would be as if AT&T kicked you off your cell phone plan because you said something in a conversation that they didn’t like… The government gave these tech companies protections assuming that they would be “platforms” and not “editors”. If they remove the Section 230 protections, then Big Tech should be able to moderate the content. But that’s not the case… they are like a telecom and providing a platform.

AT&T does not listen to people's conversations. You're comparing a crime to a company having some restrictions to what people can tweet on its platform.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

[quote]DougC wrote:

[quote]eaRWw wrote:

You're comparing a crime to a company having some restrictions to what people can tweet on its platform.

Banning every one expressing an opinion of posting facts the oligarchs don't want the public to have access to described as "..having some restrictions to what people can tweet.." is the height of dishonesty.

Never thought I would see the day that Americans would so willingly give up all their rights.

Is there a conservative Twitter-like competitor that bans liberal speak?

DougC wrote:

eaRWw wrote:

He can start his own friggen website. Or go stand on a street corner and yell. He has no right to expect a private company provide him anything, especially a platform for misinformation.

Except that this “private” company gets Section 230 protection. It would be as if AT&T kicked you off your cell phone plan because you said something in a conversation that they didn’t like… The government gave these tech companies protections assuming that they would be “platforms” and not “editors”. If they remove the Section 230 protections, then Big Tech should be able to moderate the content. But that’s not the case… they are like a telecom and providing a platform.

Twitter is more like writing an editorial for your local paper than a telco.

If Alex Berenson sold supplements and claimed that they worked better than the vaccine at preventing severe illness from COVID, the FTC could get an ex parte order (without notice to Berenson) freezing Berenson's bank accounts, restraining him from selling or advertising his supplements and from making claims about the efficacy of his supplements v. vaccines. Berenson would then have about two week to prepare for a hearing on an injunction that would be in place until trial (potentially for at least year or two) in which he would have the burden of showing that his supplements did what they claimed they would do. There is no first amendment defense to the FTC's actions in shutting down advertising and selling products that are in violation of the FTC act.

But when Berenson makes similarly false claims about vaccines in order to make money on social media platforms, substack, and from selling his books, he can wrap himself in the first amendment and claim to be a martyr in cancel culture wars, even though his removal from twitter is the act of a publicly traded company based on violation of its terms of use.

COVID disinformation goes beyond the usual 1st amendment analysis into the specter of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Purposefully undermining an effort to deal with a pandemic and public health crisis by putting out disinformation in order to achieve a political goal or financial benefit is not something that the 1st amendment was ever intending to protect.

The Unkle wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

[quote]DougC wrote:

[quote]eaRWw wrote:

You're comparing a crime to a company having some restrictions to what people can tweet on its platform.

Banning every one expressing an opinion of posting facts the oligarchs don't want the public to have access to described as "..having some restrictions to what people can tweet.." is the height of dishonesty.

Never thought I would see the day that Americans would so willingly give up all their rights.

Americans aren't giving up their rights. Probably 5% of Twitter users have any interest in tweeting provocative opinions. I believe Berenson's motivation is only to receive attention and I have no sympathy for him.

eaRWw wrote:

He can start his own friggen website. Or go stand on a street corner and yell. He has no right to expect a private company provide him anything, especially a platform for misinformation.

This is facile. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the First Amendment applies to Twitter. People are questioning whether it is a good thing that Twitter is is censoring viewpoints. Free speech isn't just about the First Amendment. It's a liberal value that matters even in private institutions.

In any event, there was nothing objectively false in the post that got him banned.

rojo wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/anti-vaccine-influencer-permanently-suspended-010100429.html

Do you view this as a good thing or bad thing?

Much the way you and your brother can ban anyone you choose, twiiter can do the same.

How do you feel about banning people that you deem unworthy?

800 dude wrote:

eaRWw wrote:

He can start his own friggen website. Or go stand on a street corner and yell. He has no right to expect a private company provide him anything, especially a platform for misinformation.

This is facile. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the First Amendment applies to Twitter. People are questioning whether it is a good thing that Twitter is is censoring viewpoints. Free speech isn't just about the First Amendment. It's a liberal value that matters even in private institutions.

In any event, there was nothing objectively false in the post that got him banned.

He claims the vaccines are ineffective and dangerous. Is that true? Even Trump said people should become vaccinated.

As for free speech, do you draw the line anywhere? There's a guy that comes to LR every once in awhile and posts awful antisemitic rants. Was LR wrong in banning him multiple times?

800 dude wrote:

eaRWw wrote:

He can start his own friggen website. Or go stand on a street corner and yell. He has no right to expect a private company provide him anything, especially a platform for misinformation.

This is facile. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the First Amendment applies to Twitter. People are questioning whether it is a good thing that Twitter is is censoring viewpoints. Free speech isn't just about the First Amendment. It's a liberal value that matters even in private institutions.

In any event, there was nothing objectively false in the post that got him banned.

He's trolling with the false dichotomy of vaccine/therapeutic - among many other things. Trolls damage the experience of other users on the platform... thus the ban.

Honestly he's been trying to get banned, this will help his brand.

rojo wrote:

Do you view this as a good thing or bad thing?

Much superior to your usual efforts, rojo! Imma go with 7/10 for this one.

Noyankee wrote:

^except it’s not a private company. It’s public. I know it’s been said but slow learners here

your conflating the public and private.

It's not whether a company is a private company or traded publicly on a stock exchange.

When we say a private coanymp, we mean a non-governmental company.

It makes no difference whether a company is private or publicly traded vis a vis vaccines.

I'm nonplussed that this needs to be explained.

He's a professional contrarian, who makes a lot of money pushing disinformation that gets people killed. Twitter certainly did the right thing here.