7 ms·

There is evidence that deplatforming works (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/artic

There is evidence that deplatforming works (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-...)

gdix 8y ago
> though it may have some unintended consequences that have not been fully understood yet. I think no one disagrees that it "works" insofar as it stops the bad person from getting their bad ideas out there. Opponents of deplatforming generally argue that the long-term reaction to the deplatforming is worse than the problem the bad person's ideas were causing. Better to counter the bad ideas with good ideas to do long term good.
- cft 8y ago
  How do you define "bad" person? Ungood? Doubleplus ungood?
  - gdix 8y ago
    The last one. Doubleplus ungood.
- vertline3 8y ago
  "Opponents of deplatforming generally argue that the long-term reaction to the deplatforming is worse than the problem the bad person's ideas were causing." Not just that the reaction is worse, that the deplatforming erodes the spirit of free speech. I believe free speech is an important part of democracy.
- erik_seaberg 8y ago
  Even apart from the Streisand effect, conspiring to suppress crappy ideas gives them undeserved credibility. "They didn't want you to hear this."
  - albedoa 8y ago
    That's a reasonable concern and may even be true for some instances, but in the case of Milo Yiannopoulos for example, he practically just went away. Milo himself says he spent all of his savings and lost his friends. Even his most ardent fans stopped speaking out about him. Nobody is listening to his ideas enough to give them underserved credibility.
tux1968 8y ago
For some definition of "works" since the analysis doesn't consider unintended effects or potential adverse long-term consequences. This all seems joyful while the technique is being applied to those with whom we disagree, less so once the technique has been turned on you yourself. Defending free speech means defending those we disagree with, and maybe even hate.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  Deplatforming is about deciding which ideas are granted resources (pushed above the cultural baseline), not who is punished for speaking (pushed below the cultural baseline). People without platforms are still free to speak. If dang banned me from HN I could still go stand on the corner and read my posts aloud and no one would arrest me. Free speech does not mean I'm entitled to someone else's platform.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > Free speech does not mean I'm entitled to someone else's platform. You're thinking of the first amendment, there is a nuanced difference between that and the general principle of free speech. I'll assume you happened to not be aware of this, but there are lots of people online who refuse to acknowledge that difference and continue to spout the "entitled to someone else's platform" persuasion meme, which is kind of what this whole discussion is about: power, or altering the course of future events. If one's ideas & principles are sound, disingenuously censoring opposing ideas shouldn't be necessary. I believe many pro-censorship people know this explicitly (but would never speak it out loud) and others "sense" it subconsciously.
    - jshevek 8y ago
      (Edit: I agree with everything else you're saying.) Is the difference between the First Amendment and the moral principle of free speech really that nuanced? It seems to me one has to be thinking strictly in terms of a single country, a single period of human history, a single document in order to conflate the First Amendment with the moral principle of freedom of speech. This is a very narrow view.
TimJYoung 8y ago
Only if you assume that everything that a given person says is bad/unwelcome. But, people aren't like that, and hold all kinds of different views on different subjects, some of which they may have extensive background in, and others that they are just pulling out of their nether regions and are subject to all kinds of biases. For example, despite what anyone thinks about what Trump says (I think he's an idiot and a clown), he does occasionally say something that isn't complete BS (please don't make me try to find such an example). You just can't go down that route and expect a good outcome. In fact, I would argue that you're going to end up with the opposite result that you intended because you'll, inadvertently, end up giving more attention to idiotic ideas than the ideas actually deserve.
halfnibble 8y ago
Deplatforming works until new "free speech" platforms like Gab arise to replace the old.
- snerbles 8y ago
  Not without the old taking measures to keep that from happening. Gab itself has been deplatformed to a degree, Google and Apple banned their mobile apps and their DNS registrar threatened to yank their domain over certain user posts.
jshevek 8y ago
I would not consider that "evidence that deplatforming works", in the context of the parent comment.
mrweasel 8y ago
Has Alex Jones stopped his podcast? Has his sites shutdown? Have people how believes what he believe changed their minds? Sure, fewer random people are exposed to him, so? They'll find someone else to follow that says the things they want to hear. I suppose it depends one what you goal with deplatforming is. If it's convincing people that the ideas that people like Alex Jones and organisations like Black Lives Matter (they're in the article as someone who have similarly been affected) are wrong or hateful then I think it will fail.
manfredo 8y ago
I don't think this sort of analysis can measure the impact of deplatforming on people's opinions. While deplatforming may suppress the open dissemination of hateful ideas it's erroneous to assume these ideas become less prevalent as a consequence. This has happened in my workplace, for one. After the company made it clear it would not tolerate things like Damore's memo and Stuart Reges' article on women in computing, I and other people who agreed (or at least, aren't actively adverse to those views) shut up, and joined the chorous of people condemning them. But in private, it didn't change our views. If anything, it's made me even more skeptical of that sort of leftism. Consider the fact that deplatforming (primarily of right wing speakers) in the US became significantly more prevalent around 2014, and 2015. It didn't help in the 2016 election.

There is evidence that deplatforming works (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-...)

gdix 8y ago

> though it may have some unintended consequences that have not been fully understood yet. I think no one disagrees that it "works" insofar as it stops the bad person from getting their bad ideas out there. Opponents of deplatforming generally argue that the long-term reaction to the deplatforming is worse than the problem the bad person's ideas were causing. Better to counter the bad ideas with good ideas to do long term good.

cft 8y ago
How do you define "bad" person? Ungood? Doubleplus ungood?
- gdix 8y ago
  The last one. Doubleplus ungood.
vertline3 8y ago
"Opponents of deplatforming generally argue that the long-term reaction to the deplatforming is worse than the problem the bad person's ideas were causing." Not just that the reaction is worse, that the deplatforming erodes the spirit of free speech. I believe free speech is an important part of democracy.
erik_seaberg 8y ago
Even apart from the Streisand effect, conspiring to suppress crappy ideas gives them undeserved credibility. "They didn't want you to hear this."
- albedoa 8y ago
  That's a reasonable concern and may even be true for some instances, but in the case of Milo Yiannopoulos for example, he practically just went away. Milo himself says he spent all of his savings and lost his friends. Even his most ardent fans stopped speaking out about him. Nobody is listening to his ideas enough to give them underserved credibility.

tux1968 8y ago

For some definition of "works" since the analysis doesn't consider unintended effects or potential adverse long-term consequences. This all seems joyful while the technique is being applied to those with whom we disagree, less so once the technique has been turned on you yourself. Defending free speech means defending those we disagree with, and maybe even hate.

snowwrestler 8y ago
Deplatforming is about deciding which ideas are granted resources (pushed above the cultural baseline), not who is punished for speaking (pushed below the cultural baseline). People without platforms are still free to speak. If dang banned me from HN I could still go stand on the corner and read my posts aloud and no one would arrest me. Free speech does not mean I'm entitled to someone else's platform.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > Free speech does not mean I'm entitled to someone else's platform. You're thinking of the first amendment, there is a nuanced difference between that and the general principle of free speech. I'll assume you happened to not be aware of this, but there are lots of people online who refuse to acknowledge that difference and continue to spout the "entitled to someone else's platform" persuasion meme, which is kind of what this whole discussion is about: power, or altering the course of future events. If one's ideas & principles are sound, disingenuously censoring opposing ideas shouldn't be necessary. I believe many pro-censorship people know this explicitly (but would never speak it out loud) and others "sense" it subconsciously.
  - jshevek 8y ago
    (Edit: I agree with everything else you're saying.) Is the difference between the First Amendment and the moral principle of free speech really that nuanced? It seems to me one has to be thinking strictly in terms of a single country, a single period of human history, a single document in order to conflate the First Amendment with the moral principle of freedom of speech. This is a very narrow view.

TimJYoung 8y ago

Only if you assume that everything that a given person says is bad/unwelcome. But, people aren't like that, and hold all kinds of different views on different subjects, some of which they may have extensive background in, and others that they are just pulling out of their nether regions and are subject to all kinds of biases. For example, despite what anyone thinks about what Trump says (I think he's an idiot and a clown), he does occasionally say something that isn't complete BS (please don't make me try to find such an example). You just can't go down that route and expect a good outcome. In fact, I would argue that you're going to end up with the opposite result that you intended because you'll, inadvertently, end up giving more attention to idiotic ideas than the ideas actually deserve.

halfnibble 8y ago

Deplatforming works until new "free speech" platforms like Gab arise to replace the old.

snerbles 8y ago
Not without the old taking measures to keep that from happening. Gab itself has been deplatformed to a degree, Google and Apple banned their mobile apps and their DNS registrar threatened to yank their domain over certain user posts.

jshevek 8y ago

I would not consider that "evidence that deplatforming works", in the context of the parent comment.

mrweasel 8y ago

Has Alex Jones stopped his podcast? Has his sites shutdown? Have people how believes what he believe changed their minds? Sure, fewer random people are exposed to him, so? They'll find someone else to follow that says the things they want to hear. I suppose it depends one what you goal with deplatforming is. If it's convincing people that the ideas that people like Alex Jones and organisations like Black Lives Matter (they're in the article as someone who have similarly been affected) are wrong or hateful then I think it will fail.

manfredo 8y ago

I don't think this sort of analysis can measure the impact of deplatforming on people's opinions. While deplatforming may suppress the open dissemination of hateful ideas it's erroneous to assume these ideas become less prevalent as a consequence. This has happened in my workplace, for one. After the company made it clear it would not tolerate things like Damore's memo and Stuart Reges' article on women in computing, I and other people who agreed (or at least, aren't actively adverse to those views) shut up, and joined the chorous of people condemning them. But in private, it didn't change our views. If anything, it's made me even more skeptical of that sort of leftism. Consider the fact that deplatforming (primarily of right wing speakers) in the US became significantly more prevalent around 2014, and 2015. It didn't help in the 2016 election.