4 ms·

I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them. Didn't the Reddit folks discover that shutting down hateful subreddits p

by acbart 6y ago

I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them. Didn't the Reddit folks discover that shutting down hateful subreddits prevents them from popping back up effectively? I believe this is the citation[1]. [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

gkoberger 6y ago
Yeah but... this is the President of the United States we're talking about, not a random Reddit user. He's already been raised up and legitimized. I don't think that study applies... in fact, I don't think any study applies, since this is the first time we've ever seen this.
- jobigoud 6y ago
  On the other hand, this is his personal account @realDonaldTrump, not the official @POTUS that he decided he was above of.
iateanapple 6y ago
> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them Despite huge deplatforming efforts over the last decade fringe views have grown to become mainstream and there is less trust between people than ever.
- jolux 6y ago
  I would argue that misinformation via the web has only metastasized over the past decade and the deplatforming efforts have been comparatively minimal.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > the deplatforming efforts have been comparatively minimal Compared to what? From my perspective the tech censors are already on thin ice - I actually don’t see how they could ramp up efforts much more without facing serious opposition.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Orou 6y ago
> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them. Who do you believe should have final say over which person or group of people can have a platform, and who can't? Should it be whoever owns that particular platform? Should it be the government? Should it be the court of public opinion? I've yet to see a compelling argument for deplatforming that answers this question, because what is acceptable to society has large grey areas that are constantly shifting. I think the intentions are nothing but wonderful - I'm very glad that communities like those in the report you cited, and many similar ones, no longer exist on Reddit. The problem as I see it is that censorship lowers visibility of hate speech very effectively, but if anything seems to strengthen people's convictions that they are right about what they believe. Hateful subreddits may disappear, but is that clear evidence that the people that participated in them changed their minds about what they had expressed online? I find that conclusion dubious at best. I see this issue most strongly with conspiracy theorists, which seem to be a dime a dozen in 2020. Censorship is nothing if not evidence that what someone is saying is true - see the recent "Plandemic" viral video as a great example. Deplatforming is, like I said, well-intentioned, but like so many "solutions" it is obsessed with the symptom of the disease, not the cause. It is based on the very old but very wrong notion that 'if only everyone believed what I believe, all the world would be at peace'. That notion is the cornerstone of religious dogma and has been the justification for religious conversion, forcible or otherwise, for millennia. There are proven ways to moderate people's beliefs through civil discourse. The issue is that it is so time consuming, unsatisfying, and thankless (not to mention that you don't get to play moral superiority games) that I'm not surprised people would rather just throw down the banhammer instead.
- jolux 6y ago
  The point of deplatforming is not to change the minds of true believers in extremist causes, it’s to hinder their ability to recruit.
  - sfj 6y ago
    “The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems slip through your fingers.” Censoring the point of view of others merely lends credence to their point of view. Unless you find a way to censor them completely, you will cause more and more people to lose faith in your ideals.

by acbart 6y ago

gkoberger 6y ago

Yeah but... this is the President of the United States we're talking about, not a random Reddit user. He's already been raised up and legitimized. I don't think that study applies... in fact, I don't think any study applies, since this is the first time we've ever seen this.

jobigoud 6y ago
On the other hand, this is his personal account @realDonaldTrump, not the official @POTUS that he decided he was above of.

iateanapple 6y ago

> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them Despite huge deplatforming efforts over the last decade fringe views have grown to become mainstream and there is less trust between people than ever.

jolux 6y ago
I would argue that misinformation via the web has only metastasized over the past decade and the deplatforming efforts have been comparatively minimal.
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > the deplatforming efforts have been comparatively minimal Compared to what? From my perspective the tech censors are already on thin ice - I actually don’t see how they could ramp up efforts much more without facing serious opposition.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Orou 6y ago

> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them. Who do you believe should have final say over which person or group of people can have a platform, and who can't? Should it be whoever owns that particular platform? Should it be the government? Should it be the court of public opinion? I've yet to see a compelling argument for deplatforming that answers this question, because what is acceptable to society has large grey areas that are constantly shifting. I think the intentions are nothing but wonderful - I'm very glad that communities like those in the report you cited, and many similar ones, no longer exist on Reddit. The problem as I see it is that censorship lowers visibility of hate speech very effectively, but if anything seems to strengthen people's convictions that they are right about what they believe. Hateful subreddits may disappear, but is that clear evidence that the people that participated in them changed their minds about what they had expressed online? I find that conclusion dubious at best. I see this issue most strongly with conspiracy theorists, which seem to be a dime a dozen in 2020. Censorship is nothing if not evidence that what someone is saying is true - see the recent "Plandemic" viral video as a great example. Deplatforming is, like I said, well-intentioned, but like so many "solutions" it is obsessed with the symptom of the disease, not the cause. It is based on the very old but very wrong notion that 'if only everyone believed what I believe, all the world would be at peace'. That notion is the cornerstone of religious dogma and has been the justification for religious conversion, forcible or otherwise, for millennia. There are proven ways to moderate people's beliefs through civil discourse. The issue is that it is so time consuming, unsatisfying, and thankless (not to mention that you don't get to play moral superiority games) that I'm not surprised people would rather just throw down the banhammer instead.

jolux 6y ago
The point of deplatforming is not to change the minds of true believers in extremist causes, it’s to hinder their ability to recruit.
- sfj 6y ago
  “The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems slip through your fingers.” Censoring the point of view of others merely lends credence to their point of view. Unless you find a way to censor them completely, you will cause more and more people to lose faith in your ideals.