well, here are the stakes. de-platforming emboldens and somewhat substantiates their narrative that they are being persecuted. peripheral followers may view th

well, here are the stakes. de-platforming emboldens and somewhat substantiates their narrative that they are being persecuted. peripheral followers may view this as a confirmation of what they have said, and draw closer to them, following them to a new platform. NOT de-platforming them allows their repeated publications to reach a wider audience. gradually, peripheral followers are attracted anyway, and the loyal followers may become more zealous over time. the real problem here is that both of these possibilities assume that people are 100% passive and 100% fixed in terms of their susceptibility to propaganda or non-mainstream theories. the sad thing is that alex jones is not remotely persuasive to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking. the debate around whether de-platforming is useful or not is the wrong debate. the debate should be about how we can make the public more critical and more endowed with the ability to think! an intellectually vicious public is not a public that cares much about whether alex jones is allowed to blather because the blathering has little impact even if it is in a public area. the elitists will jump in and say that the public will never be able to think for themselves. but it's to the advantage of those in power to never try to make the public intelligent and critical. we haven't even tried.