4 ms·

>Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposit

by ABCLAW 8y ago

>Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Maybe in the long-term social view of the issue you're right but on a platform by platform basis this doesn't seem to be the case.

BigBlueBanjo 8y ago
Sure, censoring racists on YouTube means less racists on YouTube. But it does NOT mean less racists in the world.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  >But it does NOT mean less racists in the world. I don't think we have the data to make a conclusion on this point, but why is the lack of success in respect of the second point sufficient to make us want to stop the first point?
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech. Label everyone you disagree with a nazi and then demand platforms ban them. If the platforms do that, then people will slowly move on to other platforms. It's not going to change their beliefs one bit.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      >Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech. Okay, so that's the downside of curating your platform. You need to contrast that downside with the upside of taking action. Reasonable limits on Free Speech are plentiful, and there's an easy false dichotomy in believing that you can either censor everything or censor nothing. Is there a middle ground where we establish a solid rule set where we get most of the beneficial effects are retained, but a plurality of voices remain? Also a note: >It's not going to change their beliefs one bit. This isn't supported by research and it's antithetical to your first line. If platforming isn't going to change beliefs, then why care about it? Just move over to Gab, Voat or any of the other offshoots created for deplatformed groups. Have you visited them? They're cesspools. Overt changes in social acceptability and norms cause populations to reconsider their views, which is why people are upset by being deplatformed in the first place.
stcredzero 8y ago
Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. If certain vile people were still on YouTube, then they could be demolished by argument. By deplatforming people off YouTube, you actually manage to give the bad people moral ammunition (the people you'd think the least likely to achieve that) and reduce the legitimacy of the platform. What's been accomplished is merely to create even viler, even more insular groupthink.
- vkou 8y ago
  > If certain vile people were still on YouTube, then they could be demolished by argument. If arguments actually demolished positions, we'd see a lot fewer fools, and their adherents. People broadcasting outright lies don't care about arguments. They care about exposure. When they are deplatformed, they quantitatively lose exposure. They get moral outrage, but it's hard to turn moral outrage into viewers... Especially when your views are unsympathetic.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    If arguments actually demolished positions, we'd see a lot fewer fools, and their adherents. We've seen precisely this happen on YouTube. "Unfortunately," from their point of view, the way it worked out went against the political narratives of the people who run YouTube. People broadcasting outright lies don't care about arguments. But onlookers who are normal, sensible people do. They care about exposure. When they are deplatformed, they quantitatively lose exposure. This is the POV of people who don't believe in objective truth or meritocracy. They think everything is a rigged game, and they think to win, it's just that they have to rig the game their own way. What you call "exposure" is actually discovery. Biasing discovery by refusing it to certain people is tantamount to censorship in this day and age. They get moral outrage, but it's hard to turn moral outrage into viewers... Especially when your views are unsympathetic. Actually, it's very easy to turn Moral Outrage into viewers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc It's funny, but here you are actually precisely describing some of the groups who were discredited and saw their engagement drop on YouTube -- in exactly the opposite situation to people like Sargon of Akkad. His opponents in the "SJW skeptic" circles dropped off, while people like him prospered. Then, instead of arguing, the SJW crowd resorted to namecalling, mis-characterizing what was actually said, and de-platforming. YouTube is losing credibility to the people who are paying attention, precisely by deplatforming people who are popular (whose political views they don't like, even though they are not extreme and fairly mainstream) and by trying to pick and promote their own "winners" that people do not like. In the end, it just amounts to dishonesty. In the end, people will be able to see this, and I hope YouTube eventually pays the price for it.
Mirioron 8y ago
>Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Does it though? You don't have to look at social media to get a sense of this to know what has happened in the world. You can look at the Soviet Union and GDR instead. Did censorship there end up killing ideas of capitalism and democracy? Because I can assure you that the Soviet Union's censorship was much more thorough than Twitter or YouTube will ever be. In fact, you could even move away from censorship and ask yourself how effective banning things that people want to do is in general. Bans on alcohol, drugs, books, movies, porn etc have all failed to get rid of them. In cases such as alcohol, it seems that it only increased the consumption of it.

by ABCLAW 8y ago

BigBlueBanjo 8y ago

Sure, censoring racists on YouTube means less racists on YouTube. But it does NOT mean less racists in the world.

ABCLAW 8y ago
>But it does NOT mean less racists in the world. I don't think we have the data to make a conclusion on this point, but why is the lack of success in respect of the second point sufficient to make us want to stop the first point?
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech. Label everyone you disagree with a nazi and then demand platforms ban them. If the platforms do that, then people will slowly move on to other platforms. It's not going to change their beliefs one bit.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    >Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech. Okay, so that's the downside of curating your platform. You need to contrast that downside with the upside of taking action. Reasonable limits on Free Speech are plentiful, and there's an easy false dichotomy in believing that you can either censor everything or censor nothing. Is there a middle ground where we establish a solid rule set where we get most of the beneficial effects are retained, but a plurality of voices remain? Also a note: >It's not going to change their beliefs one bit. This isn't supported by research and it's antithetical to your first line. If platforming isn't going to change beliefs, then why care about it? Just move over to Gab, Voat or any of the other offshoots created for deplatformed groups. Have you visited them? They're cesspools. Overt changes in social acceptability and norms cause populations to reconsider their views, which is why people are upset by being deplatformed in the first place.

stcredzero 8y ago

Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. If certain vile people were still on YouTube, then they could be demolished by argument. By deplatforming people off YouTube, you actually manage to give the bad people moral ammunition (the people you'd think the least likely to achieve that) and reduce the legitimacy of the platform. What's been accomplished is merely to create even viler, even more insular groupthink.

vkou 8y ago
> If certain vile people were still on YouTube, then they could be demolished by argument. If arguments actually demolished positions, we'd see a lot fewer fools, and their adherents. People broadcasting outright lies don't care about arguments. They care about exposure. When they are deplatformed, they quantitatively lose exposure. They get moral outrage, but it's hard to turn moral outrage into viewers... Especially when your views are unsympathetic.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  If arguments actually demolished positions, we'd see a lot fewer fools, and their adherents. We've seen precisely this happen on YouTube. "Unfortunately," from their point of view, the way it worked out went against the political narratives of the people who run YouTube. People broadcasting outright lies don't care about arguments. But onlookers who are normal, sensible people do. They care about exposure. When they are deplatformed, they quantitatively lose exposure. This is the POV of people who don't believe in objective truth or meritocracy. They think everything is a rigged game, and they think to win, it's just that they have to rig the game their own way. What you call "exposure" is actually discovery. Biasing discovery by refusing it to certain people is tantamount to censorship in this day and age. They get moral outrage, but it's hard to turn moral outrage into viewers... Especially when your views are unsympathetic. Actually, it's very easy to turn Moral Outrage into viewers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc It's funny, but here you are actually precisely describing some of the groups who were discredited and saw their engagement drop on YouTube -- in exactly the opposite situation to people like Sargon of Akkad. His opponents in the "SJW skeptic" circles dropped off, while people like him prospered. Then, instead of arguing, the SJW crowd resorted to namecalling, mis-characterizing what was actually said, and de-platforming. YouTube is losing credibility to the people who are paying attention, precisely by deplatforming people who are popular (whose political views they don't like, even though they are not extreme and fairly mainstream) and by trying to pick and promote their own "winners" that people do not like. In the end, it just amounts to dishonesty. In the end, people will be able to see this, and I hope YouTube eventually pays the price for it.

Mirioron 8y ago

>Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Does it though? You don't have to look at social media to get a sense of this to know what has happened in the world. You can look at the Soviet Union and GDR instead. Did censorship there end up killing ideas of capitalism and democracy? Because I can assure you that the Soviet Union's censorship was much more thorough than Twitter or YouTube will ever be. In fact, you could even move away from censorship and ask yourself how effective banning things that people want to do is in general. Bans on alcohol, drugs, books, movies, porn etc have all failed to get rid of them. In cases such as alcohol, it seems that it only increased the consumption of it.