3 ms·

Here is my opinion on this, in case you're interested for some reason. I consider myself centrist but usually agree with liberal policies, however I also belie

Here is my opinion on this, in case you're interested for some reason. I consider myself centrist but usually agree with liberal policies, however I also believe in free speech. I honestly don't have a problem with mainstream platforms banning the radical right, because I don't really care about their speech. In case it isn't clear I think Donald Trump and his policies are awful. The problem, and the reason I argue we need free speech: I believe any attempt that would actually censor them would also have to censor innocent people caught in the crossfire. - Suppose these people start using code-words. Now, in an effort to ban these covert discussions, you risk misidentifying and banning random people. - Suppose these people brigade more moderate groups and subreddits. Now you may ban moderate Conservatives and libertarians who don't deserve to be banned. Believe it or not, there are Conservatives who hate Donald Trump, who are reasonable people, and who occasionally discover flaws in the left party, because even though I mostly side with the left party they aren't perfect. - Suppose these people move to decentralized platforms like Signal. In order to break or monitor their communication, you must enable Signal to break or monitor anyone's communication, including activists who need it for good purposes. - Similarly, if governments or ISPs can block these people from hosting their own website, that means governments or ISPs can block anyone from hosting their own website, so in the future they could block the good guys. Another thing you have to note is that this is a decent amount of the population. Even though they're idiots, you can't ignore them and you can't suppress them. A lot of these people are your average people, they just grew up in a biased society so bias is all they know. When you aggressively threaten and censor them, you're only scaring them, so they become more irrational and dangerous. Unfortunately I don't know how else you're going to restrict or convince right extremists. I'm sure it's possible, if you offer them something. Or more likely, if they get bored and distracted by something else, which would require the news to stop covering Donald Trump and start covering another, more interesting drama.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Step one would be to stop being so sanctimonious and believing that you are their better. You cannot convince someone of something or find common ground if you start off the conversation spitting in their face and telling them how much smarter you are than them.
thatguy987 6y ago
Personally, I don't think that these bannings will lead to something as extreme as what you're describing. Specifically, I don't see this leading to a ban of reasonable people. If I'm reading your thoughts correctly, your main concern seems to stem from the fact that you're assuming the goal is to stop these people from communicating with each other. However, I don't think that's the point of these bannings. I think the goal is to stop them from reaching a new audience and expanding (however, as I am not a CEO of a major social media company, I can only guess what the motivations are). In that sense, if everyone switches to using code words, or to using non-broadcast media (eg, Signal), it's significantly less concerning, and there will not be a strong push to ban people from those sites. By only de-platforming clear violators, I bet they can still have a big impact.
- armchairhacker 6y ago
  That's actually a good point. Idk how many otherwise unbiased people would be convinced that the election was a major fraud, but moving that to other platforms wouldn't hurt.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

Step one would be to stop being so sanctimonious and believing that you are their better. You cannot convince someone of something or find common ground if you start off the conversation spitting in their face and telling them how much smarter you are than them.

thatguy987 6y ago

Personally, I don't think that these bannings will lead to something as extreme as what you're describing. Specifically, I don't see this leading to a ban of reasonable people. If I'm reading your thoughts correctly, your main concern seems to stem from the fact that you're assuming the goal is to stop these people from communicating with each other. However, I don't think that's the point of these bannings. I think the goal is to stop them from reaching a new audience and expanding (however, as I am not a CEO of a major social media company, I can only guess what the motivations are). In that sense, if everyone switches to using code words, or to using non-broadcast media (eg, Signal), it's significantly less concerning, and there will not be a strong push to ban people from those sites. By only de-platforming clear violators, I bet they can still have a big impact.

armchairhacker 6y ago
That's actually a good point. Idk how many otherwise unbiased people would be convinced that the election was a major fraud, but moving that to other platforms wouldn't hurt.