3 ms·

My book on defending from deplatform attacks is now free

23 points by StuntPope 6y ago

aklemm 6y ago
If not being an obtuse jerk is step one, I’m interested.
beering 6y ago
Glancing around the website, it's not hard to see who the target audience is. I.e. the people who are most interested in this "defending from deplatforming" book are the ones pushing conspiracy theories and hate speech. The pitch seems to tie deplatforming to gov't censorship, which seems to be a popular argument from people who get deplatformed.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  That's an interesting discussion, though. Is it "right" to deplatform/censor protests, even if they're very dumb and dangerous? Maybe it's a dangerous precedent. Plus, why censor organizing the protest, when the gathering itself is illegal?
- sproketboy 6y ago
  Spoken like a true communist.
bityard 6y ago
> But what you say online has to be sacrosanct. If you really want to protect the world from bad conspiracy theories then write a crash course in developing critical thinking skills, and give that away far and wide I find political discussions intensely boring but it just feels crazy to me that removing peoples' ability to _say idiotic things online_ is generally considered acceptable by the mainstream these days. Whatever happened to, "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it?"
- greglindahl 6y ago
  It collided with "If your website's full of assholes, it's your fault." I'm happy to defend your right to say stupid things from the top of a soapbox in the public square. I'm not happy to stop business owners from ejecting assholes from their website. The web lacks a public square. If you'd like to build one, go right ahead.
- ravenstine 6y ago
  And it's a popular idea in places like HN, too. If you are radical and not in a way that is sanctioned by the MSM, you're guilty of associating with Nazis and "conspiracy theorists" by mere virtue of being deplatformed like they have been.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > Whatever happened to, "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it?" People started blowing up churches and synagogues, and reasonable people decided they'd rather support the people being killed than the people doing the killing.
- tobylane 6y ago
  What happened was people knowingly sharing far from mainstream views demanded that they were defended/protected from the government (per the first amendment) and privately owned online platforms (not covered) equally. I wish for everyone to be accurate and treat these situations differently. Censorship hardly ever happens because it ends in a first amendment court case. Deplatforming happens all the time because the law permits it.
sebular 6y ago
If you've been deplatformed from the major social media sites, I assume the next step is to wear that as a badge of honor when you shift your online presence to the fringe sites that welcome neo nazis and conspiracy theorists.
lukifer 6y ago
I only recently learned about the concept of "flak" [0], as described by Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent". It occurs that Cancel Culture de-platforming shares a lot in common with the last hundred years of coordinated character/credibility attacks by establishment media, to ostracize heterodox opinions. While such flak attacks aren't always centralized (sometimes there are Fox-News-style "talking points", but often it's an emergent media consensus with no clear ringleader), de-platforming is an even more distributed phenomenon, where the Two-Minutes-Hate du jour can have a viral, snow-balling character. Don't dare speak up against it, lest your head be next on the chopping block. Without having read the linked book, I wonder how well the strategies would back-port to surviving flak from the traditional media, who still wield outsized influence over which opinions should be considered acceptable, which candidates are "electable", etc. The message discipline in both the MSM and Cancel Culture is frankly impressive: when the same simple story is repeated consistently, whether via sound bites or memes, it tends to stick; and the payload always carries enough emotional charge to bypass all nuance and intellectual charity. "What I tell you three times is true." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Flak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Flak

23 points by StuntPope 6y ago

If not being an obtuse jerk is step one, I’m interested.

Glancing around the website, it's not hard to see who the target audience is. I.e. the people who are most interested in this "defending from deplatforming" book are the ones pushing conspiracy theories and hate speech. The pitch seems to tie deplatforming to gov't censorship, which seems to be a popular argument from people who get deplatformed.

StavrosK 6y ago
That's an interesting discussion, though. Is it "right" to deplatform/censor protests, even if they're very dumb and dangerous? Maybe it's a dangerous precedent. Plus, why censor organizing the protest, when the gathering itself is illegal?
sproketboy 6y ago
Spoken like a true communist.

bityard 6y ago

> But what you say online has to be sacrosanct. If you really want to protect the world from bad conspiracy theories then write a crash course in developing critical thinking skills, and give that away far and wide I find political discussions intensely boring but it just feels crazy to me that removing peoples' ability to _say idiotic things online_ is generally considered acceptable by the mainstream these days. Whatever happened to, "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it?"

greglindahl 6y ago
It collided with "If your website's full of assholes, it's your fault." I'm happy to defend your right to say stupid things from the top of a soapbox in the public square. I'm not happy to stop business owners from ejecting assholes from their website. The web lacks a public square. If you'd like to build one, go right ahead.
ravenstine 6y ago
And it's a popular idea in places like HN, too. If you are radical and not in a way that is sanctioned by the MSM, you're guilty of associating with Nazis and "conspiracy theorists" by mere virtue of being deplatformed like they have been.
DanBC 6y ago
> Whatever happened to, "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it?" People started blowing up churches and synagogues, and reasonable people decided they'd rather support the people being killed than the people doing the killing.
tobylane 6y ago
What happened was people knowingly sharing far from mainstream views demanded that they were defended/protected from the government (per the first amendment) and privately owned online platforms (not covered) equally. I wish for everyone to be accurate and treat these situations differently. Censorship hardly ever happens because it ends in a first amendment court case. Deplatforming happens all the time because the law permits it.

sebular 6y ago

If you've been deplatformed from the major social media sites, I assume the next step is to wear that as a badge of honor when you shift your online presence to the fringe sites that welcome neo nazis and conspiracy theorists.

lukifer 6y ago

I only recently learned about the concept of "flak" [0], as described by Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent". It occurs that Cancel Culture de-platforming shares a lot in common with the last hundred years of coordinated character/credibility attacks by establishment media, to ostracize heterodox opinions. While such flak attacks aren't always centralized (sometimes there are Fox-News-style "talking points", but often it's an emergent media consensus with no clear ringleader), de-platforming is an even more distributed phenomenon, where the Two-Minutes-Hate du jour can have a viral, snow-balling character. Don't dare speak up against it, lest your head be next on the chopping block. Without having read the linked book, I wonder how well the strategies would back-port to surviving flak from the traditional media, who still wield outsized influence over which opinions should be considered acceptable, which candidates are "electable", etc. The message discipline in both the MSM and Cancel Culture is frankly impressive: when the same simple story is repeated consistently, whether via sound bites or memes, it tends to stick; and the payload always carries enough emotional charge to bypass all nuance and intellectual charity. "What I tell you three times is true." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Flak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Flak