10 ms·

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” actually reduces hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until th

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” actually reduces hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”)

clucas 8y ago
The thing is, Reddit isn't responsible for, and couldn't possibly begin be responsible for, hate in the whole world. They banned it on their site, and it cleaned up their corner of the world, and they're happy that the place they have control over has less hate. That's not bullshit. Bullshit is saying "well, we can't possibly get rid of it, so may as well let it stay where ever it shows up."
- pmarreck 8y ago
  Except that you can get rid of it. I’ve rationally argued against racism with some success. (And often while getting comments autoblocked for hate speech. Can’t clean up manure without getting your hands a little dirty, unfortunately.) “Bullshit” is taking the easy way out by mass-automatic-deplatforming instead of addressing the bad thought head-on.
  - clucas 8y ago
    That's a much better argument than I thought you were making, so my apologies for misunderstanding. I still disagree though - I think Reddit probably agreed with you for most of its existence, but evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning, and the virality of these ideas was too potent to be overcome by a few people who were willing to wade into the cesspool. So they drained the cesspool. I agree with you that, if we could be sure that there would always be enough people to argue against racists, and do so calmly and rationally, then we would be better off not censoring racism, and instead letting the debate play out. But I don't think we live in that world.
    - reader5000 8y ago
      > evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning On what grounds do you base your own sense of "rationality and clear argument" as superior to that of the apparent majority of people that you refer to as "the cesspool"?
      - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
        How did you get the idea that the majority are the cesspool from that? In my experience, the majority is "I don't have any interest in arguing." Leaving the cesspool to those few who do want to argue.
      - clucas 8y ago
        The whole conversation is a bit abstract at this point, so maybe it wasn't clear: the "cesspool" I'm referring to are virulent racists. If you believe that either (a) arguments against such people less clear and rational than the racists' arguments, or (b) such people are actually in the majority, then I believe we disagree on things so fundamental we can't have a constructive debate about Reddit's policies.
    - finnthehuman 8y ago
      >But I don't think we live in that world. We might not, but denying the possibility only guarantees we move further away from it.
    - satokema 8y ago
      >evidence in this case, user/advertiser metrics
    - Gibbon1 8y ago
      > I think Reddit probably agreed with you for most of its existence, but evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning It's even darker than that. There is an organized effort to destroy any public forum that is a place of discourse. For the people and organization paying for the bots, troll farms and social media influencers discourse is exactly what they paying to get rid of. Considering that reddit doesn't have any other business model they had to start fighting back.
  - jonnydubowsky 8y ago
    You've laid the groundwork for one part of what would be a valuable media psychology study. You've identified an example where being part of the open conversation led to a woman leaving a hate-driven community. Other comments point to a scenario where it could be harder for people to find these communities online, as they would have to have significant motivation to find them. I've seen "playbooks" for white nationalist groups where they describe a slow ramping up of ideology that gradually indoctrinates people outside the overton window. The question is, is the outcome more or less hate crimes if this type of hate speech is deplatformed? You point to examples in Germany where the effect of deplatforming was negative. Current forms of media, attention and culture are significantly different. I'm not sure how to go about this research when each platform simply aims to maintain their own private, profit driven goals?
  - NullPrefix 8y ago
    >with some success How do you measure it?
  - meko 8y ago
    You're assuming that the basis for their hate is rationality. If they were rational people, they wouldn't be racists/fascists/hate groups/etc. Assuming you're correct that having "some success" removed people from such a path, it's still just drops in a bucket. Recycling the contents of a dumpster won't stop climate change.
    - pmarreck 8y ago
      This might shock you but speaking as a person that has rationally argued with racists, they have plenty of empirical data to back them up and they believe their position is rational. That does not mean it isn’t an arguable position, such as criticizing their data as being cherry-picked.
  - Retra 8y ago
    The best way to get rid of bad ideas is to not give a megaphone to the people who want to spread them. The fundamental fallacy you're making is that you're conflating the act of judgement with the act of sentencing. What a fine world it would be if your justice system were forbidden to sentence people under the expectation that the purpose of a trial were simply to convince the accused to never do it again. It is irrational to declare that some behavior is 'bad', yet forbid anyone from suffering meaningful consequence for engaging in it.
    - pmarreck 8y ago
      You’re conflating “bad ideas” with “bad sctions.”
      - Retra 8y ago
        No, I'm generalizing over both using an analogy. If I believe in something you consider bad, I will be gleeful that you defend my right to say it as I consistently refuse to defend yours. I will be thoroughly satisfied that you've tied your hands with rational argument as I tear apart your standing and support through every irrational means available. Rational debate is how you decide which ideas are worth keeping. It is not how you kill the ones that aren't. (You've found that it works sometimes, but you should bet actual counter-actions work far more often.)
- DataWorker 8y ago
  Like removing homeless people from your neighborhood by moving them to another?
  - clucas 8y ago
    No, not like that at all. Could you explain the line of thinking that lead you to such a question?
  - faissaloo 8y ago
    Homeless people are not undeserving of things based o their actions, fascists are.
    - whenchamenia 8y ago
      Nobody deserves to be deprived based on their political beliefs. Only actions. Thoughtcrime is bullshit, and I sure as hell don't see any active facists roaming the streets.
      - X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago
        >active facists roaming the streets. That's certainly happening these days.
      - xmunoz 8y ago
        There were two attacks on perceived minorities in California this week alone. Literal fascists are killing people in our communities right now. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooti... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/sunnyvale-crash-police-say-driver-was-intentionally-targeting-muslims https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/sunnyvale-c...
      - faissaloo 8y ago
        If your political beliefs are a threat to my existence anything less than death is a mercy on my part. It's not just a 'thoughtcrime' if it's a stance you actively promote.
- lordlimecat 8y ago
  Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.
  - clucas 8y ago
    It probably isn't obvious from my posts, so I'll put it here explicitly: I'm not pro-censorship. I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. A lot of people aren't going to be willing or able to actually engage with the real logic of an anti-racist argument. Instead, people use heuristics for this sort of work. In my ideal world, the question of "was this on a big site? or some little blog and/or known racist publication?" would serve as a useful heuristic re: what arguments to bother with. This is how newspapers generally settled out. Is it in the paper? If yes, then there are at least some standards. If no, e.g. if it's some vanity publication, then squint a little harder. These sorts of things have happened every time we've had a big shift in information distribution technology. There's an explosion of ideas with no real markers to differentiate them, and mass chaos for a while as people sort it out. Then eventually people identify the signs of trustworthy info distributors, and it settles back down. If a platform allows racists to flourish, they're not going to remain a place that people can trust. I would like to see Reddit remain a place that has some amount of trust, so I'm happy they banned the really nasty racists.
    - the8472 8y ago
      > I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. But reddit is already compartmentalized. Subreddits for fringe ideas are those "plenty of little sites", especially when they are delisted from the front pages.
jonwachob91 8y ago
The majority of online hate speech (of any variety) is driven by groupthink. If you make it harder to find the hate groups, you de facto reduce the groupthink.
- pmarreck 8y ago
  So you would prefer edgy platforms to move from open cleartext forums where they can be argued against and monitored, to private encrypted forums only populated by the choir, as it were? This will not end well.
  - rmah 8y ago
    I think that is a good end. The definition of ending well. Such forums are, by definition, smaller and have less reach. Moreover, it is clear that members of such forums are supporters of the nastiness the forum espouses.
    - slothtrop 8y ago
      I'm not sure they have less reach. Most people have heard of the chans and stormfront from notoriety. And for one, I seriously doubt an individual comes into white nationalism through mainstream channels like reddit. What this ultimately accomplishes is that the public gets to be blissfully ignorant about the blemishes, but these people are operating in the same capacity as before without brushing up to challenges as much
      - Operyl 8y ago
        Meh, I know of at least 3 ex-friends that came across enough content on Reddit to “push them over the edge.” I.e. they literally “credited” Reddit for their “enlightenment.”
        slothtrop 8y ago
        That's not the kind of content you just stumble upon. If they sought that out they'd just as well have sought out other forums, so I find it moot that they happen to find racist content they found agreeable on reddit that further radicalized them. It's like the incels, they're just looking for a circle jerk. The reason I feels strongly about it is open discussion with racists have led to conversion away from white supremacy that would not have otherwise occurred e.g. Davis - https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc... The fear of power of racists operating on a platform like reddit is overblown by virtue that racists seem stronger without it; strongest with echo chambers.
etrautmann 8y ago
The burden of proof is to show that it IS as bad or worse after deplatforming, given the observation that it reduces the problem locally and makes it harder for new people to discover and convert into those communities.
- slothtrop 8y ago
  Racist online communities aren't difficult to find. The problems brew on the fringes first. Regardless of how they might see it, I think the close proximity to the rest of the public erodes it's power.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    How do you simultaneously believe that close proximity weakens this stuff, but that you can't accidentally stumble onto it? Make the proximity close enough, and it becomes mainstream content, which you appear to view as a bad thing. Those appear contradictory.
    - slothtrop 8y ago
      > but that you can't accidentally stumble onto it? Because even on a platform like reddit, these aren't front-page items nor anything that will casually be brought to attention. If you want to share piece of shit ideology, you have to find piece of shit subs, and they're micro communities. The reason I think the proximity in that instance helps is users are more likely to interact with users from other popular subs. I've seen racists spring up odd places, get downvoted into oblivion, but will engage in argument. In my view it's more important that they engage with the rest of the population.
      - debaserab2 8y ago
        You act like it isn't super easy to stumble upon these communities, but all it takes is having your curiosity piqued by an edgy-sounding comment that could be in any /r/all thread. You don't have to seek it out, you just have to be a naturally curious person and you can easily find yourself down a rabbit hole of hate speech filled individuals and communities.
mirashii 8y ago
I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” doesn't actually reduce hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”) While it's easy to be a critic and call someone else's view bullshit because you haven't seen evidence, it's not really adding anything to the discussion, it's just being needlessly inflammatory. You could accomplish the same thing by saying something as simple as "The evidence shows it worked for Reddit in isolation, but whether it works globally is unclear. Has anyone seen evidence that it does or doesn't? My gut says it doesn't." Now when someone goes to analyze and respond they're not starting to argue with someone who dismissed something they may not be familiar with as bullshit right out the gate. It's better to keep an open mind to either possibility under a lack of evidence.
- glenstein 8y ago
  And to your point, it's a question where the data, such as it may be, is going to be complicated, and hard to harness. And you can phrase a question about that lack of data in such a manner that it puts the burden of proof on whoever you want it to be on.
TheCondor 8y ago
Do you think having a president that has lent support to racism and white supremacy has changed the amount of racism or just revealed it?
- whenchamenia 8y ago
  Citation?
tehjoker 8y ago
This isn't a quantitative opinion, but here's how I think about it. Generally hate springs from some kind of problem or ideological bent in a person's life, but those problems and bents are initially undirected and latent. Eventually, someone comes up with a story that speaks to these impulses and describes why a particular group is the cause of their ills, despite ahistoricism or any kind of grounded logical argument (some groups can be actual problems such as slave masters or a literal invading army). The inchoate pain these latent hate group members feel could be resolved in another way by accurately portraying the source of their problem, and giving them a realistic way of solving it. However, often in our society, we don't provide these things. Therefore, they remain susceptible. When a hater that tells a powerful narrative gets together with others, this becomes dangerous. The group now validates their beliefs and it becomes self-reinforcing and actionable. Deplatforming prevents hate groups from getting new recruits by making these stories and groups harder to access. It also is a message to the more marginal members that what they are doing is shunned and they should think hard about what they are doing. Essentially, the idea is prevent these small scale problems from turning into a social movement that would be highly destructive. Is it a bandaid? Yes. We have to work much harder on our social and economic problems to make sure everyone is included in society and can live a decent life. That would remove much of the impetus for joining hate groups.
taurath 8y ago
You’re making a strawman argument. There’s no question that it’s made Reddit a better place - marginalizing hate communities is something most people would agree is a good thing. There’s a reason there’s no ISIS subreddit, as an example. Giving equal billing to hate communities is normalizing them.
- pmarreck 8y ago
  There is no ISIS subreddit because ISIS has now moved its threatening planning underground into encrypted channels where the good people at the NSA can no longer quietly observe and monitor from afar. Arguments about whether deplatforming has merit should be automatically deplatformed via machine-learning in order to teach everyone a valuable lesson in civics. At least, if I were to create a Hacker News or a Reddit or a Facebook or a Twitter, that would be one of the first things I would build.
X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago
The argument before the deplatforming was that those users would just recreate accounts & post on other, less well known, subreddits. Could you think of a reasonably achivable study that would be able to falsify your belief that deplatforming doesn't reduce global hate?
8note 8y ago
I'd imagine America's forced reeducation camps in Germany after WW2 would count as deplatforming nazis
altcognito 8y ago
Content moderation is pretty standard practice and reducing the amount of exposure highly toxic trolls and extremists are able to get isn't super controversial as to it's effectiveness.
modriano 8y ago
Echo chambers like these incubate hatefulness, provide positive feedback to individuals who embrace the hate at the core of these subreddits, and set up strawman representations of "enemy groups" to immunize members against rational discussion. I used to identify as an "anarcho capitalist" and it was largely because I discovered r/Anarcho_Capitalism. People praised me for arguing against left anarchism, socialism, communism, or anything besides poverty-is-a-moral-failing style capitalism. Eventually, the community embraced overt racism and I tried to find another community to replace r/Anarcho_Capitalism, but I could not find one. About 3 years after leaving that echo chamber, I went back and read through my comments in that sub and I was mortified by the twisted logic I used to justify starving the impoverished of government benefits and services. My story is anecdotal, but I can't believe that it's a rare occurrence, because that's basically the mechanism that underpins all fringe organizations based on a shared false worldview. You need people to constantly validate and reinforce that false worldview, or reality will smash that worldview. Barring a subreddit may push a fraction of the active subredditors to another platform if one exists, but the marginally attached subredditors will just fail to follow and the hold that echo chamber had will fade as the echos grow fade to silence, and they won't catch anywhere near as many new people.
mercer 8y ago
I don't necessary disagree with you, and generally lean towards the 'marketplace of ideas' / free speech side of things. But a few thoughts that make me hesitate: 1. not deplatforming is based on a belief ("sunlight is the best desinfectant, etc.) that, as far as I can tell, isn't supported by much evidence either, at least as far as it's larger-scale effects. 2. it's possible, for example, that having these ideas out in the open and easily accessible actually increases the effect of them radicalising/convincing people who previously didn't have much of an opinion on or care about these issues. This might outweigh the effect of those already radical being exposed to alternative ideas. 3. building on this, I find that generally the 'better' and less hateful ideas are more nuanced and complex, and thus much harder to convey. Especially in online environments like reddit/twitter/etc. 4. there's the 'bullshit asymmetry principle'. it's much easier to produce bullshit arguments for bad ideas than it is to counter them. it also strikes me as much easier to get ensnared by hateful and/or bad ideas than it is to 'escape' them. A bit like how cults work. 5. access to these ideas via Reddit and the like removes one rather important element: collective shaming and having to accept the consequences of particular ideas. While in theory this is a good thing, in practice it can easily lead people down dark paths in isolation. Having grown up deeply religious, and having spent a lot of time in all sort of fringe communities, I suspect that the net effect of not deplatforming is negative. Ideas are perhaps kind of like viruses. With the internet and places like Reddit, they can propagate freely without the mediating effects of interpersonal contact and various degrees of ostracism or other consequences. They also have a reach that they never had before. Despite all that, I'm not arguing that we should do something about it. I don't know, and still lean towards accepting this new reality with all its consequences, or at least making sure we have a better understanding before we 'curb' things. But I'm much less optimistic about this new, internet-enabled state of things than I used to be. Apologies for all this being a bit of a ramble.

clucas 8y ago

The thing is, Reddit isn't responsible for, and couldn't possibly begin be responsible for, hate in the whole world. They banned it on their site, and it cleaned up their corner of the world, and they're happy that the place they have control over has less hate. That's not bullshit. Bullshit is saying "well, we can't possibly get rid of it, so may as well let it stay where ever it shows up."

pmarreck 8y ago
Except that you can get rid of it. I’ve rationally argued against racism with some success. (And often while getting comments autoblocked for hate speech. Can’t clean up manure without getting your hands a little dirty, unfortunately.) “Bullshit” is taking the easy way out by mass-automatic-deplatforming instead of addressing the bad thought head-on.
- clucas 8y ago
  That's a much better argument than I thought you were making, so my apologies for misunderstanding. I still disagree though - I think Reddit probably agreed with you for most of its existence, but evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning, and the virality of these ideas was too potent to be overcome by a few people who were willing to wade into the cesspool. So they drained the cesspool. I agree with you that, if we could be sure that there would always be enough people to argue against racists, and do so calmly and rationally, then we would be better off not censoring racism, and instead letting the debate play out. But I don't think we live in that world.
  - reader5000 8y ago
    > evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning On what grounds do you base your own sense of "rationality and clear argument" as superior to that of the apparent majority of people that you refer to as "the cesspool"?
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      How did you get the idea that the majority are the cesspool from that? In my experience, the majority is "I don't have any interest in arguing." Leaving the cesspool to those few who do want to argue.
    - clucas 8y ago
      The whole conversation is a bit abstract at this point, so maybe it wasn't clear: the "cesspool" I'm referring to are virulent racists. If you believe that either (a) arguments against such people less clear and rational than the racists' arguments, or (b) such people are actually in the majority, then I believe we disagree on things so fundamental we can't have a constructive debate about Reddit's policies.
  - finnthehuman 8y ago
    >But I don't think we live in that world. We might not, but denying the possibility only guarantees we move further away from it.
  - satokema 8y ago
    >evidence in this case, user/advertiser metrics
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    > I think Reddit probably agreed with you for most of its existence, but evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning It's even darker than that. There is an organized effort to destroy any public forum that is a place of discourse. For the people and organization paying for the bots, troll farms and social media influencers discourse is exactly what they paying to get rid of. Considering that reddit doesn't have any other business model they had to start fighting back.
- jonnydubowsky 8y ago
  You've laid the groundwork for one part of what would be a valuable media psychology study. You've identified an example where being part of the open conversation led to a woman leaving a hate-driven community. Other comments point to a scenario where it could be harder for people to find these communities online, as they would have to have significant motivation to find them. I've seen "playbooks" for white nationalist groups where they describe a slow ramping up of ideology that gradually indoctrinates people outside the overton window. The question is, is the outcome more or less hate crimes if this type of hate speech is deplatformed? You point to examples in Germany where the effect of deplatforming was negative. Current forms of media, attention and culture are significantly different. I'm not sure how to go about this research when each platform simply aims to maintain their own private, profit driven goals?
- NullPrefix 8y ago
  >with some success How do you measure it?
- meko 8y ago
  You're assuming that the basis for their hate is rationality. If they were rational people, they wouldn't be racists/fascists/hate groups/etc. Assuming you're correct that having "some success" removed people from such a path, it's still just drops in a bucket. Recycling the contents of a dumpster won't stop climate change.
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    This might shock you but speaking as a person that has rationally argued with racists, they have plenty of empirical data to back them up and they believe their position is rational. That does not mean it isn’t an arguable position, such as criticizing their data as being cherry-picked.
- Retra 8y ago
  The best way to get rid of bad ideas is to not give a megaphone to the people who want to spread them. The fundamental fallacy you're making is that you're conflating the act of judgement with the act of sentencing. What a fine world it would be if your justice system were forbidden to sentence people under the expectation that the purpose of a trial were simply to convince the accused to never do it again. It is irrational to declare that some behavior is 'bad', yet forbid anyone from suffering meaningful consequence for engaging in it.
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    You’re conflating “bad ideas” with “bad sctions.”
    - Retra 8y ago
      No, I'm generalizing over both using an analogy. If I believe in something you consider bad, I will be gleeful that you defend my right to say it as I consistently refuse to defend yours. I will be thoroughly satisfied that you've tied your hands with rational argument as I tear apart your standing and support through every irrational means available. Rational debate is how you decide which ideas are worth keeping. It is not how you kill the ones that aren't. (You've found that it works sometimes, but you should bet actual counter-actions work far more often.)
DataWorker 8y ago
Like removing homeless people from your neighborhood by moving them to another?
- clucas 8y ago
  No, not like that at all. Could you explain the line of thinking that lead you to such a question?
- faissaloo 8y ago
  Homeless people are not undeserving of things based o their actions, fascists are.
  - whenchamenia 8y ago
    Nobody deserves to be deprived based on their political beliefs. Only actions. Thoughtcrime is bullshit, and I sure as hell don't see any active facists roaming the streets.
    - X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago
      >active facists roaming the streets. That's certainly happening these days.
    - xmunoz 8y ago
      There were two attacks on perceived minorities in California this week alone. Literal fascists are killing people in our communities right now. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooti... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/sunnyvale-crash-police-say-driver-was-intentionally-targeting-muslims https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/sunnyvale-c...
    - faissaloo 8y ago
      If your political beliefs are a threat to my existence anything less than death is a mercy on my part. It's not just a 'thoughtcrime' if it's a stance you actively promote.
lordlimecat 8y ago
Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.
- clucas 8y ago
  It probably isn't obvious from my posts, so I'll put it here explicitly: I'm not pro-censorship. I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. A lot of people aren't going to be willing or able to actually engage with the real logic of an anti-racist argument. Instead, people use heuristics for this sort of work. In my ideal world, the question of "was this on a big site? or some little blog and/or known racist publication?" would serve as a useful heuristic re: what arguments to bother with. This is how newspapers generally settled out. Is it in the paper? If yes, then there are at least some standards. If no, e.g. if it's some vanity publication, then squint a little harder. These sorts of things have happened every time we've had a big shift in information distribution technology. There's an explosion of ideas with no real markers to differentiate them, and mass chaos for a while as people sort it out. Then eventually people identify the signs of trustworthy info distributors, and it settles back down. If a platform allows racists to flourish, they're not going to remain a place that people can trust. I would like to see Reddit remain a place that has some amount of trust, so I'm happy they banned the really nasty racists.
  - the8472 8y ago
    > I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. But reddit is already compartmentalized. Subreddits for fringe ideas are those "plenty of little sites", especially when they are delisted from the front pages.

jonwachob91 8y ago

The majority of online hate speech (of any variety) is driven by groupthink. If you make it harder to find the hate groups, you de facto reduce the groupthink.

pmarreck 8y ago
So you would prefer edgy platforms to move from open cleartext forums where they can be argued against and monitored, to private encrypted forums only populated by the choir, as it were? This will not end well.
- rmah 8y ago
  I think that is a good end. The definition of ending well. Such forums are, by definition, smaller and have less reach. Moreover, it is clear that members of such forums are supporters of the nastiness the forum espouses.
  - slothtrop 8y ago
    I'm not sure they have less reach. Most people have heard of the chans and stormfront from notoriety. And for one, I seriously doubt an individual comes into white nationalism through mainstream channels like reddit. What this ultimately accomplishes is that the public gets to be blissfully ignorant about the blemishes, but these people are operating in the same capacity as before without brushing up to challenges as much
    - Operyl 8y ago
      Meh, I know of at least 3 ex-friends that came across enough content on Reddit to “push them over the edge.” I.e. they literally “credited” Reddit for their “enlightenment.”
      - slothtrop 8y ago
        That's not the kind of content you just stumble upon. If they sought that out they'd just as well have sought out other forums, so I find it moot that they happen to find racist content they found agreeable on reddit that further radicalized them. It's like the incels, they're just looking for a circle jerk. The reason I feels strongly about it is open discussion with racists have led to conversion away from white supremacy that would not have otherwise occurred e.g. Davis - https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc... The fear of power of racists operating on a platform like reddit is overblown by virtue that racists seem stronger without it; strongest with echo chambers.

etrautmann 8y ago

The burden of proof is to show that it IS as bad or worse after deplatforming, given the observation that it reduces the problem locally and makes it harder for new people to discover and convert into those communities.

slothtrop 8y ago
Racist online communities aren't difficult to find. The problems brew on the fringes first. Regardless of how they might see it, I think the close proximity to the rest of the public erodes it's power.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  How do you simultaneously believe that close proximity weakens this stuff, but that you can't accidentally stumble onto it? Make the proximity close enough, and it becomes mainstream content, which you appear to view as a bad thing. Those appear contradictory.
  - slothtrop 8y ago
    > but that you can't accidentally stumble onto it? Because even on a platform like reddit, these aren't front-page items nor anything that will casually be brought to attention. If you want to share piece of shit ideology, you have to find piece of shit subs, and they're micro communities. The reason I think the proximity in that instance helps is users are more likely to interact with users from other popular subs. I've seen racists spring up odd places, get downvoted into oblivion, but will engage in argument. In my view it's more important that they engage with the rest of the population.
    - debaserab2 8y ago
      You act like it isn't super easy to stumble upon these communities, but all it takes is having your curiosity piqued by an edgy-sounding comment that could be in any /r/all thread. You don't have to seek it out, you just have to be a naturally curious person and you can easily find yourself down a rabbit hole of hate speech filled individuals and communities.

mirashii 8y ago

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” doesn't actually reduce hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”) While it's easy to be a critic and call someone else's view bullshit because you haven't seen evidence, it's not really adding anything to the discussion, it's just being needlessly inflammatory. You could accomplish the same thing by saying something as simple as "The evidence shows it worked for Reddit in isolation, but whether it works globally is unclear. Has anyone seen evidence that it does or doesn't? My gut says it doesn't." Now when someone goes to analyze and respond they're not starting to argue with someone who dismissed something they may not be familiar with as bullshit right out the gate. It's better to keep an open mind to either possibility under a lack of evidence.

glenstein 8y ago
And to your point, it's a question where the data, such as it may be, is going to be complicated, and hard to harness. And you can phrase a question about that lack of data in such a manner that it puts the burden of proof on whoever you want it to be on.

TheCondor 8y ago

Do you think having a president that has lent support to racism and white supremacy has changed the amount of racism or just revealed it?

whenchamenia 8y ago
Citation?

tehjoker 8y ago

This isn't a quantitative opinion, but here's how I think about it. Generally hate springs from some kind of problem or ideological bent in a person's life, but those problems and bents are initially undirected and latent. Eventually, someone comes up with a story that speaks to these impulses and describes why a particular group is the cause of their ills, despite ahistoricism or any kind of grounded logical argument (some groups can be actual problems such as slave masters or a literal invading army). The inchoate pain these latent hate group members feel could be resolved in another way by accurately portraying the source of their problem, and giving them a realistic way of solving it. However, often in our society, we don't provide these things. Therefore, they remain susceptible. When a hater that tells a powerful narrative gets together with others, this becomes dangerous. The group now validates their beliefs and it becomes self-reinforcing and actionable. Deplatforming prevents hate groups from getting new recruits by making these stories and groups harder to access. It also is a message to the more marginal members that what they are doing is shunned and they should think hard about what they are doing. Essentially, the idea is prevent these small scale problems from turning into a social movement that would be highly destructive. Is it a bandaid? Yes. We have to work much harder on our social and economic problems to make sure everyone is included in society and can live a decent life. That would remove much of the impetus for joining hate groups.

taurath 8y ago

You’re making a strawman argument. There’s no question that it’s made Reddit a better place - marginalizing hate communities is something most people would agree is a good thing. There’s a reason there’s no ISIS subreddit, as an example. Giving equal billing to hate communities is normalizing them.

pmarreck 8y ago
There is no ISIS subreddit because ISIS has now moved its threatening planning underground into encrypted channels where the good people at the NSA can no longer quietly observe and monitor from afar. Arguments about whether deplatforming has merit should be automatically deplatformed via machine-learning in order to teach everyone a valuable lesson in civics. At least, if I were to create a Hacker News or a Reddit or a Facebook or a Twitter, that would be one of the first things I would build.

X6S1x6Okd1st 8y ago

The argument before the deplatforming was that those users would just recreate accounts & post on other, less well known, subreddits. Could you think of a reasonably achivable study that would be able to falsify your belief that deplatforming doesn't reduce global hate?

8note 8y ago

I'd imagine America's forced reeducation camps in Germany after WW2 would count as deplatforming nazis

altcognito 8y ago

Content moderation is pretty standard practice and reducing the amount of exposure highly toxic trolls and extremists are able to get isn't super controversial as to it's effectiveness.

modriano 8y ago

Echo chambers like these incubate hatefulness, provide positive feedback to individuals who embrace the hate at the core of these subreddits, and set up strawman representations of "enemy groups" to immunize members against rational discussion. I used to identify as an "anarcho capitalist" and it was largely because I discovered r/Anarcho_Capitalism. People praised me for arguing against left anarchism, socialism, communism, or anything besides poverty-is-a-moral-failing style capitalism. Eventually, the community embraced overt racism and I tried to find another community to replace r/Anarcho_Capitalism, but I could not find one. About 3 years after leaving that echo chamber, I went back and read through my comments in that sub and I was mortified by the twisted logic I used to justify starving the impoverished of government benefits and services. My story is anecdotal, but I can't believe that it's a rare occurrence, because that's basically the mechanism that underpins all fringe organizations based on a shared false worldview. You need people to constantly validate and reinforce that false worldview, or reality will smash that worldview. Barring a subreddit may push a fraction of the active subredditors to another platform if one exists, but the marginally attached subredditors will just fail to follow and the hold that echo chamber had will fade as the echos grow fade to silence, and they won't catch anywhere near as many new people.

mercer 8y ago

I don't necessary disagree with you, and generally lean towards the 'marketplace of ideas' / free speech side of things. But a few thoughts that make me hesitate: 1. not deplatforming is based on a belief ("sunlight is the best desinfectant, etc.) that, as far as I can tell, isn't supported by much evidence either, at least as far as it's larger-scale effects. 2. it's possible, for example, that having these ideas out in the open and easily accessible actually increases the effect of them radicalising/convincing people who previously didn't have much of an opinion on or care about these issues. This might outweigh the effect of those already radical being exposed to alternative ideas. 3. building on this, I find that generally the 'better' and less hateful ideas are more nuanced and complex, and thus much harder to convey. Especially in online environments like reddit/twitter/etc. 4. there's the 'bullshit asymmetry principle'. it's much easier to produce bullshit arguments for bad ideas than it is to counter them. it also strikes me as much easier to get ensnared by hateful and/or bad ideas than it is to 'escape' them. A bit like how cults work. 5. access to these ideas via Reddit and the like removes one rather important element: collective shaming and having to accept the consequences of particular ideas. While in theory this is a good thing, in practice it can easily lead people down dark paths in isolation. Having grown up deeply religious, and having spent a lot of time in all sort of fringe communities, I suspect that the net effect of not deplatforming is negative. Ideas are perhaps kind of like viruses. With the internet and places like Reddit, they can propagate freely without the mediating effects of interpersonal contact and various degrees of ostracism or other consequences. They also have a reach that they never had before. Despite all that, I'm not arguing that we should do something about it. I don't know, and still lean towards accepting this new reality with all its consequences, or at least making sure we have a better understanding before we 'curb' things. But I'm much less optimistic about this new, internet-enabled state of things than I used to be. Apologies for all this being a bit of a ramble.