6 ms·
> 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 o
by 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 agoThe 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.
- jolux 6y agoGot any proof of that?
- sfj 6y agoAll the new alternative social networks and video sites that have cropped up and the old ones that have ben gaining in popularity is evidence that people are beginning to turn away. Ex. lbry.tv, bitchute.com, gab.com, voat.co, phuks.co, zerohedge.com
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jakelazaroff 6y agoThis is an expected consequence of deplatforming — once you kick them off, those people are going to go somewhere. For this argument to work, you need to show that those networks are able to grow more than they would as a community on a mainstream platform.
- sfj 6y agoNetworks tend to follow an exponential growth rate, so even if the same number moved to the alternative platforms, the time it would take them to grow large enough to be significant would shorten substantially.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoWhy would it shorten the growth period compared to mainstream platforms, where there are far more users who could join the community? Is there any evidence that this is the case?
- sfj 6y ago> Why would it shorten the growth period compared to mainstream platforms, where there are far more users who could join the community? Because networks tend to follow an exponential growth rate. The time it takes to go from 1 to 128 equals the same time it takes to go from 128 to 16384, so if you add 127, you've shortened the time for the network to grow from 1 to 16384 by half. Meanwhile, for a platform that already had 16384, subtracting 127 is a drop in the bucket. > Is there any evidence that this is the case? Facebook/Youtube/Twitter/et al couldn't have grown as much as they did as fast as they did unless that was the case.
- injustice 6y agoYour reply has violated our community guidelines and you have been deducted 5 points for use of the word "extremist". You have 3 points remaining before account suspension. See how that works? Very slippery slope.
- ikt 6y agoA slippery slope to what? People migrating to a website that's reasonable?
- injustice 6y agoSo you would rather funnel two differing views to two platforms where they can both agree with each other in an echo chamber, rather than reasonable healthy adult discussions and sharing of ideas? Sounds very segregationist.
- bobdole12345 6y agoThis isn't Nam Smokey! There are rules! I think if the president of the US is unable to operate within the terms of service, he shouldn't get a platform. Why is that something you're going to argue against? Am I the only one who gives a fuck about the rules around here?
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y agoWhy is the president driving around in a motorcade, has VORFAHRT everywhere, sharpshooters, AF-One and so on, while you have to wait at red lights, and being searched at airports? /me plays AC/DC - Thunderstruck