5 ms·

Deplatforming works, that's proven. The truth is more fragile than you think.

new_guy 6y ago
It really doesn't though. I run a pretty big social platform based on 'free speech', every time a site like Youtube or Facebook goes on a purge like this our membership increases and we make bank.
- smitty1e 6y ago
  Capitalism is a beautiful thing.
all2 6y ago
It has worked well in every fascist/despotic state that has implemented it. Free speech, even outright lies, racism, etc. must necessarily exist in the public forum if a society is to remain free. For now, the silencing is "friendly" in that it only destroys livelihoods. If we allow it to become a norm then how long will it take a populous - now so used to being silenced - to agree to let the government silence the "other"? Once there is a "party" line, as in China, only suffering follows.
- not2b 6y ago
  The Weimar Republic was a free society. How'd that work out? It was destroyed by outright lies, racism, etc.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Far from it. It's well known that the Nazis exploited Weimar-era censorship laws to their own ends after seizing power.
    - waterhouse 6y ago
      And even before seizing power. “Contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilising anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. “Pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigour.” [1] "In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times. The more charges Streicher faced, the more the admiration of his supporters grew. In fact, the courts became an important platform for Streicher’s campaign against the Jews." [2] [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422017748821 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03064220177488... [2] https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2015/war-free-expression https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2015/war-free-exp...
- smitty1e 6y ago
  > every fascist/despotic state that has implemented it "For a while," said pretty much every such outfit.
jki275 6y ago
If it's so fragile, perhaps it's worth examining whether it's really truth. In my experience, truth is strong, and those who want to restrict speech probably aren't arguing for truth, but for their version of some ideology.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
smitty1e 6y ago
Falsehood can get a bad one far, especially in a tactical sense. Truth is the better strategic bet, every time.

It really doesn't though. I run a pretty big social platform based on 'free speech', every time a site like Youtube or Facebook goes on a purge like this our membership increases and we make bank.

smitty1e 6y ago
Capitalism is a beautiful thing.

all2 6y ago

It has worked well in every fascist/despotic state that has implemented it. Free speech, even outright lies, racism, etc. must necessarily exist in the public forum if a society is to remain free. For now, the silencing is "friendly" in that it only destroys livelihoods. If we allow it to become a norm then how long will it take a populous - now so used to being silenced - to agree to let the government silence the "other"? Once there is a "party" line, as in China, only suffering follows.

not2b 6y ago
The Weimar Republic was a free society. How'd that work out? It was destroyed by outright lies, racism, etc.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Far from it. It's well known that the Nazis exploited Weimar-era censorship laws to their own ends after seizing power.
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    And even before seizing power. “Contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilising anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. “Pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigour.” [1] "In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times. The more charges Streicher faced, the more the admiration of his supporters grew. In fact, the courts became an important platform for Streicher’s campaign against the Jews." [2] [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422017748821 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03064220177488... [2] https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2015/war-free-expression https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2015/war-free-exp...
smitty1e 6y ago
> every fascist/despotic state that has implemented it "For a while," said pretty much every such outfit.

jki275 6y ago

If it's so fragile, perhaps it's worth examining whether it's really truth. In my experience, truth is strong, and those who want to restrict speech probably aren't arguing for truth, but for their version of some ideology.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

smitty1e 6y ago

Falsehood can get a bad one far, especially in a tactical sense. Truth is the better strategic bet, every time.