4 ms·

Those looking to be radicalized will look at this as an example of the conspiracy. Look at QAnon. Or look at things like Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedi

Those looking to be radicalized will look at this as an example of the conspiracy. Look at QAnon. Or look at things like Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedia.com/Paul_Manafort https://www.conservapedia.com/Paul_Manafort Go ahead and read that article on Paul Manafort. That's just one, mundane article—you could pick any. Understand that, true or false, it doesn't matter anymore—this is a narrative and a set of facts that around 100 million people in the United States now subscribe to. We are way, way, way, way past removing a few thousand YouTube videos. That might have been marginally effective ten years ago. But there's been a decade of rhetoric now about how "they" control the media and will try and censor it. Sometimes it's "they" and sometimes it's (((they))). Jews control the media, shadow governments, deep state, extreme hate against muslims, gays, etc.. This stuff is mainstream. Patrick Little ran for Senate in California, of all places, as an actual nazi and got 1.2% of the vote. That's 50,000+ people who went out of their way to vote for someone who was relatively unknown, all because his platform was based on removing Jews from the United States. I don't know what the solution is, I really don't. But I DO know that removing videos from YouTube won't make it better. It may make it worse.

Zancarius 7y ago
> But I DO know that removing videos from YouTube won't make it better. It may make it worse. I think you're right, and I have some first-hand knowledge on the matter. I've debated QAnon types and flat earthers alike. In both cases, they often see an absence of information as some overarching conspiracy. I'm not really sure who is worse (the flat earthers are a subset of a broader "government-is-hiding-things" conspiracy), but they both follow a cult-like structure in that if you disagree with them, you're not "one of us" and are either not smart enough to understand the implications of their beliefs or are willfully blind to their "truth." I doubt YT would ever remove QAnon or flat earth videos, but if they did, I suspect the fallout would be far worse than just leaving them alone. In some cases, it's helpful to cite their own predictions (and have something to cite) to dismantle their argument! Admittedly, this isn't useful in direct debate, because they're forever moving the goalpost, but it can be helpful for illustrating deficiencies to third parties that might be sympathetic to their views but are still open to the idea that there are problems with the opposition's argument[1]. Now, I say this as a conservative with some libertarian leanings. I don't like censorship, and I think it's harmful to shield people from ideas they don't like. However, I think moderation within a community is incredibly important to its survival provided it is applied equally. Nothing is worse for reasonable discourse than having someone jump in and start slinging pejoratives, insults, and abuse for no other reason than they don't like what you've said. As an example, I've personally had someone stalk my admittedly limited social media presence across various sites in order to post screenshots "proving" some inane belief they had about me supporting some ridiculous conspiracy. They then repeatedly posted insults and diatribes across numerous unrelated comments until I blocked them. That type of behavior should be an immediate--and permanent--ban. [1] We might be passed this point, because the number of undecided people with regards to any particular conspiracy (for or against) is diminishing. I used to think the flat earth groups were largely trolling, but I've spoken with some people who have encountered them in real life or have friends who have been duped into believing the conspiracy. I also know a small handful of people who believe QAnon. No amount of evidence is going to sway either party. And no, I don't know what the best solution is other than to continue engaging where appropriate and banning where there's abuse.
- themagician 7y ago
  The time for moderation is over. Way over. If YouTube and Facebook has moderated in the beginning their would be no problem. That would just be the way it is. But now? Too late.
  - dmix 7y ago
    They didn't get into heavy-handed moderation early on for a very good reason. Now they are seeing why. Once you do it for some groups you have to do it for everyone. There's no winning this battle of censorship, it will never be enough for the mob. While the other half is saying it's too far. And a small percentage of crazies becomes even more convinced of a global conspiracy. And the actual extremists will use their banning to justify why they were right to be extremist in the first place. They should have stopped at people promoting violence, spam, and other obvious illegal stuff. Jumping into being the central body that moderates what is 'acceptable speech' online is minefield riddled crazy town with very little real ROI. Which will hopefully quicken Facebook's decline.
hackerbrother 7y ago
I don't know about your conclusion. There's a lot of people out there arguing that deplatforming works. I think it was considered to be effective in reducing Alex Jones' influence.
- themagician 7y ago
  Alex Jones’s influence has only grown. He was just on Joe Rogan’s podcast a few weeks ago. Deplatforming just removes it from the view of people who don’t want to see it anyway.

Zancarius 7y ago

> But I DO know that removing videos from YouTube won't make it better. It may make it worse. I think you're right, and I have some first-hand knowledge on the matter. I've debated QAnon types and flat earthers alike. In both cases, they often see an absence of information as some overarching conspiracy. I'm not really sure who is worse (the flat earthers are a subset of a broader "government-is-hiding-things" conspiracy), but they both follow a cult-like structure in that if you disagree with them, you're not "one of us" and are either not smart enough to understand the implications of their beliefs or are willfully blind to their "truth." I doubt YT would ever remove QAnon or flat earth videos, but if they did, I suspect the fallout would be far worse than just leaving them alone. In some cases, it's helpful to cite their own predictions (and have something to cite) to dismantle their argument! Admittedly, this isn't useful in direct debate, because they're forever moving the goalpost, but it can be helpful for illustrating deficiencies to third parties that might be sympathetic to their views but are still open to the idea that there are problems with the opposition's argument[1]. Now, I say this as a conservative with some libertarian leanings. I don't like censorship, and I think it's harmful to shield people from ideas they don't like. However, I think moderation within a community is incredibly important to its survival provided it is applied equally. Nothing is worse for reasonable discourse than having someone jump in and start slinging pejoratives, insults, and abuse for no other reason than they don't like what you've said. As an example, I've personally had someone stalk my admittedly limited social media presence across various sites in order to post screenshots "proving" some inane belief they had about me supporting some ridiculous conspiracy. They then repeatedly posted insults and diatribes across numerous unrelated comments until I blocked them. That type of behavior should be an immediate--and permanent--ban. [1] We might be passed this point, because the number of undecided people with regards to any particular conspiracy (for or against) is diminishing. I used to think the flat earth groups were largely trolling, but I've spoken with some people who have encountered them in real life or have friends who have been duped into believing the conspiracy. I also know a small handful of people who believe QAnon. No amount of evidence is going to sway either party. And no, I don't know what the best solution is other than to continue engaging where appropriate and banning where there's abuse.

themagician 7y ago
The time for moderation is over. Way over. If YouTube and Facebook has moderated in the beginning their would be no problem. That would just be the way it is. But now? Too late.
- dmix 7y ago
  They didn't get into heavy-handed moderation early on for a very good reason. Now they are seeing why. Once you do it for some groups you have to do it for everyone. There's no winning this battle of censorship, it will never be enough for the mob. While the other half is saying it's too far. And a small percentage of crazies becomes even more convinced of a global conspiracy. And the actual extremists will use their banning to justify why they were right to be extremist in the first place. They should have stopped at people promoting violence, spam, and other obvious illegal stuff. Jumping into being the central body that moderates what is 'acceptable speech' online is minefield riddled crazy town with very little real ROI. Which will hopefully quicken Facebook's decline.

hackerbrother 7y ago

I don't know about your conclusion. There's a lot of people out there arguing that deplatforming works. I think it was considered to be effective in reducing Alex Jones' influence.

themagician 7y ago
Alex Jones’s influence has only grown. He was just on Joe Rogan’s podcast a few weeks ago. Deplatforming just removes it from the view of people who don’t want to see it anyway.