5 ms·

I think deplatforming is exactly what we need here: neonazi and white supremacists are people who are reliant on easy to use discourse-amplifying platforms. Th

I think deplatforming is exactly what we need here: neonazi and white supremacists are people who are reliant on easy to use discourse-amplifying platforms. The more you make it difficult for them to gather virtually, the more you’re breaking the spell that keeps them together. Before social media, physical neonazi or white supremacy chapter had A LOT of work to do to radicalize people, and were very easy to police and keep under control. With online-based organizational tools, radicalization became easier and harder to patrol. Do you think a random Arkansas soccer mom would have ever joined anything as crazy as Q-anon conspiracy, if she had to attend Q-anon chapter in person instead of participating in an online forum while doing the laundry?

koheripbal 6y ago
There's a contradiction in your argument. On one hand, you claim these platforms "amplify" hate speech, and on the other hand, you want to push them to other platforms. ...but it is exactly that isolation that create the bubble induced amplification of hate-speech. If everyone was forced to exist on the same platform (as a though experiment) then hate-speech would have to co-exist with rational thinkers and their hateful ideas might not propagate much. ...but the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  > ...but the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality. The first such group that comes to mind is Heaven's Gate, which I think illustrates the opposite: A brief reading of Wikipedia suggests to me that key members arrived in place via media attention, even though they spent significant other effort trying to recruit members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group...
- pixl97 6y ago
  Have you been discussing this online with people that fervently believe the election was fraudulent? It is eerily similar to talking with someone in a cult. Any 'evidence' you present to them will be taken and 'debunked' by their fellow cult members. There is already no counter balance. Breaking up their platforms into smaller pieces is actually helpful and will keep them from readily finding new members on the internet.
  - thatsamonad 6y ago
    I think this is something that largely gets ignored in all of these discussions about deplatforming, free speech, etc. There is a baked in assumption that all people are rational and will respond to well-reasoned arguments and evidence and will eventually arrive at a reasonable and evidence-based conclusion if you just bear with them and try harder. But my experience so far has not shown this to be the case. I’ve tried to have a calm and reasonable discourse with people who believe in things like QAnon, anti-vaccination theories, the “deep state”, GMO conspiracies, among others, and I’m a single voice among however many hundreds or thousands of others they are listening to. No amount of evidence or rational argument will sway these people because they are swimming in a sea of voices reinforcing their views. I’m not sure if deplatforming is the right solution here but I also don’t know what the alternatives are. Should we let them keep espousing and spreading patently false information that is actually causing harm to society to a large audience and hope that people just ignore it? That doesn’t seem like a good solution, either.
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      To be honest, rational argument and evidence doesn't exactly sway people of the opposite belief because they, too, are swimming in a sea of like voices. Every time big tech bans or suspends a user, another supporter of Trump is born.
      - thatsamonad 6y ago
        I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree that both "sides" are susceptible to group think and a mob mentality. I consider myself fairly moderate which is why I include examples of extreme views from the left (anti-vaccination theories, GMO conspiracies, 9/11 “truthers”) in my analysis, as well. I’m not a fan of misinformation no matter what the source is and do my best to try to “lead” people away from it. That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?: - Group A claims X. - Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X. - Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated. - Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true. - Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X. - Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence. What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion? And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)? I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?
- lumost 6y ago
  Modern online communities fracture into as many sub-groups as deemed necessary by both algorithms and user preference. Moving everyone to one platform won't limit the spread of violent hate speech, or limit organized sub-groups from co-ordinating violent activity. From a platform perspective, there isn't much difference between companies curtailing the use of their platforms to carry out violent activity and those platforms curtailing other illegal activities such as spamming or malware distribution. We don't consider sending 1 million unsolicited emails free speech, and wouldn't consider a gang using reddit to co-ordinate free speech. Is there any difference for groups coordinating the violent overthrow of an elected democracy?
- wyh008 6y ago
  I see your point but unfortunately this is really not how platforms these days work... Even if people are on the "same platform" they get trapped in their own echo chambers because by doing so the platforms make the most amount of money.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality. (1) Rationality is not a counterbalance to implacable, violent division when there is a fundamental conflict of value. Rationality is just ruthlessly optimized maximization of one's own utility function. (2) For those things where rationality in principal could be a counterbalance, the problem is that people (all of them) are not rational (rationality is an abstract, unattainable ideal), and the ways in which certain people are irrational can minimize the effect of what partial rationality other people in the group they are incorporated into have. When a group tries to exclude certain ideas from general conversation, it tends to be ideas whose expression is seen as indicateling one or both of (a) irreconcilable conflict of values with values that the rest of the groups sees as table stakes, and/or (b) incorrigible and toxic-to-the-group irrationality in assessment of reality and pursuit of values, whether or not these values are compatible with the group’s values. So, in either case, the decision is not made in a lack of awareness that isolation removes, int he abstract, rationality as a counterbalance in the conflict between the core group and the excised group, it's is made instead because of the belief that rationality does not function as such a counterbalance with the concrete group targeted for excision, and indeed that the presence of that excised group mitigates the function rationality otherwise would serve as a counterbalance to conflicts within the core group.
easterncalculus 6y ago
This argument only makes sense if you act like history began in the 20th century. There was so clearly much more widespread racism and neonazism long before the mainstream internet. Also yes I do think that soccer mom would go to an in-person event if she sees some politician that appeals to her fears and biases, we've seen that all before. It doesn't mean she'll storm the US capitol building, but it does mean she can exist without Facebook.
NicoJuicy 6y ago
Deplatforming is isolation and in a sense, this already happened on reddit because they could isolate their own topic ( eg. TheDonald) from other opinions ( eg. Snowflake). I'm not sure where the sitting is, but the ones radicalizing right now don't get a counter opinion.
kristrump 6y ago
I think ignorant black people are more reliant on easy to use platforms because white people are smart enough to use any platform, simple to complexed . Your obviously a racist person.

koheripbal 6y ago

There's a contradiction in your argument. On one hand, you claim these platforms "amplify" hate speech, and on the other hand, you want to push them to other platforms. ...but it is exactly that isolation that create the bubble induced amplification of hate-speech. If everyone was forced to exist on the same platform (as a though experiment) then hate-speech would have to co-exist with rational thinkers and their hateful ideas might not propagate much. ...but the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality.

throwaway2245 6y ago
> ...but the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality. The first such group that comes to mind is Heaven's Gate, which I think illustrates the opposite: A brief reading of Wikipedia suggests to me that key members arrived in place via media attention, even though they spent significant other effort trying to recruit members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group...
pixl97 6y ago
Have you been discussing this online with people that fervently believe the election was fraudulent? It is eerily similar to talking with someone in a cult. Any 'evidence' you present to them will be taken and 'debunked' by their fellow cult members. There is already no counter balance. Breaking up their platforms into smaller pieces is actually helpful and will keep them from readily finding new members on the internet.
- thatsamonad 6y ago
  I think this is something that largely gets ignored in all of these discussions about deplatforming, free speech, etc. There is a baked in assumption that all people are rational and will respond to well-reasoned arguments and evidence and will eventually arrive at a reasonable and evidence-based conclusion if you just bear with them and try harder. But my experience so far has not shown this to be the case. I’ve tried to have a calm and reasonable discourse with people who believe in things like QAnon, anti-vaccination theories, the “deep state”, GMO conspiracies, among others, and I’m a single voice among however many hundreds or thousands of others they are listening to. No amount of evidence or rational argument will sway these people because they are swimming in a sea of voices reinforcing their views. I’m not sure if deplatforming is the right solution here but I also don’t know what the alternatives are. Should we let them keep espousing and spreading patently false information that is actually causing harm to society to a large audience and hope that people just ignore it? That doesn’t seem like a good solution, either.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    To be honest, rational argument and evidence doesn't exactly sway people of the opposite belief because they, too, are swimming in a sea of like voices. Every time big tech bans or suspends a user, another supporter of Trump is born.
    - thatsamonad 6y ago
      I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree that both "sides" are susceptible to group think and a mob mentality. I consider myself fairly moderate which is why I include examples of extreme views from the left (anti-vaccination theories, GMO conspiracies, 9/11 “truthers”) in my analysis, as well. I’m not a fan of misinformation no matter what the source is and do my best to try to “lead” people away from it. That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?: - Group A claims X. - Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X. - Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated. - Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true. - Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X. - Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence. What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion? And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)? I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?
lumost 6y ago
Modern online communities fracture into as many sub-groups as deemed necessary by both algorithms and user preference. Moving everyone to one platform won't limit the spread of violent hate speech, or limit organized sub-groups from co-ordinating violent activity. From a platform perspective, there isn't much difference between companies curtailing the use of their platforms to carry out violent activity and those platforms curtailing other illegal activities such as spamming or malware distribution. We don't consider sending 1 million unsolicited emails free speech, and wouldn't consider a gang using reddit to co-ordinate free speech. Is there any difference for groups coordinating the violent overthrow of an elected democracy?
wyh008 6y ago
I see your point but unfortunately this is really not how platforms these days work... Even if people are on the "same platform" they get trapped in their own echo chambers because by doing so the platforms make the most amount of money.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality. (1) Rationality is not a counterbalance to implacable, violent division when there is a fundamental conflict of value. Rationality is just ruthlessly optimized maximization of one's own utility function. (2) For those things where rationality in principal could be a counterbalance, the problem is that people (all of them) are not rational (rationality is an abstract, unattainable ideal), and the ways in which certain people are irrational can minimize the effect of what partial rationality other people in the group they are incorporated into have. When a group tries to exclude certain ideas from general conversation, it tends to be ideas whose expression is seen as indicateling one or both of (a) irreconcilable conflict of values with values that the rest of the groups sees as table stakes, and/or (b) incorrigible and toxic-to-the-group irrationality in assessment of reality and pursuit of values, whether or not these values are compatible with the group’s values. So, in either case, the decision is not made in a lack of awareness that isolation removes, int he abstract, rationality as a counterbalance in the conflict between the core group and the excised group, it's is made instead because of the belief that rationality does not function as such a counterbalance with the concrete group targeted for excision, and indeed that the presence of that excised group mitigates the function rationality otherwise would serve as a counterbalance to conflicts within the core group.

easterncalculus 6y ago

This argument only makes sense if you act like history began in the 20th century. There was so clearly much more widespread racism and neonazism long before the mainstream internet. Also yes I do think that soccer mom would go to an in-person event if she sees some politician that appeals to her fears and biases, we've seen that all before. It doesn't mean she'll storm the US capitol building, but it does mean she can exist without Facebook.

NicoJuicy 6y ago

Deplatforming is isolation and in a sense, this already happened on reddit because they could isolate their own topic ( eg. TheDonald) from other opinions ( eg. Snowflake). I'm not sure where the sitting is, but the ones radicalizing right now don't get a counter opinion.

kristrump 6y ago

I think ignorant black people are more reliant on easy to use platforms because white people are smart enough to use any platform, simple to complexed . Your obviously a racist person.