4 ms·

Why do people fight against deplatforming if according to you it's actually beneficial for their cause?

by CydeWeys 6y ago

jimbob45 6y ago
Because it’s a huge pain to re-establish their platform elsewhere, not that it can’t be done.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Can it be done? Who's been banned from the major platforms and has then established a similarly sized platform of their own elsewhere? You have to admit that this is at least a huge roadblock for hateful extremists, no?
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    The textbook definition of people not on your side is “hateful extremist”. Everyone who doesn’t agree with someone is the worst person ever. Attempting to claim that your censorship holds the moral imperative can be used to make dubiously ethical decisions under the guise of a divine mission. Also this has recently happened with many Twitch streamers. Destiny, Vaush, Sargon, and others got deplatformed and moved elsewhere. One could argue that Andrew Wakefield, the founder of the anti-vaccine movement, has found/made a stronger platform after losing his license and being publicly denounced than he ever had as a doctor.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      What if 99+% of people agree that someone is a hateful extremist? Isn't "the only important moral imperative is unrestricted free speech above all else" itself an extremist position? Very few people agree with what you're espousing, so, just practically speaking, there's always going to be extremist views considered so far beyond the pale that they are always "censored" by society (pro-pedophilia would be a good example of one in the west). If you live your life by moral imperatives such as utilitarianism/the veil of ignorance, then you will in fact be compelled by moral imperative to denounce people whose views do not lead to doing the most good for all (as e.g. is true of anti-vaxxers).
      - jimbob45 6y ago
        Such a person or belief should still be afforded due process or a reasonable platform to state their case. Otherwise, how else could it be evident to all that they’re truly wrong? I would hardly regard the ideas of due process or balanced debate to be niche ideas. Also, to my knowledge, what you said is incorrect. It is perfectly legal to debate the legality and ethicality of pedophilia and vaccination. It is not legal to advocate for them, but advocation and debate aren’t the same thing. For example, the Wikipedia articles on Holocaust denial steelman the opposition quite well but no one would accuse those articles of advocating for denial of the Holocaust.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        You're making all sorts of arguments here against various strawmen that don't represent my actual points in this discussion.
  - donatj 6y ago
    Whose definition of "hateful extremist"? Anyone who would censor another person qualifies as a hateful extremist in my book.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      The platform operator's, of course. Let's take an extreme example of someone almost everyone agrees was a hateful extremist -- Osama bin Laden. Prior to his death, should he have been allowed to post on Twitter encouraging the murders of more people? Would Twitter have been a "hateful extremist" for banning him and other Al Qaeda accounts? Or -- and here me out here -- would it have been acceptable to ban him? If so, then there is a line somewhere. And if there is a line, then why shouldn't modern day Neo-Nazis calling for the deaths of Jews be on the other side of the line as well?
      - donatj 6y ago
        I mean death threats are clearly the line. That’s not the issue at hand though. Death threats are already banned from facebook unless their against celebrities / politicians - which to me is a weird distinction to make.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        It seems to me that the normalization of Neo-Nazi Holocaust denialist content will directly lead to more deaths in the near future, so that's clearly beyond the line for me too. I mean, it already lead to the deaths of tens of millions, so we do in fact have an answer here to "What's the worst that could happen?" And if you're willing to defer to Facebook's judgment here, then the problem is solved. Holocaust denial is banned from Facebook, same as death threats. Discussion resolved. We're in agreement.

Why do people fight against deplatforming if according to you it's actually beneficial for their cause?

jimbob45 6y ago

Because it’s a huge pain to re-establish their platform elsewhere, not that it can’t be done.

CydeWeys 6y ago
Can it be done? Who's been banned from the major platforms and has then established a similarly sized platform of their own elsewhere? You have to admit that this is at least a huge roadblock for hateful extremists, no?
- jimbob45 6y ago
  The textbook definition of people not on your side is “hateful extremist”. Everyone who doesn’t agree with someone is the worst person ever. Attempting to claim that your censorship holds the moral imperative can be used to make dubiously ethical decisions under the guise of a divine mission. Also this has recently happened with many Twitch streamers. Destiny, Vaush, Sargon, and others got deplatformed and moved elsewhere. One could argue that Andrew Wakefield, the founder of the anti-vaccine movement, has found/made a stronger platform after losing his license and being publicly denounced than he ever had as a doctor.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    What if 99+% of people agree that someone is a hateful extremist? Isn't "the only important moral imperative is unrestricted free speech above all else" itself an extremist position? Very few people agree with what you're espousing, so, just practically speaking, there's always going to be extremist views considered so far beyond the pale that they are always "censored" by society (pro-pedophilia would be a good example of one in the west). If you live your life by moral imperatives such as utilitarianism/the veil of ignorance, then you will in fact be compelled by moral imperative to denounce people whose views do not lead to doing the most good for all (as e.g. is true of anti-vaxxers).
    - jimbob45 6y ago
      Such a person or belief should still be afforded due process or a reasonable platform to state their case. Otherwise, how else could it be evident to all that they’re truly wrong? I would hardly regard the ideas of due process or balanced debate to be niche ideas. Also, to my knowledge, what you said is incorrect. It is perfectly legal to debate the legality and ethicality of pedophilia and vaccination. It is not legal to advocate for them, but advocation and debate aren’t the same thing. For example, the Wikipedia articles on Holocaust denial steelman the opposition quite well but no one would accuse those articles of advocating for denial of the Holocaust.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        You're making all sorts of arguments here against various strawmen that don't represent my actual points in this discussion.
- donatj 6y ago
  Whose definition of "hateful extremist"? Anyone who would censor another person qualifies as a hateful extremist in my book.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    The platform operator's, of course. Let's take an extreme example of someone almost everyone agrees was a hateful extremist -- Osama bin Laden. Prior to his death, should he have been allowed to post on Twitter encouraging the murders of more people? Would Twitter have been a "hateful extremist" for banning him and other Al Qaeda accounts? Or -- and here me out here -- would it have been acceptable to ban him? If so, then there is a line somewhere. And if there is a line, then why shouldn't modern day Neo-Nazis calling for the deaths of Jews be on the other side of the line as well?
    - donatj 6y ago
      I mean death threats are clearly the line. That’s not the issue at hand though. Death threats are already banned from facebook unless their against celebrities / politicians - which to me is a weird distinction to make.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        It seems to me that the normalization of Neo-Nazi Holocaust denialist content will directly lead to more deaths in the near future, so that's clearly beyond the line for me too. I mean, it already lead to the deaths of tens of millions, so we do in fact have an answer here to "What's the worst that could happen?" And if you're willing to defer to Facebook's judgment here, then the problem is solved. Holocaust denial is banned from Facebook, same as death threats. Discussion resolved. We're in agreement.