3 ms·

Sure, it reduced toxic content "elsewhere" but that "elsewhere" is limited to the same space that is administered by the same authority. Banning /r/coontown may

Sure, it reduced toxic content "elsewhere" but that "elsewhere" is limited to the same space that is administered by the same authority. Banning /r/coontown may have made posters in /r/politics less toxic, likely because they witnessed the shift in moderation policies. Also because racist users likely stopped using the service for posting racist content. But you're acting as though this means this content wasn't posted at all. For all we know, this just displaced it to 4chan, Gab, or something else. Again, I agree that banning racist subreddits led to a reduction of racist content across the board on Reddit. But you're treating this as proof that said bans reduced racist content in society as a whole, which is a baseless claim even with the aforementioned analysis of the impact on other subreddits.

darawk 8y ago
I agree that it isn't absolute proof. It is possible that an effect like the one you described took place. But it isn't the only evidence. I'd direct you again to people like Alex Jones. I think it's extremely hard to argue that Alex Jones and his toxic brand of disinformation didn't benefit enormously from access to platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to argue that his reach has increased as a result of being de-platformed. You may be able to make the case that it has retrenched the support of his hardcore followers, but that is not the same thing as signal boosting his message in society at large.