3 ms·

All that does is ensure racists and violent people only get to speak in echo chambers.

yters 7y ago
Then at least they isolate themselves, and have less ability to radicalize anyone besides the true believers. A number of isolated extremist cells are probably also easier to deal with for law enforcement, and these weird beliefs will stand out more to others in a social setting if they become rare. Also, it seems like the group egging them on motivates these shooters. Tragically seems related to internet likes. So, by deflating the social network surrounding these ideas, there will be less social motivation to carry out such horrible actions. And, finally, people have a social concept of truth, and if such ideas are considered to only be fringe crazy ideas instead of consistent with mainstream Darwinian theory, then people will be less likely to believe such ideas are true and less likely to act on them. As it is, social Darwinism seems to be one of those unpleasant truths due to the social weight given to the idea. Such social weight needs to be eradicated.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  > A number of isolated extremist cells are probably also easier to deal with for law enforcement, // I'd expect stuff done in the open on 'chan sites to be much easier to monitor than stuff done in private encrypted channels elsewhere. >Also, it seems like the group egging them on motivates these shooters. // In private where all the voices coalesce around a single ideology then the effect (Echo Chamber) makes it appear that _everyone_ [who matters] shares that ideal. Moreover, it's easier to "other" the out group, make them in to a caricature; dehumanise them. (See 2-party political systems!) Cults don't operate in the open, forcing people underground creates a sort of cultist environment. Contact with genuine people who are considered part of the out-group appears to be highly effective in breaking down these sorts of barriers .. that can happen on generalist sites but will never happen in closed ideology-bad groups. It seems to me that shutting down places like 8chan is going to lead to _more_ radicalised groups (that are more extremely radicalised), though they may be smaller groups and a smaller overall population. I think bigger, less cohesive, in-the-open groups are easier to monitor and take action against when necessary. I wonder if there are any useful models that can give actionable input to this question.
jredwards 7y ago
These places are already echo chambers. That's how the speech gets so fringe in the first place. De-platforming fractures the echo chambers and forces the population to find newer, smaller echo chambers, which reduces the impact of each echo.

Then at least they isolate themselves, and have less ability to radicalize anyone besides the true believers. A number of isolated extremist cells are probably also easier to deal with for law enforcement, and these weird beliefs will stand out more to others in a social setting if they become rare. Also, it seems like the group egging them on motivates these shooters. Tragically seems related to internet likes. So, by deflating the social network surrounding these ideas, there will be less social motivation to carry out such horrible actions. And, finally, people have a social concept of truth, and if such ideas are considered to only be fringe crazy ideas instead of consistent with mainstream Darwinian theory, then people will be less likely to believe such ideas are true and less likely to act on them. As it is, social Darwinism seems to be one of those unpleasant truths due to the social weight given to the idea. Such social weight needs to be eradicated.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
> A number of isolated extremist cells are probably also easier to deal with for law enforcement, // I'd expect stuff done in the open on 'chan sites to be much easier to monitor than stuff done in private encrypted channels elsewhere. >Also, it seems like the group egging them on motivates these shooters. // In private where all the voices coalesce around a single ideology then the effect (Echo Chamber) makes it appear that _everyone_ [who matters] shares that ideal. Moreover, it's easier to "other" the out group, make them in to a caricature; dehumanise them. (See 2-party political systems!) Cults don't operate in the open, forcing people underground creates a sort of cultist environment. Contact with genuine people who are considered part of the out-group appears to be highly effective in breaking down these sorts of barriers .. that can happen on generalist sites but will never happen in closed ideology-bad groups. It seems to me that shutting down places like 8chan is going to lead to _more_ radicalised groups (that are more extremely radicalised), though they may be smaller groups and a smaller overall population. I think bigger, less cohesive, in-the-open groups are easier to monitor and take action against when necessary. I wonder if there are any useful models that can give actionable input to this question.

jredwards 7y ago

These places are already echo chambers. That's how the speech gets so fringe in the first place. De-platforming fractures the echo chambers and forces the population to find newer, smaller echo chambers, which reduces the impact of each echo.