5 ms·
> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. That's a win in this case. It already festers somewhere else. White nationalists would like to
by ASinclair 8y ago
> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible.
That's a win in this case. It already festers somewhere else. White nationalists would like to spread their ideology outside of their normal bubble. They often talk about "redpilling normies." It's harder for them to do that if "normal" people have to explicitly seek out that kind of speech.
- hi5eyes 8y ago>It already festers somewhere else excluding people from a conversation doesn't help them learn why/how they think is wrong.. those "hidden" places that let the wrongthink fester only create more actions brought by wrongthink (guess what they talk about? wrongthink). i dont understand the logic of removing someones ability to converse if they dont understand why they're wrong.. they cant ask questions someone explain to me how banning content/people = deradicalizing
- shigawire 8y ago>i dont understand the logic of removing someones ability to converse if they dont understand why they're wrong.. they cant ask questions. I don't think I've ever seen someone already radicalized reason their way out of it through conversing on the internet. I'm guessing the calculus is that exposing this content to people makes it easy to be suckered in, but we don't see the opposite affect.
- all_factz 8y agoYou should read this awesome New Yorker article from several years ago: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via... That said, I think I generally agree that conversion via social media is unlikely. Still, I’m also not sure about my position on banning people. But the above article is a great read.
- betterunix2 8y agoThe Phelps people are disgusting, but they are not terrorists. The thing that is missing from most conversations about white supremacists is that their hate goes beyond words. These are terrorist organizations whose members have committed one violent, murderous act after another, year after year. Banning white supremacists is no different from banning ISIS.
- all_factz 8y agoMakes sense. But Westboro is radical, and the above poster had been talking about radicalization, not terrorism.
- chillacy 8y agoMost people do not critically evaluate content, especially if their own ego or group identity is involved.
- hi5eyes 8y agoI was waiting for the "only idiots get suckered into wrongthink" comment
- chillacy 8y agoThen I'm an idiot too. There are a whole slew of cognitive biases that cause us to prefer our in-group.
- hi5eyes 8y agowelcome to the club!
- noobermin 8y agoActually, their point isn't "only idiots" more than it is "everyone." Cognitive biases are real and hard to overcome and we all can succumb to them.
- betterunix2 8y agoWhite supremacists use Facebook for the purpose of recruiting and radicalizing people who are not yet white supremacists. The point of a ban like this is not to deradicalize people who are already white supremacists, it is to make it harder for people to become radicalized in the first place. People do not typically seek out white supremacists; white supremacists are always looking for people who are vulnerable to their message. Facebook seems to have come to the conclusion that their platform is just too useful to such terrorist groups and have decided to ban them before the problem gets worse.
- hi5eyes 8y ago>it is to make it harder for people to become radicalized in the first place I've been in fb group chats with holocaust deniers etc. (mans literally inboxed me a youtube video, I never bothered clicking the links he sent but it was funny) "banning white nationalist content" is a cute headline but doesn't hit the problem of seemingly benign normal users that would never "reveal their power level" slowly radicalizing their friends with content not on their site lol
- betterunix2 8y agoI said "harder" not "impossible." Yes, white supremacists are still going to use Facebook and are still going to try to radicalize people, but it will be harder.
- hi5eyes 8y ago"harder" not "impossible." The Rhetoric Tricks, Traps, and Tactics of White Nationalism https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-and-tactics-of-white-nationalism-b0bca3caeb84 https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-an... the overt white nationalism content you think of doesn't really exist, i guess maybe if ur a boomer it still lingers? idk
- betterunix2 8y agoI sure saw a lot of overtly antisemitic, racist, white supremacist imagery in that article...
- hi5eyes 8y ago1hour later thats how quick it can take to slowly expose people to content and how useless it is to "ban white nationalist content" v cute headline tho
- hi5eyes 8y agooutbound content is dangerous ban outbound content to make it "harder" but not "impossible" to expose "idiots" to "radical content" https://imgur.com/o14rjegrhk21.png https://imgur.com/o14rjegrhk21.png