5 ms·

More accurately would be to say Reddit reports 18% of hate content moved to a different platform. This would be akin to saying "salmon30salmon saw a reduction i

More accurately would be to say Reddit reports 18% of hate content moved to a different platform. This would be akin to saying "salmon30salmon saw a reduction in hate content when he stopped attending hate group meetings". While I appreciate any attempt to reduce hate, it isn't really something to cheer in this case. The goal is to reduce hate, and pushing people further into the fringes doesn't do that. Now instead of being part of a community that has hate, but also positive information, the hate groups are going to be forced into a more focused hate forum. It is a means to further push people to the fringes which could further radicalize folks. Essentially, Reddit etc. doesn't make people hate more, the internet just exposes the hate that already existed. It is part of a larger cultural problem. People don't generally become hateful after seeing 12 memes, they are raised in an environment that breeds hate. Banning the subreddits _feels_ good, but it is not a solution to the core problem.

pkulak 6y ago
Everything I've seen suggests that removing platforms actually does reduce this stuff. It's analogous to the argument that there's no point trying to reduce suicides; people are just gong to do it some other way. But no, if you put a barrier on a bridge, suicides really do go down in total. If you make something even just a little bit more difficult, you reduce it.
- dcow 6y ago
  I don't think “places to be hateful on the internet” are in short supply.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > I don't think “places to be hateful on the internet” are in short supply. Neither are ways of committing suicide, and yet stopping people from accessing _obvious_ and _easy_ options does reduce the number of people doing it.
    - dcow 6y ago
      I think it's a lot easier to be hateful, all things considered.
  - curryst 6y ago
    No, but places to be hateful on a major platform where users might accidentally stumble into your community and stay are. I would guess that most people who get wrapped up in that stuff stumble upon it, rather than it being something they sought out on their own.
mschuster91 6y ago
The idea behind deplatforming hate is to reduce the reach of hatespeech to those that explicitly desire it and the platforms that willingly provide it. That, in turn, reduces the funding of the hate prophets - many German alt-righters found themselves in a serious financial crunch after Youtube and Facebook booted them off so they could only solicit for donations on their lousy-visited Telegram channels. Side benefit: when the people that post hate speech on mass platforms like Reddit, Facebook and Twitter, members of marginalized groups get this shit into their feeds. Driving the hate speechers away increases the quality of usage of the marginalized persons.
- salmon30salmon 6y ago
  This is something I can agree with as being more useful. Anything that can be done to reduce funding to hate groups is fantastic. But there is a real difference between using deplatforming as a means of defunding hate groups and what happened with Reddit. Reddit itself has no means of monetization. While you could certainly argue that Reddit leads to platforms that do monetize, that is a slippery slope.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > Reddit itself has no means of monetization. This is a classic confusion about the nature of currency and networks. Direct monetization is one kind of success but not the only one. For one thing, a hate prophet doesn't need money to be successful. A hate prophet needs _listeners_ to be successful. Reducing access to accidental listeners who then get sucked into a brainwashing machine is reducing access to success. And then there's the fact that Reddit is a funnel, not just a destination. People go there just to go there, and then they accidentally stumble into hate cults. Some of those people get sucked into rabbit holes and find themselves in poisoned wonderlands. "follow me for more", "like and subscribe", "click here to find out", "read my blog", "watch my channel", "so and so says". Reddit isn't where the shit ends, but it is where the shit starts for many people. > While you could certainly argue that Reddit leads to platforms that do monetize, that is a slippery slope. FYI, the slippery slope argument is considered to be a logical fallacy so you probably shouldn't use it.
ebg13 6y ago
> pushing people further into the fringes doesn't do that. Citation needed. Tautalogically, making things harder to discover literally does make them harder to discover.
rsynnott 6y ago
> The goal is to reduce hate, and pushing people further into the fringes doesn't do that. I mean, it may. Sure, there are whole websites which exist solely for refugees of Reddit's various bans, but normal people, as a general rule don't go there, so it's mostly just racists shouting into the void, rather than propagandizing others.
whytaka 6y ago
> Essentially, Reddit etc. doesn't make people hate more, the internet just exposes the hate that already existed. I don't know if we can say this without debate. Certainly people have fears that could be stoked into hate, but it's the stoking that matters. The only reason propaganda exists is because it works.

pkulak 6y ago

Everything I've seen suggests that removing platforms actually does reduce this stuff. It's analogous to the argument that there's no point trying to reduce suicides; people are just gong to do it some other way. But no, if you put a barrier on a bridge, suicides really do go down in total. If you make something even just a little bit more difficult, you reduce it.

dcow 6y ago
I don't think “places to be hateful on the internet” are in short supply.
- ebg13 6y ago
  > I don't think “places to be hateful on the internet” are in short supply. Neither are ways of committing suicide, and yet stopping people from accessing _obvious_ and _easy_ options does reduce the number of people doing it.
  - dcow 6y ago
    I think it's a lot easier to be hateful, all things considered.
- curryst 6y ago
  No, but places to be hateful on a major platform where users might accidentally stumble into your community and stay are. I would guess that most people who get wrapped up in that stuff stumble upon it, rather than it being something they sought out on their own.

mschuster91 6y ago

The idea behind deplatforming hate is to reduce the reach of hatespeech to those that explicitly desire it and the platforms that willingly provide it. That, in turn, reduces the funding of the hate prophets - many German alt-righters found themselves in a serious financial crunch after Youtube and Facebook booted them off so they could only solicit for donations on their lousy-visited Telegram channels. Side benefit: when the people that post hate speech on mass platforms like Reddit, Facebook and Twitter, members of marginalized groups get this shit into their feeds. Driving the hate speechers away increases the quality of usage of the marginalized persons.

salmon30salmon 6y ago
This is something I can agree with as being more useful. Anything that can be done to reduce funding to hate groups is fantastic. But there is a real difference between using deplatforming as a means of defunding hate groups and what happened with Reddit. Reddit itself has no means of monetization. While you could certainly argue that Reddit leads to platforms that do monetize, that is a slippery slope.
- ebg13 6y ago
  > Reddit itself has no means of monetization. This is a classic confusion about the nature of currency and networks. Direct monetization is one kind of success but not the only one. For one thing, a hate prophet doesn't need money to be successful. A hate prophet needs _listeners_ to be successful. Reducing access to accidental listeners who then get sucked into a brainwashing machine is reducing access to success. And then there's the fact that Reddit is a funnel, not just a destination. People go there just to go there, and then they accidentally stumble into hate cults. Some of those people get sucked into rabbit holes and find themselves in poisoned wonderlands. "follow me for more", "like and subscribe", "click here to find out", "read my blog", "watch my channel", "so and so says". Reddit isn't where the shit ends, but it is where the shit starts for many people. > While you could certainly argue that Reddit leads to platforms that do monetize, that is a slippery slope. FYI, the slippery slope argument is considered to be a logical fallacy so you probably shouldn't use it.

ebg13 6y ago

> pushing people further into the fringes doesn't do that. Citation needed. Tautalogically, making things harder to discover literally does make them harder to discover.

rsynnott 6y ago

> The goal is to reduce hate, and pushing people further into the fringes doesn't do that. I mean, it may. Sure, there are whole websites which exist solely for refugees of Reddit's various bans, but normal people, as a general rule don't go there, so it's mostly just racists shouting into the void, rather than propagandizing others.

whytaka 6y ago

> Essentially, Reddit etc. doesn't make people hate more, the internet just exposes the hate that already existed. I don't know if we can say this without debate. Certainly people have fears that could be stoked into hate, but it's the stoking that matters. The only reason propaganda exists is because it works.