4 ms·

> I fail to see how this is the case. It does absolutely grant the power to regulate speech. I didn't say it prevented speech regulation in general. I said tha

by darawk 8y ago

> I fail to see how this is the case. It does absolutely grant the power to regulate speech. I didn't say it prevented speech regulation in general. I said that it attenuated the previous regime of speech regulation. It does so by replacing it with a new one, where speech norms are determined by a tiny group of people in unelected, unreviewable positions at private companies. > The evidence really does indicate that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Despite the constant concern over Trump's comments on immigrants, for example, support for immigration in the US is at record levels.[1][2] Despite the concern over explicitly fascist rallies at Charlottesville and DC, these rallies actually cased a significant drop in support for far-right.[3] And lastly, while the Republican has become a party of Trump and has adopted much of his rhetoric the result has been largely bad for the party. They lost over a dozen seats in the midterm election - surprising given that the midterms are when the Republicans tend to do well. You may be right. But the story is far more complex than you're letting on. If sunlight is always the best disinfectant, then why did these movements gain steam in the first place? Sure, after an adverse event like Charlottesville, support may drop. But these movements just elected a president. Where was the disinfectant then?

manfredo 8y ago
Largely because the opposition did exactly that: they started deplatforming and attempting to more coercively prevent right wing views from speaking. Deplatforming grew in popularity around 2013 or 2014. Students at Brown shut down Ray Kelly's speech in 2014 [1]. We did prevent these groups from going out into the sunlight. That gave them the chance to grow in the shadows. Also, with regards to Trump, I largely see his election as happening despite his association with the alt right rather than because of it. It's a big liability not just for him, but the Republican party. Trump's biggest advantage wasn't anything to do with him, but the fact that Democrats had alienated manyc centrists in the leadup to the election, and fielded a candidate that lacked the enthusiasm to rally their base. 1. this is not to say that Ray Kelly is alt right. The fact that he got shut down despite not being nearly that extreme, though, is still demonstrative of my point.
- darawk 8y ago
  > Largely because the opposition did exactly that: they started deplatforming and attempting to more coercively prevent right wing views from speaking. Deplatforming grew in popularity around 2013 or 2014. Students at Brown shut down Ray Kelly's speech in 2014 [1]. We did prevent these groups from going out into the sunlight. That gave them the chance to grow in the shadows. I'm not a fan of de-platforming, but there's pretty decent evidence that it can be effective [1]. I'm aware of no empirical data supporting the notion that it is counter-productive. That being said, it's certainly a theoretical possibility. It could be the case that exposing ideas to the light of day robs them of their power. But then, why are conspiracy theories so persistent? Why was Alex Jones so successful, in spite of the unbelivably simplistic and falsifiable lies he was telling? I see almost zero evidence that sunlight acts as a disinfectant for ideas that appeal to people's preconceptions, and a lot of evidence that the modern left's tactics of shaming and de-platforming are actually the most effective ways to change culture and minds. To be clear, I don't like those tactics. I think that, in the very long run, they are probably harmful. But it is hard to seriously deny their efficacy. > Also, with regards to Trump, I largely see his election as happening despite his association with the alt right rather than because of it. It's a big liability not just for him, but the Republican party. Trump's biggest advantage wasn't anything to do with him, but the fact that Democrats had alienated manyc centrists in the leadup to the election, and fielded a candidate that lacked the enthusiasm to rally their base. I think that's part of it. Another part of it is that Trump saw through the stalemate stable equilibrium of left/right politics in the US. He correctly surmised that there was a middle path, that activated ethnic and nationalistic identities of the right, while simultaneously stoking economic anxiety traditionally associated with the left, to form a coalition that had unanticipated electoral power. 1. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-...
  - manfredo 8y ago
    That deplatforming deprives the person being deplatformed of a platform is obvious, to the point that it's effectively a tautology. However, concluding that this means deplatforming is effective is extremely naive. When tech companies engage in acts of censorship like deplatforming, it causes many do lose trust in the perceived lack of partiality of these platforms. So while individual people getting censored may see their audiences diminish, support for the views they espouse and distrust of the authority carrying out the censorship often increase. In case it wasn't clear, the lack of efficacy in deplatforming I referred to in my previous comment was in reference to attempts to curb ideas and political movements - not individuals within those. Again, deplatforming gained traction in the early to mid 2010s. It coincides more or less directly with the rise of the Alt Right. Increases in deplatforming is correlated with support for the far right, not against it.

by darawk 8y ago

manfredo 8y ago

Largely because the opposition did exactly that: they started deplatforming and attempting to more coercively prevent right wing views from speaking. Deplatforming grew in popularity around 2013 or 2014. Students at Brown shut down Ray Kelly's speech in 2014 [1]. We did prevent these groups from going out into the sunlight. That gave them the chance to grow in the shadows. Also, with regards to Trump, I largely see his election as happening despite his association with the alt right rather than because of it. It's a big liability not just for him, but the Republican party. Trump's biggest advantage wasn't anything to do with him, but the fact that Democrats had alienated manyc centrists in the leadup to the election, and fielded a candidate that lacked the enthusiasm to rally their base. 1. this is not to say that Ray Kelly is alt right. The fact that he got shut down despite not being nearly that extreme, though, is still demonstrative of my point.

darawk 8y ago
> Largely because the opposition did exactly that: they started deplatforming and attempting to more coercively prevent right wing views from speaking. Deplatforming grew in popularity around 2013 or 2014. Students at Brown shut down Ray Kelly's speech in 2014 [1]. We did prevent these groups from going out into the sunlight. That gave them the chance to grow in the shadows. I'm not a fan of de-platforming, but there's pretty decent evidence that it can be effective [1]. I'm aware of no empirical data supporting the notion that it is counter-productive. That being said, it's certainly a theoretical possibility. It could be the case that exposing ideas to the light of day robs them of their power. But then, why are conspiracy theories so persistent? Why was Alex Jones so successful, in spite of the unbelivably simplistic and falsifiable lies he was telling? I see almost zero evidence that sunlight acts as a disinfectant for ideas that appeal to people's preconceptions, and a lot of evidence that the modern left's tactics of shaming and de-platforming are actually the most effective ways to change culture and minds. To be clear, I don't like those tactics. I think that, in the very long run, they are probably harmful. But it is hard to seriously deny their efficacy. > Also, with regards to Trump, I largely see his election as happening despite his association with the alt right rather than because of it. It's a big liability not just for him, but the Republican party. Trump's biggest advantage wasn't anything to do with him, but the fact that Democrats had alienated manyc centrists in the leadup to the election, and fielded a candidate that lacked the enthusiasm to rally their base. I think that's part of it. Another part of it is that Trump saw through the stalemate stable equilibrium of left/right politics in the US. He correctly surmised that there was a middle path, that activated ethnic and nationalistic identities of the right, while simultaneously stoking economic anxiety traditionally associated with the left, to form a coalition that had unanticipated electoral power. 1. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-...
- manfredo 8y ago
  That deplatforming deprives the person being deplatformed of a platform is obvious, to the point that it's effectively a tautology. However, concluding that this means deplatforming is effective is extremely naive. When tech companies engage in acts of censorship like deplatforming, it causes many do lose trust in the perceived lack of partiality of these platforms. So while individual people getting censored may see their audiences diminish, support for the views they espouse and distrust of the authority carrying out the censorship often increase. In case it wasn't clear, the lack of efficacy in deplatforming I referred to in my previous comment was in reference to attempts to curb ideas and political movements - not individuals within those. Again, deplatforming gained traction in the early to mid 2010s. It coincides more or less directly with the rise of the Alt Right. Increases in deplatforming is correlated with support for the far right, not against it.