> If VICE is trash, then it should be easy to point out where the article is wrong, right? Yes, although there is no need to defend my opinion every time after

> If VICE is trash, then it should be easy to point out where the article is wrong, right? Yes, although there is no need to defend my opinion every time after having bothered to read this kind of junk often enough. And the well is already poisoned by past articles. The trashy VICE article has a broad claim in its headline that suggests (and is used to claim by the post here) that deplatforming works as a general tool against alt-right hate speech. The study itself only found that within a few weeks of shutting down certain subreddits, hate speech in a few other subreddits did not compensate. They did not investigate whether the hate speech went to other platforms, decreased in general or even increased due to radicalization from this. Nor did it examine long-term effects. And to be honest, it's not particularly convincing since it's heavy on ideology (example: "These constitute our invaded subreddits. Using this method, we identify 1201 subreddits invaded by r/fatpeoplehate migrants and 275 subreddits invaded by r/CoonTown migrants.").