2 ms·
I feel like your analysis misses the forest for the trees. Even if Facebook, Twitter, etc, had banned all these platforms and politicians, I'm confident people
by oceanplexian 6y ago
I feel like your analysis misses the forest for the trees.
Even if Facebook, Twitter, etc, had banned all these platforms and politicians, I'm confident people still would have come out for the protest. Taking away people's ability to organize on mainstream platforms didn't stop the HK protestors from organizing against the CCP. The lack of online platforms didn't stop the Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe. Even the Arab Spring, while often attributed to Twitter, happened in the face of mass censorship and Internet shutdowns.
IMHO the decisions to de-platform these groups will do nothing to put a dent in their political ideology, and will only serve to throw gasoline on the fire at a contentious period where many millions of people feel like they don't have a voice. And it's likely that peaceful discourse and political thought will be wiped out as collateral damage as a result of the decisions these companies are making.
- pm90 6y agoDeplatforming has been shown to have worked to reduce the influence of extremists, specifically those that incite violence https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-.... It doesn’t need to work perfectly for it to be useful. Btw do you know what doesn’t work? Appeasement. That only lets bad actors know that they can go even further. Resisting taking reasonable action for fear of violence is plain old appeasement.