5 ms·

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 wit

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.
orblivion 8y ago
Do you have a way of going about this that isn't authoritarian? (Extending the definition of "authoritarian" to Facebook acting within its own platform). EDIT: Sorry this was really vague. By authoritarian in this case I mean that some authority has to decide what is and isn't an acceptable opinion (as opposed to, say, deciding on an impartial process that somehow weeds out bad opinions). And somewhat related, does this mean you have as dismal a view of humanity as it seems, that you don't want people exposed to dangerous ideas? This all seems necessarily paternalistic. EDIT I can't imagine, for instance, trusting in democracy with such a view.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  In the case of ORG, it was exposed by a leftist research network that is primarily anarchist or non-authoritarian communist in nature. As far as I know this research network has no central authority, but rather a horizontal democratic structure. I lean towards anarcho-communism myself, generally close to the original communist definition of libertarianism. So my answer to which authority should run things is "none". Facebook runs their own ship and are free to choose which content they will platform. While I would prefer a complete absence of hierarchy in all aspects of life, I think we can agree that this is probably not going to happen at FB. I also strongly support anarchistic deplatforming and generally hindering fascists, nazis, racists and other bigots from spreading their noxious views. We have to realize at some point that some views simply aren't worth spreading.
- Vraxx 8y ago
  I agree with KozmoNau7 here, so many notions of constructing some system that will somehow weed out the "bad" ideas seems misguided in my opinion. The reason is that these systems necessarily treat all ideas as equal valid inputs by requiring anything be allowed. This is done when we have bountiful evidence to the contrary, evidence that fascism and racism lead to horrendous consequences if left to spread through disingenuous tactics and deception. In fact, we humans already form a decent system for weeding out bad ideas/opinions, we just don't listen to our own past experiences on the matter. We found out that fascism is putrid and yet now we try to come up with a new system that will weed it out instead of just chucking it into the garbage bin and moving on. It's not paternalistic or a dismal view of humanity or that "humanity cannot be trusted with such a dangerous idea", it's because the people advocating for it constantly lie about it and intentionally trick/indoctrinate others into following. Under the right circumstances of me growing up, I fully believe someone could have deceived me into believing it, so I don't think I'm better than anybody who got sucked in. We can trust in democracy as long as we take proper precaution against things that prey on the freedom of expression and association in order to remove those rights from others. Put another way, what real benefit is there to "freedom of speech, except for advocating fascism" as opposed to "freedom of speech, no exceptions"? The US already doesn't have pure unrestricted free speech because there are exceptions made for outlier situations where free speech is not protected in efforts to secure the safety of others. That hasn't led to total collapse or censorship.

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.

orblivion 8y ago

Do you have a way of going about this that isn't authoritarian? (Extending the definition of "authoritarian" to Facebook acting within its own platform). EDIT: Sorry this was really vague. By authoritarian in this case I mean that some authority has to decide what is and isn't an acceptable opinion (as opposed to, say, deciding on an impartial process that somehow weeds out bad opinions). And somewhat related, does this mean you have as dismal a view of humanity as it seems, that you don't want people exposed to dangerous ideas? This all seems necessarily paternalistic. EDIT I can't imagine, for instance, trusting in democracy with such a view.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
In the case of ORG, it was exposed by a leftist research network that is primarily anarchist or non-authoritarian communist in nature. As far as I know this research network has no central authority, but rather a horizontal democratic structure. I lean towards anarcho-communism myself, generally close to the original communist definition of libertarianism. So my answer to which authority should run things is "none". Facebook runs their own ship and are free to choose which content they will platform. While I would prefer a complete absence of hierarchy in all aspects of life, I think we can agree that this is probably not going to happen at FB. I also strongly support anarchistic deplatforming and generally hindering fascists, nazis, racists and other bigots from spreading their noxious views. We have to realize at some point that some views simply aren't worth spreading.
Vraxx 8y ago
I agree with KozmoNau7 here, so many notions of constructing some system that will somehow weed out the "bad" ideas seems misguided in my opinion. The reason is that these systems necessarily treat all ideas as equal valid inputs by requiring anything be allowed. This is done when we have bountiful evidence to the contrary, evidence that fascism and racism lead to horrendous consequences if left to spread through disingenuous tactics and deception. In fact, we humans already form a decent system for weeding out bad ideas/opinions, we just don't listen to our own past experiences on the matter. We found out that fascism is putrid and yet now we try to come up with a new system that will weed it out instead of just chucking it into the garbage bin and moving on. It's not paternalistic or a dismal view of humanity or that "humanity cannot be trusted with such a dangerous idea", it's because the people advocating for it constantly lie about it and intentionally trick/indoctrinate others into following. Under the right circumstances of me growing up, I fully believe someone could have deceived me into believing it, so I don't think I'm better than anybody who got sucked in. We can trust in democracy as long as we take proper precaution against things that prey on the freedom of expression and association in order to remove those rights from others. Put another way, what real benefit is there to "freedom of speech, except for advocating fascism" as opposed to "freedom of speech, no exceptions"? The US already doesn't have pure unrestricted free speech because there are exceptions made for outlier situations where free speech is not protected in efforts to secure the safety of others. That hasn't led to total collapse or censorship.