4 ms·

Only reason was because he was POTUS. Otherwise he would have been removed long ago. The moment he wasn't potus anymore he was to be removed from these platform

Only reason was because he was POTUS. Otherwise he would have been removed long ago. The moment he wasn't potus anymore he was to be removed from these platforms. The consequence of this however will be political division. If you thought the political division was bad now because of 'echo chambers'. Wait until the camps are no longer talking because they arent on the same platforms.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
This is what scares me. We're already seeing this start with Parler being conservative Twitter. Youtube clones are already popping up. The only saving grace is that such platforms will have difficulties finding advertisers and thus surviving, but if their movement gains traction then corporations will follow the flow of power/money and jump on board. The issue is not platforms. The issue is the lack of trust in the political system. Deplatforming is just a band-aid.
jonathanstrange 6y ago
No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't been talking to each other in a constructive way on these platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages. There is no dialogue between those sides on social media, because social media are generally not conducive to reasonable and rational discussion (with exceptions like HN, of course, where there is appropriate moderation). Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a good thing because they will go to many different places, break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able to reach as many people at once. The division and reality-denial we see today is the result of small minorities reaching to large audiences and looking much larger than they are, thereby allowing radical and violent positions to become seemingly more socially acceptable. It's perfectly fine if people who want to storm the Capitol (or behead Fauci, etc.) get to talk in their own, small little echo chambers. They do that already. Law enforcement is used to infiltrating closed circles and should know how to deal with those who become terrorists.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't been talking to each other in a constructive way on these platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages. So nothing lost? >Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a good thing because they will go to many different places, break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able to reach as many people at once. The thing about banning people on facebook, twitter, reddit, etc. You just create a new account. Nobody has gone anywhere. When there is a push for different platform like parler, then the migration occurs and there won't be cells. thedonald.win for example just as popular as thedonald was. There's no splintering. Though I can bet you within the next 2 weeks those sites will be taken down. >The division and reality-denial we see today is the result of small minorities reaching to large audiences and looking much larger than they are, thereby allowing radical and violent positions to become seemingly more socially acceptable. To be clear, the political division is not on the republican side. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts-americas-political-divide-1994-2017/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts-americas-political-d... The political divide is on the democrat side. More specifically... it was just the democrats. That's not the case anymore. The republicans just moved to the right increasing the divide. >It's perfectly fine if people who want to storm the Capitol (or behead Fauci, etc.) get to talk in their own, small little echo chambers. They do that already. Law enforcement is used to infiltrating closed circles and should know how to deal with those who become terrorists. That's the thing with reality. Those who arent involved in certain subjects can see it objectively. I'm not american nor am I there. I have never seen the politics so divided in the usa. It WAS the democrats, It's now both. The political divide has never been so bad. What are the consequences?
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    I'm also not in the US and the examples I gave were just examples. I also don't think that "the blame game" makes any sense. The effects of modern media are world-wide and don't have much to do with particular party divides or "left" and "right." Notice I spoke of radicals, regardless of political affiliation. As I've said, in my opinion the increasing division is partly a result of the fact that radical minorities nowadays have platforms through which they can easily reach millions.[1] This leads to an amplification of radical opinions and makes them appear to be more acceptable, hence also more accepted by people who would otherwise not even consider them. This in turn has to do with in- and out-group behaviour and corresponding cognitive biases. One way to counter-act the trend while still allowing free speech is to ensure that radical fringe groups do not have large amplifying platforms. They can still have free speech, just like they had in the 80s, but it should be made hard for them to reach out to millions. I agree that this is technically non-trivial, but many experiences have been made already and there are many methods like moderation, karma systems, IP banning, shadow-banning, banning by degrading service, limiting amplification/re-distribution of messages, identifying sockpuppet and bot accounts, and so on. [1] There are other reasons, of course, that have nothing to do with social media.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

This is what scares me. We're already seeing this start with Parler being conservative Twitter. Youtube clones are already popping up. The only saving grace is that such platforms will have difficulties finding advertisers and thus surviving, but if their movement gains traction then corporations will follow the flow of power/money and jump on board. The issue is not platforms. The issue is the lack of trust in the political system. Deplatforming is just a band-aid.

jonathanstrange 6y ago

No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't been talking to each other in a constructive way on these platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages. There is no dialogue between those sides on social media, because social media are generally not conducive to reasonable and rational discussion (with exceptions like HN, of course, where there is appropriate moderation). Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a good thing because they will go to many different places, break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able to reach as many people at once. The division and reality-denial we see today is the result of small minorities reaching to large audiences and looking much larger than they are, thereby allowing radical and violent positions to become seemingly more socially acceptable. It's perfectly fine if people who want to storm the Capitol (or behead Fauci, etc.) get to talk in their own, small little echo chambers. They do that already. Law enforcement is used to infiltrating closed circles and should know how to deal with those who become terrorists.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't been talking to each other in a constructive way on these platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages. So nothing lost? >Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a good thing because they will go to many different places, break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able to reach as many people at once. The thing about banning people on facebook, twitter, reddit, etc. You just create a new account. Nobody has gone anywhere. When there is a push for different platform like parler, then the migration occurs and there won't be cells. thedonald.win for example just as popular as thedonald was. There's no splintering. Though I can bet you within the next 2 weeks those sites will be taken down. >The division and reality-denial we see today is the result of small minorities reaching to large audiences and looking much larger than they are, thereby allowing radical and violent positions to become seemingly more socially acceptable. To be clear, the political division is not on the republican side. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts-americas-political-divide-1994-2017/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts-americas-political-d... The political divide is on the democrat side. More specifically... it was just the democrats. That's not the case anymore. The republicans just moved to the right increasing the divide. >It's perfectly fine if people who want to storm the Capitol (or behead Fauci, etc.) get to talk in their own, small little echo chambers. They do that already. Law enforcement is used to infiltrating closed circles and should know how to deal with those who become terrorists. That's the thing with reality. Those who arent involved in certain subjects can see it objectively. I'm not american nor am I there. I have never seen the politics so divided in the usa. It WAS the democrats, It's now both. The political divide has never been so bad. What are the consequences?
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  I'm also not in the US and the examples I gave were just examples. I also don't think that "the blame game" makes any sense. The effects of modern media are world-wide and don't have much to do with particular party divides or "left" and "right." Notice I spoke of radicals, regardless of political affiliation. As I've said, in my opinion the increasing division is partly a result of the fact that radical minorities nowadays have platforms through which they can easily reach millions.[1] This leads to an amplification of radical opinions and makes them appear to be more acceptable, hence also more accepted by people who would otherwise not even consider them. This in turn has to do with in- and out-group behaviour and corresponding cognitive biases. One way to counter-act the trend while still allowing free speech is to ensure that radical fringe groups do not have large amplifying platforms. They can still have free speech, just like they had in the 80s, but it should be made hard for them to reach out to millions. I agree that this is technically non-trivial, but many experiences have been made already and there are many methods like moderation, karma systems, IP banning, shadow-banning, banning by degrading service, limiting amplification/re-distribution of messages, identifying sockpuppet and bot accounts, and so on. [1] There are other reasons, of course, that have nothing to do with social media.