3 ms·

> Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to

by ardy42 6y ago

> Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to ignore them. It's a real dilemma: pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting: > Bowers had earlier posted anti-Semitic comments against HIAS (formerly, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) on the online social network Gab.[11][12][13] Dor Hadash[14] had participated in HIAS's National Refugee Shabbat the previous week. Referring to Central American migrant caravans and immigrants, Bowers posted on Gab that "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in."[15]

krapp 6y ago
> pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them. Maybe. But then again they're radicalizing people on the mainstream platforms as well. Of course, if we admit that radicalizing people with hateful ideology is a problem, then we might have to admit the ideology itself is also a problem, and that would suggest that all speech isn't perfectly equal and equally valid relative to all other speech, and that some speech can actually be harmful. We would have to treat different ideas, ideologies and claims differently, and judge their merits on a case by case basis, and allow there to be consequences for harmful speech just as there are consequences for harmful actions, both in society as well as legally. We can't do that in the current political climate, so perhaps the next best thing is to simply reduce the number of people being radicalized as much as possible by not giving racists as big a megaphone as possible.

by ardy42 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

> pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them. Maybe. But then again they're radicalizing people on the mainstream platforms as well. Of course, if we admit that radicalizing people with hateful ideology is a problem, then we might have to admit the ideology itself is also a problem, and that would suggest that all speech isn't perfectly equal and equally valid relative to all other speech, and that some speech can actually be harmful. We would have to treat different ideas, ideologies and claims differently, and judge their merits on a case by case basis, and allow there to be consequences for harmful speech just as there are consequences for harmful actions, both in society as well as legally. We can't do that in the current political climate, so perhaps the next best thing is to simply reduce the number of people being radicalized as much as possible by not giving racists as big a megaphone as possible.