5 ms·

What about this for an idea (and I'm not sure I love it, but it's just spitballing): We allow expression of any _ideas_, but we put a limit on _recruitment_. I.

What about this for an idea (and I'm not sure I love it, but it's just spitballing): We allow expression of any _ideas_, but we put a limit on _recruitment_. I.e., anybody gets to say "White people need a home country" or "the Caliphate shall reign supreme", but nobody gets to say "come to the meeting at 10th and Main 5 o'clock". That way we at least know what's on people's mind so we can engage them but we're putting a limit on helping them grow the movement (until and unless we decide they have some sort of valid point, which is part the point of letting them speak).

joshuamorton 8y ago
The recruitment rarely happens on the platform. The "normal" process is 1. Get exposed to $radical_group on social media 2. Go searching for $radical_group because their ideas are intriguing/edgy/whatever 3. Find the actual site of $radical_group, and now they control the entire process. Think of it this way: you see a poster for some cool band that says "RadicalPandas's music will change your life. We have concerts, but they're secret and we can't tell you where they are because the man wants to keep us down". If anything, that sounds even more edgy and intriguing. So instead you just have to tear all of the posters down.
- jakeogh 8y ago
  People with mental problems are always going to exist. Using them as props to keep chopping away at the boundaries of free speech is foolish.
cja 8y ago
Who's "we"?
- orblivion 8y ago
  For exploratory purposes, just imagining we can make an agreement. Don't worry, I don't like the concept of collective decisions either.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
The really radical stuff doesn't happen on open platforms, they're more of a tool for early exposure. The actual planning and such happens on private sites with secret forums. As a real-world example, a Danish right-wing nationalist network called ORG was exposed in 2011, after having allegedly been active since the mid-80s. Its members counted a number of well-to-do individuals, as well as members of the police and known violent white nationalists. The group ran and had control over several sports clubs, including martial arts and gun clubs, which they used for training members in street fighting and tactics. They ran a database of basically every politician and public figure who ever espoused left-wing views, and thousands of ostensibly left-wing citizens as well, labeling them as "traitors" to be "dealt with". At least one of their members was from the armed forces in some security-related capacity, and they had reasonably good opsec procedures in place. I have no doubt that even after being exposed and having its members publicly named, the group or a new equivalent still exists, with new secret sites and a heightened level of paranoia towards possible infiltrators. By deplatforming these people and driving them further underground and paranoid, we limit their ability to attract people through social media, for fear of exposure.
- honzzz 8y ago
  > By deplatforming these people and driving them further underground and paranoid, we limit their ability to attract people through social media, for fear of exposure. Do you have any evidence to support that statement? Would you expand on why you think so? I would estimate that by driving them more underground, you make them seem more cool in the eyes of angry teenagers. You also make them more radical because underground their opinions are not exposed to contradicting views. In my opinion, we should do exactly the opposite - we should give them platform to speak and oppose them. Isn't that what open society is about?
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    The number of people being radicalized by isis decreased and their social media reach disappeared. There are a few studies in this thread that conclude similar. The whole sunlight is the best disinfectant trope is only a trope, not a truth. See also any conspiracy theory and the amtivax movement. When groups appeal to fear, not logic, as a recruiting tool, you can't logic people away.

joshuamorton 8y ago

The recruitment rarely happens on the platform. The "normal" process is 1. Get exposed to $radical_group on social media 2. Go searching for $radical_group because their ideas are intriguing/edgy/whatever 3. Find the actual site of $radical_group, and now they control the entire process. Think of it this way: you see a poster for some cool band that says "RadicalPandas's music will change your life. We have concerts, but they're secret and we can't tell you where they are because the man wants to keep us down". If anything, that sounds even more edgy and intriguing. So instead you just have to tear all of the posters down.

jakeogh 8y ago
People with mental problems are always going to exist. Using them as props to keep chopping away at the boundaries of free speech is foolish.

cja 8y ago

Who's "we"?

orblivion 8y ago
For exploratory purposes, just imagining we can make an agreement. Don't worry, I don't like the concept of collective decisions either.

KozmoNau7 8y ago

The really radical stuff doesn't happen on open platforms, they're more of a tool for early exposure. The actual planning and such happens on private sites with secret forums. As a real-world example, a Danish right-wing nationalist network called ORG was exposed in 2011, after having allegedly been active since the mid-80s. Its members counted a number of well-to-do individuals, as well as members of the police and known violent white nationalists. The group ran and had control over several sports clubs, including martial arts and gun clubs, which they used for training members in street fighting and tactics. They ran a database of basically every politician and public figure who ever espoused left-wing views, and thousands of ostensibly left-wing citizens as well, labeling them as "traitors" to be "dealt with". At least one of their members was from the armed forces in some security-related capacity, and they had reasonably good opsec procedures in place. I have no doubt that even after being exposed and having its members publicly named, the group or a new equivalent still exists, with new secret sites and a heightened level of paranoia towards possible infiltrators. By deplatforming these people and driving them further underground and paranoid, we limit their ability to attract people through social media, for fear of exposure.

honzzz 8y ago
> By deplatforming these people and driving them further underground and paranoid, we limit their ability to attract people through social media, for fear of exposure. Do you have any evidence to support that statement? Would you expand on why you think so? I would estimate that by driving them more underground, you make them seem more cool in the eyes of angry teenagers. You also make them more radical because underground their opinions are not exposed to contradicting views. In my opinion, we should do exactly the opposite - we should give them platform to speak and oppose them. Isn't that what open society is about?
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  The number of people being radicalized by isis decreased and their social media reach disappeared. There are a few studies in this thread that conclude similar. The whole sunlight is the best disinfectant trope is only a trope, not a truth. See also any conspiracy theory and the amtivax movement. When groups appeal to fear, not logic, as a recruiting tool, you can't logic people away.