3 ms·

> If all you do is burn any words you don't like Nobody is burning words. We are collectively stopping inarguably deleterious hate from spreading, by removing

> If all you do is burn any words you don't like Nobody is burning words. We are collectively stopping inarguably deleterious hate from spreading, by removing the soap box and megaphone. And, "hiding the problem" in this way, de-platforming brokers of hate, does work. Hateful people aren't born, they're bred, and platforms like G*b are how it happens. Your perspective on how to best counter hate is anachronistic and counter-effective.

manfredo 8y ago
Is deplatforming effective at actually making people less hateful? Deplatforming saw a significant rise in the last half decade or so, but it seems to be correlated with a rise in polarization and hate rather than correlated against it. Case studies like Reddit's subreddit bans only measured the attitudes within their own platform, rather than in society as a whole. On the whole, I'm skeptical of the claim that a society can censor itself out of a disgruntled segment of the population, and it potentially risks reinforcing radical views (e.g. people pointing to the deplatforming of Gab as proof of conspiracies theories that some groups' manipulation of society). How often have you found yourself changing your views after, say, you get banned from a forum for speaking your mind?
- danaris 8y ago
  The point of deplatforming isn't to make the person you take the megaphone away from change his mind. It's to make sure he can't change the mind of billions by using that megaphone.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    If it's an idea that billions of people like, should someone in power be able to suppress it?
  - Nadya 8y ago
    @danaris The parent comment is pointing out that taking away the megaphone seems to be doing the opposite. Year over year things seem to be becoming more and more polarized. When, with all this deplatforming companies have been doing, it seems to be having no impact at all. It brings legitimacy to some groups because of reasoning not to dissimilar from "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" or, for conspiracy theorists, "they want to hide the truth!" Not to mention it helps legitimize majority censorship over a minority. I'm sure that'll never come back to bite anyone in the ass in the future when they find themselves no longer in the majority. @sagichmal >Yes. Reddit has the latest real-world example, as far as I know, and the data to back it up. No, they have data that these bans make Reddit "less toxic" for whatever definition it is that they used for "toxic", a term I think is too loosely defined. Not the internet as a whole and not that the group banned ceases to exist. Reddit's study was just "if you take out some of the garbage that has piled up the pile becomes smaller". E: The study was done to show "If you just ban or quarantine a subreddit they'll make a new one, so it doesn't solve anything." is wrong. But, for example, I'd be interested in if banning a subreddit increases the popularity of alternatives like Voat. Which is much harder to measure without access to the statistics for alternative sites.
    - danaris 8y ago
      I don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw that deplatforming doesn't work. The fact that things are still getting worse isn't anything like solid evidence for that—I mean, just because a bunch of places have taken platforms away from alt-right Nazi mouthpieces doesn't mean they don't still have places to speak. In part because of logic like yours, actually. Regarding "majority censorship"...yeah, I'm really not going to worry too much about whether the Nazis will feel justified or not in suppressing my free speech because of my suppression of theirs if they manage to truly take over. Because I think I'll have worse things to worry about in a situation like that. Because of the Nazis that are in charge in that situation. (Also because I don't think they'll think twice about suppressing my free speech if they manage to get in charge. The idea that the alt-right is genuinely composed primarily of free-speech maximalists, as opposed to simply saying what will let them continue to spread hate, seems to me to be naïve.) And regarding banning people from mainstream platforms causing them to migrate to niche platforms: Good. Isolate them. Let them know that society does not want them as long as they espouse and spread these views. Because all they have to do to become accepted again is to stop spreading hateful views. The people they preach hate against? They have no recourse. They can't change the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender.
      - Nadya 8y ago
        Who was talking about neo-nazis gaining power? The pendulum doesn't need to swing in only two directions. Any power given to a governing body (be it government or literally country-sized corporations) to control the speech of the people will not be something relinquished without a fight. I think it is incredibly short-sighted to reach for such a drastic solution simply because it is the most convenient solution at the time. The PATRIOT and FREEDOM Acts are perfect examples of such overreach and practically every government on Earth has a good example of similar overreach given to them by the governed population at some point in time. Deplatforming gives them a more powerful rhetoric to use for sympathetic ears wherever they do end up finding ears - and they will find somewhere willing to take their money at some point. "The ${whatevers} are trying to keep us down. They go after our advertisers, after our living. They don't want the truth that we preach to be heard. They do everything in their power to prevent you from knowing the truth but I won't be stopped. Yadda yadda yadda." is a bit more convincing and trivially provable than the usual drivel they come up with. Moving things into the dark where you can't watch it is going to make it more dangerous, not less. It doesn't get rid of it - it just removes it from your view. The equivalent of closing your eyes and hoping the monster goes away.
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > Is deplatforming effective at actually making people less hateful? Yes. Reddit has the latest real-world example, as far as I know, and the data to back it up. See also Yontan Zounger's writings about the role of moderation on sites like YouTube.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Reddit's study was limited to their platform. It demonstrated that censoring hateful speech on Reddit led to les hateful speech on Reddit - not that it reduced hateful thought in society as a whole.
    - sagichmal 8y ago
      > censoring hateful speech on Reddit led to les hateful speech on Reddit Sounds like a great and repeatable outcome.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        Sure, but it is not evidence that this deplatforming actually resulted in reduced adoption of hateful views - only that these views were shared on Reddit less frequently. It may be a good result, but it is not evidence that deplatforming actually reduces these views in society as a whole, which is what the above comment claimed.
        sagichmal 8y ago
        > these views were shared on Reddit less frequently Again, great! Let’s repeat this outcome for as many platforms as possible.
        CompanionCuuube 8y ago
        See: NIMBY and the homeless epidemic

manfredo 8y ago

Is deplatforming effective at actually making people less hateful? Deplatforming saw a significant rise in the last half decade or so, but it seems to be correlated with a rise in polarization and hate rather than correlated against it. Case studies like Reddit's subreddit bans only measured the attitudes within their own platform, rather than in society as a whole. On the whole, I'm skeptical of the claim that a society can censor itself out of a disgruntled segment of the population, and it potentially risks reinforcing radical views (e.g. people pointing to the deplatforming of Gab as proof of conspiracies theories that some groups' manipulation of society). How often have you found yourself changing your views after, say, you get banned from a forum for speaking your mind?

danaris 8y ago
The point of deplatforming isn't to make the person you take the megaphone away from change his mind. It's to make sure he can't change the mind of billions by using that megaphone.
- leereeves 8y ago
  If it's an idea that billions of people like, should someone in power be able to suppress it?
- Nadya 8y ago
  @danaris The parent comment is pointing out that taking away the megaphone seems to be doing the opposite. Year over year things seem to be becoming more and more polarized. When, with all this deplatforming companies have been doing, it seems to be having no impact at all. It brings legitimacy to some groups because of reasoning not to dissimilar from "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" or, for conspiracy theorists, "they want to hide the truth!" Not to mention it helps legitimize majority censorship over a minority. I'm sure that'll never come back to bite anyone in the ass in the future when they find themselves no longer in the majority. @sagichmal >Yes. Reddit has the latest real-world example, as far as I know, and the data to back it up. No, they have data that these bans make Reddit "less toxic" for whatever definition it is that they used for "toxic", a term I think is too loosely defined. Not the internet as a whole and not that the group banned ceases to exist. Reddit's study was just "if you take out some of the garbage that has piled up the pile becomes smaller". E: The study was done to show "If you just ban or quarantine a subreddit they'll make a new one, so it doesn't solve anything." is wrong. But, for example, I'd be interested in if banning a subreddit increases the popularity of alternatives like Voat. Which is much harder to measure without access to the statistics for alternative sites.
  - danaris 8y ago
    I don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw that deplatforming doesn't work. The fact that things are still getting worse isn't anything like solid evidence for that—I mean, just because a bunch of places have taken platforms away from alt-right Nazi mouthpieces doesn't mean they don't still have places to speak. In part because of logic like yours, actually. Regarding "majority censorship"...yeah, I'm really not going to worry too much about whether the Nazis will feel justified or not in suppressing my free speech because of my suppression of theirs if they manage to truly take over. Because I think I'll have worse things to worry about in a situation like that. Because of the Nazis that are in charge in that situation. (Also because I don't think they'll think twice about suppressing my free speech if they manage to get in charge. The idea that the alt-right is genuinely composed primarily of free-speech maximalists, as opposed to simply saying what will let them continue to spread hate, seems to me to be naïve.) And regarding banning people from mainstream platforms causing them to migrate to niche platforms: Good. Isolate them. Let them know that society does not want them as long as they espouse and spread these views. Because all they have to do to become accepted again is to stop spreading hateful views. The people they preach hate against? They have no recourse. They can't change the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender.
    - Nadya 8y ago
      Who was talking about neo-nazis gaining power? The pendulum doesn't need to swing in only two directions. Any power given to a governing body (be it government or literally country-sized corporations) to control the speech of the people will not be something relinquished without a fight. I think it is incredibly short-sighted to reach for such a drastic solution simply because it is the most convenient solution at the time. The PATRIOT and FREEDOM Acts are perfect examples of such overreach and practically every government on Earth has a good example of similar overreach given to them by the governed population at some point in time. Deplatforming gives them a more powerful rhetoric to use for sympathetic ears wherever they do end up finding ears - and they will find somewhere willing to take their money at some point. "The ${whatevers} are trying to keep us down. They go after our advertisers, after our living. They don't want the truth that we preach to be heard. They do everything in their power to prevent you from knowing the truth but I won't be stopped. Yadda yadda yadda." is a bit more convincing and trivially provable than the usual drivel they come up with. Moving things into the dark where you can't watch it is going to make it more dangerous, not less. It doesn't get rid of it - it just removes it from your view. The equivalent of closing your eyes and hoping the monster goes away.
sagichmal 8y ago
> Is deplatforming effective at actually making people less hateful? Yes. Reddit has the latest real-world example, as far as I know, and the data to back it up. See also Yontan Zounger's writings about the role of moderation on sites like YouTube.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Reddit's study was limited to their platform. It demonstrated that censoring hateful speech on Reddit led to les hateful speech on Reddit - not that it reduced hateful thought in society as a whole.
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    > censoring hateful speech on Reddit led to les hateful speech on Reddit Sounds like a great and repeatable outcome.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Sure, but it is not evidence that this deplatforming actually resulted in reduced adoption of hateful views - only that these views were shared on Reddit less frequently. It may be a good result, but it is not evidence that deplatforming actually reduces these views in society as a whole, which is what the above comment claimed.
      - sagichmal 8y ago
        > these views were shared on Reddit less frequently Again, great! Let’s repeat this outcome for as many platforms as possible.
      - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
        See: NIMBY and the homeless epidemic