10 ms·

> it appears to be in a bit of a feedback loop as well, since it's obvious that deplatforming groups will make them feel persecuted and even more upset To me i

by jmull 6y ago

> it appears to be in a bit of a feedback loop as well, since it's obvious that deplatforming groups will make them feel persecuted and even more upset To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people. I personally think they should be allowed to have their space anyway, if they can refrain from inciting violence. But I would certainly absolutely refuse to do business with them, and have no problem with others making the same decision. People have the right to their repugnant ideas. They don’t have the right to force others to help promote them.

jfim 6y ago
> To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people. I'm not too sure about that. For people who are already radicalized and believe that there's a conspiracy of some kind working against them, wouldn't that just "prove" that there is such a conspiracy? I agree that deplatforming will prevent future people from being radicalized, but what about the people who already are? The whole pizzagate incident shows that there are definitely people who believe all kinds of conspiracy theories, and are convinced enough to act on them. I wonder what the solution for that is, though.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > I wonder what the solution for that is, though. Ironically, maybe Trump showed us the right solution with his tirade against section 230. i.e. the end of the social media platforms.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  radicalization is now part of mainstream culture, but I don’t understand the double standard, giving e.g. the “white supremacists” conspiracy by the left prime time on all the networks, but censoring conservatives (and they have no lack of dumb conspiracies of course), but why only one side is silenced and shut down? Free speech apparently is only free if it agrees with the ‘party line’ these days.
sebmellen 6y ago
The question here is where "doing business" ends and free speech begins. Arguably, paying for access to the Internet is also "doing business". Maybe paying for access to public utilities is "doing business" as well (if I don't pay my electric bill, I won't have electricity). What option do I have then — go to the town square and voice my views? Even going to the town square is illegal in some cases these days, what with COVID restrictions. I think this is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope, especially given how much our devices act as our "second brains" already.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  I would be open to a discussion about some kind of “fairness doctrine” for these companies - but as is, if it’s a private company, they are under no obligation to host speech they disagree with. Is it problematic that people take social rejection as a reason to further radicalize? Sure - but such is human existence - and where is their personal responsibility to observe their social environment and alter their behaviors/beliefs if they are unhappy with the results they are receiving?
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    I see the point you're making. If we deconstruct the whole matter and look at it from an existential point of view, humans are incredibly constrained in their freedoms by the nature of our existence. In a fundamental way, our language and culture predetermines what we can think and how we think, and our environment is probably a bigger impediment to freedom of speech and thought than anything else. But from a policy perspective on the ground, I think the ideal of freedom of speech should eclipse the concerns of private platforms wherever possible. But this is not to say we should not police the boundaries of free speech. In fact, if we had a more strict enforcement policy about unprotected speech like direct threats (such as L. Lin Wood's declaration that people should execute Mike Pence by firing squad [0]), we might not need these platform interventions at all. [0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-it-s-aware-of-threats-made-by-lin-wood/ar-BB1cCeIx https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-...
apta_ 6y ago
> To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people. I think it will push them off to even more obscure platforms, and the ones that do make it there will be much more extreme and dangerous. They'll be harder to monitor as well. At some point, a show of force might be necessary.
- Daishiman 6y ago
  Historically fascists movements have always been finished through bloodshed.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  Or they simply fizzle out as their obscurity undermines recruitment. We’ll see.
  - apta_ 6y ago
    That didn't work out so well with ISIS did it?
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      ISIS had clear ideological roots in the region, recruitment of socially disgraced military leaders, and a complete power vacuum to fill as they ravished a vulnerable, impoverish and diffuse population. What an absurd, ahistorical example.
      - apta_ 6y ago
        And far right groups don't have ideological roots in the US? It's not absurd, it's history.
        germinalphrase 6y ago
        Yes, it’s absurd to argue that kicking some people off a social media website is equivalent to: an existing domestic terror group that has committed organized violence at home and abroad (Al Qaida) is going to produce an even more radical offshoot organization (ISIS) after the government is destroyed by a foreign adversary (USA) leaving an entire geographic region without any projection of force (the Levant).
flycaliguy 6y ago
The Proud Boys might be an interesting case study. Creator Gavin McInnes along with the group was de-platformed a couple years ago. I remember them at the time seeming like a dangerous group of hipsters, nerds and meatheads. Today they appear to be a bunch of navy seal white power dudes with guns. Scary. That culture kept growing outside of the spotlight in a creepy dark corner.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  Right, dangerous hipster nerds, but they were on the fringes of the mainstream. If I remember correctly, Joe Rogan had Gavin McInnes on his show around that time. He was not by any means "center-right", but at least "acceptable" in the way that Ben Shapiro is today. There's an adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that's obviously been missing in the long winter of the past few years.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    There are good reasons to believe that adage is apocryphal. How do you square that with e.g. the mere exposure theory, in which the very act of seeing something makes you more accepting of it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect
    - nl 6y ago
      > apocryphal Apocryphal means that the origin of the story is doubtful. I think you might mean "the adage is incorrect" here.
    - sebmellen 6y ago
      Interesting question. I don't think these two concepts are in opposition. Of course, exposure to a toxic ideological viewpoint is poisonous for the recipient, and may in fact entice them to become more toxic themselves (if they are swayed by said reasoning). But a crucial part of the societal contract is to tolerate such toxic viewpoints so as to have the opportunity to redeem those who hold them. In other words, by eating a little bit of the poison ourselves, we are granted the opportunity to save that person from their own poison, by showing compassion and empathy towards them. People who have hate in their hearts are not entirely bad people. Everyone was once a child, everyone has experienced the mystery of simply existing, almost everyone has experienced love (whether from their parents or someone else), most people enjoy art and music. Evoking our shared humanity and showing compassion for others allows us to break down their toxic ideologies and even reform them to be beacons of compassion themselves. Perhaps the best and most compelling anecdote to promulgate this way of thinking is Daryl Davis, who, through his talents and love of music, has reformed many of the most hateful people in our country — members of the KKK. I would recommend this TED talk by him, titled "Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw. It really encapsulates the power of this viewpoint. The crucial element here is ensuring that we have channels of communication that allow for this sort of compassionate understanding... I fear that the compression of thought foisted upon us by social media platforms and online communication tools obscures the basic reality of our shared suffering, joy, intrigue, and humanity. These important facets of communication can be lost to the aether of technology, and our true intentions are thereby belied by the incorrigibly weak substrate of written language. As a note, I think we have discussed the topic of free speech in another thread before. It's good to "see" you again :)
throw0101a 6y ago
> I personally think they should be allowed to have their space anyway, if they can refrain from inciting violence. If. The whole reason why they got banned in the first place was because of the incitement. There have been all sorts of crazy things said since the US election (and before), and there weren't any bans, just "possible misleading statement" tags.
- concordDance 6y ago
  Parler is being held to an odd standard here. They need to remove content inciting violence like that on Capitol Tuesday, but the BLM related protests/riots killed more people and damaged more property and whatsapp, facebook, twitter etc kept the inciting comments. :/
  - hairofadog 6y ago
    There are some important distinctions between Black Lives Matter and Trump’s camp. BLM’s mission is to strengthen democracy and justice with the unfortunate side effect of the fringe propagating violence. The core and leadership would rather the violence and property damage wasn’t taking place. Trump is an authoritarian who is trying to subvert democracy, and his supporters consider violence to not only be acceptable but to be a necessary virtue. If it were possible to remove disinformation, violence, and property destruction from each movement, BLM would still have an important message, while on the MAGA side I’m not sure what values would remain. What’s the coherent message beyond spite toward the left?
    - blockmarker 6y ago
      The distinctions are that you like and agree with BLM, but hate Trump and think he is evil.
      - hairofadog 6y ago
        Well, that's one distinction, it's true. I agree and like Black Lives Matter because they have a valid point to make, and while it's unfortunate that there are fringe elements causing property damage and there have been instances of violence, that's not central to their mission and most people I know who support Black Lives Matter are against violence and property damage. I dislike Trump because he's corrupt, incompetent, racist, sexist, a sociopath, and an authoritarian. I feel like it's a valid position to be against those things. However, any politician on any end of the political spectrum can be all those things, so setting those aside, let's look at his actual policies: the only one I can think of is isolationism. I mean I'm mostly just repeating myself. Feel free to make a counterargument.
inglor_cz 6y ago
"To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people." That does not seem obvious to me AT ALL. Most radical movements in history had no access to the Internet and relied on personal contact to radicalize, e.g. preachers in mosques. This also creates deeper bonds among the members. If the result of deplatforming from Twitter is that the organization shifts to "meat world", you probably have a more dangerous opponent on your hands.

by jmull 6y ago

jfim 6y ago

> To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people. I'm not too sure about that. For people who are already radicalized and believe that there's a conspiracy of some kind working against them, wouldn't that just "prove" that there is such a conspiracy? I agree that deplatforming will prevent future people from being radicalized, but what about the people who already are? The whole pizzagate incident shows that there are definitely people who believe all kinds of conspiracy theories, and are convinced enough to act on them. I wonder what the solution for that is, though.

rootusrootus 6y ago
> I wonder what the solution for that is, though. Ironically, maybe Trump showed us the right solution with his tirade against section 230. i.e. the end of the social media platforms.
bra-ket 6y ago
radicalization is now part of mainstream culture, but I don’t understand the double standard, giving e.g. the “white supremacists” conspiracy by the left prime time on all the networks, but censoring conservatives (and they have no lack of dumb conspiracies of course), but why only one side is silenced and shut down? Free speech apparently is only free if it agrees with the ‘party line’ these days.

sebmellen 6y ago

The question here is where "doing business" ends and free speech begins. Arguably, paying for access to the Internet is also "doing business". Maybe paying for access to public utilities is "doing business" as well (if I don't pay my electric bill, I won't have electricity). What option do I have then — go to the town square and voice my views? Even going to the town square is illegal in some cases these days, what with COVID restrictions. I think this is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope, especially given how much our devices act as our "second brains" already.

germinalphrase 6y ago
I would be open to a discussion about some kind of “fairness doctrine” for these companies - but as is, if it’s a private company, they are under no obligation to host speech they disagree with. Is it problematic that people take social rejection as a reason to further radicalize? Sure - but such is human existence - and where is their personal responsibility to observe their social environment and alter their behaviors/beliefs if they are unhappy with the results they are receiving?
- sebmellen 6y ago
  I see the point you're making. If we deconstruct the whole matter and look at it from an existential point of view, humans are incredibly constrained in their freedoms by the nature of our existence. In a fundamental way, our language and culture predetermines what we can think and how we think, and our environment is probably a bigger impediment to freedom of speech and thought than anything else. But from a policy perspective on the ground, I think the ideal of freedom of speech should eclipse the concerns of private platforms wherever possible. But this is not to say we should not police the boundaries of free speech. In fact, if we had a more strict enforcement policy about unprotected speech like direct threats (such as L. Lin Wood's declaration that people should execute Mike Pence by firing squad [0]), we might not need these platform interventions at all. [0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-it-s-aware-of-threats-made-by-lin-wood/ar-BB1cCeIx https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-...

apta_ 6y ago

> To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people. I think it will push them off to even more obscure platforms, and the ones that do make it there will be much more extreme and dangerous. They'll be harder to monitor as well. At some point, a show of force might be necessary.

Daishiman 6y ago
Historically fascists movements have always been finished through bloodshed.
germinalphrase 6y ago
Or they simply fizzle out as their obscurity undermines recruitment. We’ll see.
- apta_ 6y ago
  That didn't work out so well with ISIS did it?
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    ISIS had clear ideological roots in the region, recruitment of socially disgraced military leaders, and a complete power vacuum to fill as they ravished a vulnerable, impoverish and diffuse population. What an absurd, ahistorical example.
    - apta_ 6y ago
      And far right groups don't have ideological roots in the US? It's not absurd, it's history.
      - germinalphrase 6y ago
        Yes, it’s absurd to argue that kicking some people off a social media website is equivalent to: an existing domestic terror group that has committed organized violence at home and abroad (Al Qaida) is going to produce an even more radical offshoot organization (ISIS) after the government is destroyed by a foreign adversary (USA) leaving an entire geographic region without any projection of force (the Levant).

flycaliguy 6y ago

The Proud Boys might be an interesting case study. Creator Gavin McInnes along with the group was de-platformed a couple years ago. I remember them at the time seeming like a dangerous group of hipsters, nerds and meatheads. Today they appear to be a bunch of navy seal white power dudes with guns. Scary. That culture kept growing outside of the spotlight in a creepy dark corner.

sebmellen 6y ago
Right, dangerous hipster nerds, but they were on the fringes of the mainstream. If I remember correctly, Joe Rogan had Gavin McInnes on his show around that time. He was not by any means "center-right", but at least "acceptable" in the way that Ben Shapiro is today. There's an adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that's obviously been missing in the long winter of the past few years.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  There are good reasons to believe that adage is apocryphal. How do you square that with e.g. the mere exposure theory, in which the very act of seeing something makes you more accepting of it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect
  - nl 6y ago
    > apocryphal Apocryphal means that the origin of the story is doubtful. I think you might mean "the adage is incorrect" here.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    Interesting question. I don't think these two concepts are in opposition. Of course, exposure to a toxic ideological viewpoint is poisonous for the recipient, and may in fact entice them to become more toxic themselves (if they are swayed by said reasoning). But a crucial part of the societal contract is to tolerate such toxic viewpoints so as to have the opportunity to redeem those who hold them. In other words, by eating a little bit of the poison ourselves, we are granted the opportunity to save that person from their own poison, by showing compassion and empathy towards them. People who have hate in their hearts are not entirely bad people. Everyone was once a child, everyone has experienced the mystery of simply existing, almost everyone has experienced love (whether from their parents or someone else), most people enjoy art and music. Evoking our shared humanity and showing compassion for others allows us to break down their toxic ideologies and even reform them to be beacons of compassion themselves. Perhaps the best and most compelling anecdote to promulgate this way of thinking is Daryl Davis, who, through his talents and love of music, has reformed many of the most hateful people in our country — members of the KKK. I would recommend this TED talk by him, titled "Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw. It really encapsulates the power of this viewpoint. The crucial element here is ensuring that we have channels of communication that allow for this sort of compassionate understanding... I fear that the compression of thought foisted upon us by social media platforms and online communication tools obscures the basic reality of our shared suffering, joy, intrigue, and humanity. These important facets of communication can be lost to the aether of technology, and our true intentions are thereby belied by the incorrigibly weak substrate of written language. As a note, I think we have discussed the topic of free speech in another thread before. It's good to "see" you again :)

throw0101a 6y ago

> I personally think they should be allowed to have their space anyway, if they can refrain from inciting violence. If. The whole reason why they got banned in the first place was because of the incitement. There have been all sorts of crazy things said since the US election (and before), and there weren't any bans, just "possible misleading statement" tags.

concordDance 6y ago
Parler is being held to an odd standard here. They need to remove content inciting violence like that on Capitol Tuesday, but the BLM related protests/riots killed more people and damaged more property and whatsapp, facebook, twitter etc kept the inciting comments. :/
- hairofadog 6y ago
  There are some important distinctions between Black Lives Matter and Trump’s camp. BLM’s mission is to strengthen democracy and justice with the unfortunate side effect of the fringe propagating violence. The core and leadership would rather the violence and property damage wasn’t taking place. Trump is an authoritarian who is trying to subvert democracy, and his supporters consider violence to not only be acceptable but to be a necessary virtue. If it were possible to remove disinformation, violence, and property destruction from each movement, BLM would still have an important message, while on the MAGA side I’m not sure what values would remain. What’s the coherent message beyond spite toward the left?
  - blockmarker 6y ago
    The distinctions are that you like and agree with BLM, but hate Trump and think he is evil.
    - hairofadog 6y ago
      Well, that's one distinction, it's true. I agree and like Black Lives Matter because they have a valid point to make, and while it's unfortunate that there are fringe elements causing property damage and there have been instances of violence, that's not central to their mission and most people I know who support Black Lives Matter are against violence and property damage. I dislike Trump because he's corrupt, incompetent, racist, sexist, a sociopath, and an authoritarian. I feel like it's a valid position to be against those things. However, any politician on any end of the political spectrum can be all those things, so setting those aside, let's look at his actual policies: the only one I can think of is isolationism. I mean I'm mostly just repeating myself. Feel free to make a counterargument.

inglor_cz 6y ago

"To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people." That does not seem obvious to me AT ALL. Most radical movements in history had no access to the Internet and relied on personal contact to radicalize, e.g. preachers in mosques. This also creates deeper bonds among the members. If the result of deplatforming from Twitter is that the organization shifts to "meat world", you probably have a more dangerous opponent on your hands.