4 ms·

Anyone who thinks this is a good thing is a very poor student of history.

by jmcdl 6y ago

zepto 6y ago
The biggest problem is that it will likely lead to a bunch of less visible alternatives arising. Trump himself has claimed he’s going to start one.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  That and the temptation to ban more and more for an ever widening definition of wrong thought will be impossible to resist. Every time some entity gains this type of control, the use of it always ends up expanding until it reaches a breaking point. After that, things get really messy for everyone involved.
  - ianai 6y ago
    Society functions fine without these platforms. Their bans will work out ok.
  - nolongerlowres 6y ago
    Well, they didn’t ban him because he thinks wrong things. They very clearly banned him because his words on the platform were intended to cause violence and stop the democratic process in the US (but mostly only the former). I think it’d be foolish not to ban people who use Twitter to communicate plans to perform acts of violence. If anything I hope they (along with other platforms) use this opportunity to get better at it. Don’t forget this is Twitter exercising its right to free speech. If Trump is upset, he’s free to do the same and make his own Twitter-like platform. I’ve seen a few open source ones posted here that he could fork.
bmiller2 6y ago
History doesn’t have any precedent for this. Algorithmically defined echo chambers are a new frontier for society to tackle. We’ve tried the option of waving our hands and hoping for the best, and what we got was a literal riot at the holiest of holies. Maybe it’s time for society to reject extremists on the internet, like we reject them in our local communities.
- admiralspoo 6y ago
  The fact the echo chambers are algorithmically determined or not is quite irrelevant -- the end result is the same -- cults. The historic precedent for minimizing bad influences of cults is decentralization and distribution so as to prevent systemic failure cascades in case where cultish behavior is endemic. This is federalism and anti-monopoly policies (for either government and private enterprise). The solution, therefore, is that these centralized echo chambers need to be broken up into smaller pieces.
  - meekmockmook 6y ago
    Yes. Antitrust enforcement is key to restoring democracy. Should be Priority #1
  - bmiller2 6y ago
    The end result is the same, but the mechanisms that create and persist that phenomenon are now a billion dollar industry driven by very smart people with shareholders that they answer to. The result is that the effectiveness and pertinacity of these creations far outstrip anything ever seen before in human history.
  - xg15 6y ago
    And yet, decentralisation and the social networks' "hands off" policies were exactly what started those cults. Those trolls, movements and "subcultures" were not started on r/all. They came from niche subcommunities which were effectively unmoderated before they gained media attention or from 4chan and all the other -chan, -booru, etc sites which already were exactly the kind of small decentralised, free-speech-above-all-else services you're talking about. > The historic precedent for minimizing bad influences of cults is decentralization and distribution so as to prevent systemic failure cascades in case where cultish behavior is endemic. If this is anything more than repetition of dogma then please explain how exactly this should be applied to the current situation. What should be done?
Mountain_Skies 6y ago
They assume they will control the monster they're creating forever, believing it could never be subverted by their ideological enemies or even end up creating an ideology of its own that oppresses every other ideology. They're playing with fire that has to potential to hurt far more than themselves or their perceived enemies.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  By "they" do you mean the companies that own those platforms? Or somebody else? Do you mean that someone else could take their platforms away from them?
  - sieabahlpark 6y ago
    They is almost irrelevant if you continue reading past that word. It's very apparent it doesn't matter who the "they" is because the "they" can and >will< change over time.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
I assure you that in the US, the threat posed during a resurgent white supremacy similar to Wilmington 1898 is NOT someone being banned from a social media platform
Fezzik 6y ago
Can you elaborate? I don’t view Trump as being that far in likeness from David Duke, other than that Trump masks his hateful rhetoric every-so-slightly. Are you also all for having Davie Duke back on Twitter? And what in history enforces the idea that banning Trump is bad? I can’t think of a single incident that would indicate it will be anything but a boon for society. This reminds me of when a teacher finally blows-up at the idiot student that has been incessantly disrupting class and has him suspended and all the non-crazies can get back to being productively educated. This is a good thing. Edit, to add: not every shushing is the same. The context and circumstances can drastically change the nature of the shush.
rasz 6y ago
Remember that time Hitler was deplatformed and nobody published Mein Kampf?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_jfoi 6y ago
So you want this idiot to continue to have a platform to incite violence? You may be a student of history but your understanding of it is poor and honestly you sound like someone who supports this traitor.
cecja 6y ago
As a german I look at 1923 and the moderate response to hitlers coup and the only thing I can do is shake my head at people like you.
xg15 6y ago
Twitter is a private company. It's their decision who they do business with, or is it not?
- sieabahlpark 6y ago
  It's their decision of whether to be regulated as a publisher in which they specifically choose what is published or exist as a platform. The issue is when you treat a small amount of very significant content as a publisher and the majority as a platform. Twitter has the power in the public forum to literally start wars between countries. This isn't something to take lightly. Since they claim to be the authority on information they are responsible for what they post. Except they're currently not and this is a problem.

Anyone who thinks this is a good thing is a very poor student of history.

by jmcdl 6y ago

Anyone who thinks this is a good thing is a very poor student of history.

The biggest problem is that it will likely lead to a bunch of less visible alternatives arising. Trump himself has claimed he’s going to start one.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
That and the temptation to ban more and more for an ever widening definition of wrong thought will be impossible to resist. Every time some entity gains this type of control, the use of it always ends up expanding until it reaches a breaking point. After that, things get really messy for everyone involved.
- ianai 6y ago
  Society functions fine without these platforms. Their bans will work out ok.
- nolongerlowres 6y ago
  Well, they didn’t ban him because he thinks wrong things. They very clearly banned him because his words on the platform were intended to cause violence and stop the democratic process in the US (but mostly only the former). I think it’d be foolish not to ban people who use Twitter to communicate plans to perform acts of violence. If anything I hope they (along with other platforms) use this opportunity to get better at it. Don’t forget this is Twitter exercising its right to free speech. If Trump is upset, he’s free to do the same and make his own Twitter-like platform. I’ve seen a few open source ones posted here that he could fork.

bmiller2 6y ago

History doesn’t have any precedent for this. Algorithmically defined echo chambers are a new frontier for society to tackle. We’ve tried the option of waving our hands and hoping for the best, and what we got was a literal riot at the holiest of holies. Maybe it’s time for society to reject extremists on the internet, like we reject them in our local communities.

admiralspoo 6y ago
The fact the echo chambers are algorithmically determined or not is quite irrelevant -- the end result is the same -- cults. The historic precedent for minimizing bad influences of cults is decentralization and distribution so as to prevent systemic failure cascades in case where cultish behavior is endemic. This is federalism and anti-monopoly policies (for either government and private enterprise). The solution, therefore, is that these centralized echo chambers need to be broken up into smaller pieces.
- meekmockmook 6y ago
  Yes. Antitrust enforcement is key to restoring democracy. Should be Priority #1
- bmiller2 6y ago
  The end result is the same, but the mechanisms that create and persist that phenomenon are now a billion dollar industry driven by very smart people with shareholders that they answer to. The result is that the effectiveness and pertinacity of these creations far outstrip anything ever seen before in human history.
- xg15 6y ago
  And yet, decentralisation and the social networks' "hands off" policies were exactly what started those cults. Those trolls, movements and "subcultures" were not started on r/all. They came from niche subcommunities which were effectively unmoderated before they gained media attention or from 4chan and all the other -chan, -booru, etc sites which already were exactly the kind of small decentralised, free-speech-above-all-else services you're talking about. > The historic precedent for minimizing bad influences of cults is decentralization and distribution so as to prevent systemic failure cascades in case where cultish behavior is endemic. If this is anything more than repetition of dogma then please explain how exactly this should be applied to the current situation. What should be done?

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

They assume they will control the monster they're creating forever, believing it could never be subverted by their ideological enemies or even end up creating an ideology of its own that oppresses every other ideology. They're playing with fire that has to potential to hurt far more than themselves or their perceived enemies.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
By "they" do you mean the companies that own those platforms? Or somebody else? Do you mean that someone else could take their platforms away from them?
- sieabahlpark 6y ago
  They is almost irrelevant if you continue reading past that word. It's very apparent it doesn't matter who the "they" is because the "they" can and >will< change over time.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

I assure you that in the US, the threat posed during a resurgent white supremacy similar to Wilmington 1898 is NOT someone being banned from a social media platform

Fezzik 6y ago

Can you elaborate? I don’t view Trump as being that far in likeness from David Duke, other than that Trump masks his hateful rhetoric every-so-slightly. Are you also all for having Davie Duke back on Twitter? And what in history enforces the idea that banning Trump is bad? I can’t think of a single incident that would indicate it will be anything but a boon for society. This reminds me of when a teacher finally blows-up at the idiot student that has been incessantly disrupting class and has him suspended and all the non-crazies can get back to being productively educated. This is a good thing. Edit, to add: not every shushing is the same. The context and circumstances can drastically change the nature of the shush.

rasz 6y ago

Remember that time Hitler was deplatformed and nobody published Mein Kampf?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

_jfoi 6y ago

So you want this idiot to continue to have a platform to incite violence? You may be a student of history but your understanding of it is poor and honestly you sound like someone who supports this traitor.

cecja 6y ago

As a german I look at 1923 and the moderate response to hitlers coup and the only thing I can do is shake my head at people like you.

xg15 6y ago

Twitter is a private company. It's their decision who they do business with, or is it not?

sieabahlpark 6y ago
It's their decision of whether to be regulated as a publisher in which they specifically choose what is published or exist as a platform. The issue is when you treat a small amount of very significant content as a publisher and the majority as a platform. Twitter has the power in the public forum to literally start wars between countries. This isn't something to take lightly. Since they claim to be the authority on information they are responsible for what they post. Except they're currently not and this is a problem.