5 ms·

Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?

by Veen 8y ago

happytoexplain 8y ago
Stemming the spread of hatred and violence.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- naasking 8y ago
  1. Is there evidence that they've actually incited hatred and violence? If so, then they've violated the law. If there's no such evidence, then what justification would you use now? 2. Where's the evidence that hatred and violence are spreading? 3. Where's your evidence that censoring is successful in "stemming the spread of hatred and violence"?
- fs2 8y ago
  Except the videos of Watson aren't spreading hate or violence but he is just another person with an opinion. Because it's unpopular opinion and because he worked with Infowars in the past it's easy to make him into the "bad guy".
jonny_eh 8y ago
It works to remove platforms from people who spread hate and misinformation. https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming-alex-jones/ https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming...
- tjenkinsqs 8y ago
  So will CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. finally be de-platformed for "Weapons of Mass Destruction". This has caused actual destruction in terms of trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's lives and the rise of ISIS with massive destruction in the middle east.
  - cm2012 8y ago
    Can you figure out why CNN, MSNBC and Fox are different from the people banned in the above article?
  - Faark 8y ago
    a) Deplatforming should never be used for revenge, but to prevent bad outcomes in the future. You seem to entirely focus on the past instead of arguing for it to have any future benefit. Incidentally, "by now everyone knows it's satire" is one of the better arguments against banning infowars and milo nowadays seems unable to get enough of an audience to make a profit. Thus recent actions happening only now can easily be seen more as virtue signaling than effective deplatforming. But i guess better late than never. b) It is only possible to deplatform small parties. Wanting to deplatform the US president or the largest media network in the US (or in your case all of them) is unreasonable. edit: wording
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonny_eh 8y ago
    There's a difference between "making a mistake" and being an agent whose goal is to spread hate and misinformation.
    - naasking 8y ago
      Where's the proof that they are intentionally and maliciously hateful rather than simply being mistaken about those you think they hate?
      - spitfire 8y ago
        A trove of emails between Steve Bannon, Breitbart, Milo and I think Paul Joseph Watson were released a while ago. In those emails Bannon instructs Milo/etc to target specific groups. There were multiple instances of this throughout the emails. They were coordinating and planning to falsely target groups with their hate speech, With the full knowledge that their targeting would cause repercussions in the real world. I lost a friend to the Breitbart "prison planet", etc toxic sludge dump. He started sending me picture of people in tinfoil hats marked with "CNN", "NSA" and such. Then he started sending me videos about aliens babies (birth defects) and flat earth. Finally he went full out racist, with muslim crusade theories. Even to the point of telling me a city in Sweden was overrun with Muslims and a white man couldn't walk down the street safely. I have a friend living in that exact city, so I offered him a video chat with him. His immediate quote was "Your friend doesn't know what he's talking about". Some people go farther and shoot up people in mosques, or churches. And Alex Jones, Steven Bannon, Milo, PJW, etc knowing planned for these ends to happen. We just don't have the legal means to hold them accountable. So yes, these people are dangerous. Very dangerous, in the same way that Julius Streicher (Publisher of Der Stürmer before WWII) was. Streicher was tried at the Nuremberg trials and hung. Streicher was found guilty because he continued knowingly publishing outright falsehoods and hate speech in Der Stürmer after he was aware they were false. Hopefully that precident can be used against the current crop of hate-mongers at some point. Sorry for feeding the trolls in this thread. Edit: Even after Julius Steicher was found guilty at the Nuremberg trials and executed, Andrew Anglin thought it was a good idea to resurrect it as "the daily stormer". If that doesn't raise the hairs on the back of your neck I don't know what will.
Creationer 8y ago
To silence people you disagree with, and to suppress inconvenient facts and debate.

Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?

by Veen 8y ago

Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?

happytoexplain 8y ago

Stemming the spread of hatred and violence.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
naasking 8y ago
1. Is there evidence that they've actually incited hatred and violence? If so, then they've violated the law. If there's no such evidence, then what justification would you use now? 2. Where's the evidence that hatred and violence are spreading? 3. Where's your evidence that censoring is successful in "stemming the spread of hatred and violence"?
fs2 8y ago
Except the videos of Watson aren't spreading hate or violence but he is just another person with an opinion. Because it's unpopular opinion and because he worked with Infowars in the past it's easy to make him into the "bad guy".

jonny_eh 8y ago

It works to remove platforms from people who spread hate and misinformation. https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming-alex-jones/ https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming...

tjenkinsqs 8y ago
So will CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. finally be de-platformed for "Weapons of Mass Destruction". This has caused actual destruction in terms of trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's lives and the rise of ISIS with massive destruction in the middle east.
- cm2012 8y ago
  Can you figure out why CNN, MSNBC and Fox are different from the people banned in the above article?
- Faark 8y ago
  a) Deplatforming should never be used for revenge, but to prevent bad outcomes in the future. You seem to entirely focus on the past instead of arguing for it to have any future benefit. Incidentally, "by now everyone knows it's satire" is one of the better arguments against banning infowars and milo nowadays seems unable to get enough of an audience to make a profit. Thus recent actions happening only now can easily be seen more as virtue signaling than effective deplatforming. But i guess better late than never. b) It is only possible to deplatform small parties. Wanting to deplatform the US president or the largest media network in the US (or in your case all of them) is unreasonable. edit: wording
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jonny_eh 8y ago
  There's a difference between "making a mistake" and being an agent whose goal is to spread hate and misinformation.
  - naasking 8y ago
    Where's the proof that they are intentionally and maliciously hateful rather than simply being mistaken about those you think they hate?
    - spitfire 8y ago
      A trove of emails between Steve Bannon, Breitbart, Milo and I think Paul Joseph Watson were released a while ago. In those emails Bannon instructs Milo/etc to target specific groups. There were multiple instances of this throughout the emails. They were coordinating and planning to falsely target groups with their hate speech, With the full knowledge that their targeting would cause repercussions in the real world. I lost a friend to the Breitbart "prison planet", etc toxic sludge dump. He started sending me picture of people in tinfoil hats marked with "CNN", "NSA" and such. Then he started sending me videos about aliens babies (birth defects) and flat earth. Finally he went full out racist, with muslim crusade theories. Even to the point of telling me a city in Sweden was overrun with Muslims and a white man couldn't walk down the street safely. I have a friend living in that exact city, so I offered him a video chat with him. His immediate quote was "Your friend doesn't know what he's talking about". Some people go farther and shoot up people in mosques, or churches. And Alex Jones, Steven Bannon, Milo, PJW, etc knowing planned for these ends to happen. We just don't have the legal means to hold them accountable. So yes, these people are dangerous. Very dangerous, in the same way that Julius Streicher (Publisher of Der Stürmer before WWII) was. Streicher was tried at the Nuremberg trials and hung. Streicher was found guilty because he continued knowingly publishing outright falsehoods and hate speech in Der Stürmer after he was aware they were false. Hopefully that precident can be used against the current crop of hate-mongers at some point. Sorry for feeding the trolls in this thread. Edit: Even after Julius Steicher was found guilty at the Nuremberg trials and executed, Andrew Anglin thought it was a good idea to resurrect it as "the daily stormer". If that doesn't raise the hairs on the back of your neck I don't know what will.

Creationer 8y ago

To silence people you disagree with, and to suppress inconvenient facts and debate.