4 ms·

Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. If certain vile people were still on YouTube, then

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.

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.