Let me preface this by saying I abhor Alex Jones, but not nearly so much as I loathe censorship. There is a very famous quote attributed to Voltaire (I say attributed because likely he never expressed that sentiment in those words, but the sentiment stands), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I am not a fan of Alex Jones, I don't trust him. I think he is a gatekeeper and disinfo agent, that said, he's a first step away from the mainstream media for many and, as a result, is something of a "problematic" figure.
Facebook has taken four of Jones' pages down, and his personal profile is on a temporary lockdown. Apple went a step further and removed the entire back catalogue of InfoWars related streams.
Apple made a statement regarding how the library was taken down due to "hate speech" and Jones had violated the "clear guidelines" they provide their content providers. I know for a fact these "clear guidelines" are often anything but. After the Valentine's Day school shooting at Parkland a rash of videos and channels dropping occurred. The Goldwater's live streaming privilege was limited for three months. After which, we were reinstated and our "content violation strike" was lifted. In our case, likely the channel was targeted due to our using the term "false flag" in the title. Ironically, we made it clear that we were not calling the events a false flag, but were only pointing out how other channels and videos that had were targeted. Evidently pointing out censorship is grounds for being censored.
Facebook is calling out Jones for his "hate speech" and "bullying." I guarantee anything that was deemed inappropriate is tame compared to material floated around targetting Christians, Southerners, white folks in general. That said, white, Southern, Christians and "straight, white, cisgendered males" are far from anywhere near the protected class.
Meanwhile, CNN thinks Facebook should cut InfoWars from the site completely to combat "fake news." That's right, the folks who called Assange a pedophile until hit with cease and desist, the folks who made the fallacious "17 intelligence agencies" claim months after it was clearly erroneous, the folks who reported the fallacious Sean Spicer in the bushes story and dozens more in the past couple years, hundreds in the last decade, likely thousands of cases in their history are concerned with "fake news" that goes against their agenda. This despite the "news" they report (DNI Clapper's Russiagate echoing strains of his Iraq/WMD pretense) often being as fake and biased as anything they claim to be opposing.
And what exactly is "hate speech" and "cyberbullying?" That's the thing; there is no definition of what is hate speech. For some, pointing out that race is certainly not a social construct (citing genetic differences testable in different ethnographic populations) might be found offensive. For some pointing out that injecting hormones and mutilating one's sex organs doesn't genetically change the countless difference between males and females. Others might find pointing out that the vast majority of the gangs kidnapping, drugging, raping and prostituting underage girls in the UK happen to be Pakistani Muslims offensive.
Sometimes the truth is offensive. That doesn't negate its veracity. The second we allow precedents set for speech to be shut down for vague "hate speech" guidelines we've set ourselves up for disaster.