3 ms·

This is either misinformed or just directly a bad faith argument. Leaving these communities around is, indeed, very much like letting a wound fester. There isn'

This is either misinformed or just directly a bad faith argument. Leaving these communities around is, indeed, very much like letting a wound fester. There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints. What's being banned is not a rational space for discussion between reasoned gentlemen, it's a place where people escalate emotions and whip each other into a frenzy. They're not banning earnest discussions of World War II history, they're banning "hey let's role play Nazis semi-ironically until one of us flinches and shoots someone in real life."

fwn 6y ago
No. Our parent made a valid argument. The differences between your stance and our parents stance emerge from different world views not from different information levels or a difference in academic rigor. (Or faith!) > There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints. What you actually said here ("people can use platforms to radicalize") is true but also trivial. They can use platforms for all kind of things. More broadly: It's neither proven that the possibility of radicalization is a problem related to new technologies nor that censorship is a tool effective in mitigating it. Last but not least there's the philosophical question: it's not even clear that this problem we're perceiving is something that should be mitigated on a technical level. That is very much an ongoing research project and will continue to be for a long time as long as communities continue to adapt to new communication technologies.
webmaven 6y ago
> Leaving these communities around is, indeed, very much like letting a wound fester. There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints." Interesting... I don't think I've previously seen the argument that such communities are, in effect, an "attractive nuisance". A similar argument applies to pro-anorexia communities, although the danger there is self-harming behavior.

fwn 6y ago

No. Our parent made a valid argument. The differences between your stance and our parents stance emerge from different world views not from different information levels or a difference in academic rigor. (Or faith!) > There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints. What you actually said here ("people can use platforms to radicalize") is true but also trivial. They can use platforms for all kind of things. More broadly: It's neither proven that the possibility of radicalization is a problem related to new technologies nor that censorship is a tool effective in mitigating it. Last but not least there's the philosophical question: it's not even clear that this problem we're perceiving is something that should be mitigated on a technical level. That is very much an ongoing research project and will continue to be for a long time as long as communities continue to adapt to new communication technologies.

webmaven 6y ago

> Leaving these communities around is, indeed, very much like letting a wound fester. There isn't really any doubt now that people can use platforms to radicalize others to extreme and often dangerous viewpoints." Interesting... I don't think I've previously seen the argument that such communities are, in effect, an "attractive nuisance". A similar argument applies to pro-anorexia communities, although the danger there is self-harming behavior.