3 ms·

No, you can't, because if people are unable to speak their mind on one platform, they will move to another or go underground. I would prefer it, if people with

No, you can't, because if people are unable to speak their mind on one platform, they will move to another or go underground. I would prefer it, if people with terrible ideas were kept out in the open, where their ideas can be debated, challenged or mocked, instead of having them in isolated echo chambers. Such places breed radicals. Also, "hate" is such a super vague term.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
I completely disagree. These people are already on openly visible platforms, such as 4chan and 8chan, where the Christchurch terrorist was radicalized. By giving their hate and propaganda exposure on mainstream (social) media, you give them a platform to spread their ideology to more people. You have to realize that these people do not care about the truth, they do not care about debates, all they care about is being heard and seen. Debating them does not work, it only gives them more exposure. https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-and-tactics-of-white-nationalism-b0bca3caeb84 https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-an... The only way to deal with people who use these sorts of tactics is to deny them the "debate", deny them a platform and deplatform them from whichever platforms they already have. Shut off their access to the people they are trying to radicalize. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA Obviously this does go somewhat against the "rules" for polite conversation and debate that we've all been taught. But there is no debate to be had with fascists, everything they say and do eventually boils down to "we will kill you". That is not an ideology you can reason with.
joshuaheard 8y ago
Hate is an emotion. There is no winning against it. It is used as a euphemism for the ideas of certain disfavored political groups. The policy should follow the First Amendment and only censor speech that is not protected. Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.
rhcom2 8y ago
They're already in isolated echo chambers though. They're already radical. And having them visible makes it easier to recruit more people. I don't see any evidence this "sunlight" approach is effective for social media.
happytoexplain 8y ago
I think there is simply an impossible-to-define line of quality/extremity over which negativity becomes incurable by exposure and where it's perfectly reasonable to ban it from one's platform. I don't think that's too controversial, but I also think that the share of people over that line is at a long-time high and increasing. Of course that opinion is more controversial, and I think is really the root of the free speech arguments. That opinion is full of subjective definitions by necessity, but I feel strongly about it.

KozmoNau7 8y ago

I completely disagree. These people are already on openly visible platforms, such as 4chan and 8chan, where the Christchurch terrorist was radicalized. By giving their hate and propaganda exposure on mainstream (social) media, you give them a platform to spread their ideology to more people. You have to realize that these people do not care about the truth, they do not care about debates, all they care about is being heard and seen. Debating them does not work, it only gives them more exposure. https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-and-tactics-of-white-nationalism-b0bca3caeb84 https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-an... The only way to deal with people who use these sorts of tactics is to deny them the "debate", deny them a platform and deplatform them from whichever platforms they already have. Shut off their access to the people they are trying to radicalize. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA Obviously this does go somewhat against the "rules" for polite conversation and debate that we've all been taught. But there is no debate to be had with fascists, everything they say and do eventually boils down to "we will kill you". That is not an ideology you can reason with.

joshuaheard 8y ago

Hate is an emotion. There is no winning against it. It is used as a euphemism for the ideas of certain disfavored political groups. The policy should follow the First Amendment and only censor speech that is not protected. Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

rhcom2 8y ago

They're already in isolated echo chambers though. They're already radical. And having them visible makes it easier to recruit more people. I don't see any evidence this "sunlight" approach is effective for social media.

happytoexplain 8y ago

I think there is simply an impossible-to-define line of quality/extremity over which negativity becomes incurable by exposure and where it's perfectly reasonable to ban it from one's platform. I don't think that's too controversial, but I also think that the share of people over that line is at a long-time high and increasing. Of course that opinion is more controversial, and I think is really the root of the free speech arguments. That opinion is full of subjective definitions by necessity, but I feel strongly about it.