10 ms·

This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut ou

This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they have a bad opinion because they got suspended/banned. I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. It feels like hate speech censoring could actually lead to more radicalization as people feel persecuted and become even more radical than if you had let them talk. It's a hard problem because you can get radicalization if you allow people to create their own echo chambers of hate. How do you balance trying to avoid creating these kinds of echo chambers, versus creating radicals by pushing them to other sites where there are no restrictions?

spaced-out 6y ago
>How do you balance trying to avoid creating these kinds of echo chambers, versus creating radicals by pushing them to other sites where there are no restrictions? By aggressively removing it to limit how many people are exposed, and ban those who continue to share it despite being warned.
- ds206 6y ago
  And all those evil drug users need to be aggressively removed to limit how many people are exposed to drugs... /s
- eplanit 6y ago
  Which is censorship. The thesis of the article asserts it is ineffective, and counter-productive to the parent comment's point.
  - loopz 6y ago
    No, it is anti-targeted propaganda.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules. If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.
- rednerrus 6y ago
  Who decides?
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > Who decides? Who decides if Nazis are allowed to put signs with Nazi slogans on your lawn?
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > on your lawn? Twitter and Facebook are common carriers[0], not private residences. Edit: 0: By which I mean that are common carriers in practice, not that they are legally recognized as such.
      - tablespoon 6y ago
        > Twitter and Facebook are common carriers, not private residences. Except they aren't actually common carriers. Some people are of the opinion they should be, but having an opinion doesn't make it so.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        > Some people are of the opinion they should be I think (based on this) that you mean they aren't legally recognized as common carriers (which isn't what I said, but fair enough; edited to clarify).
- 6y ago
morelisp 6y ago
> I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. 1. Daryl Davis is literally the only person ever mentioned in this context. If you don't have another example, this doesn't even qualify as an anecdote anymore. 2. Over the course of multiple decades Davis has, via intense 1:1 work and personal connection and at great risk to himself, deradicalized something like 4 dozen people. Gab alone had something like 400k accounts.
- sabarn01 6y ago
  Megan Phelps-Roper Derek Black George Wallce Via Shirley Chisholm https://www.persuasion.community/p/lessons-of-a-black-pioneer https://www.persuasion.community/p/lessons-of-a-black-pionee... You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences which generally isn't viewed as a liberal perspective on how to reintegrate people into society.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    > You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences This an extremely uncharitable reading of my comments. I said a structural problem needs a structural solution, not a personal one. To invoke Chisholm as a counter-argument is offensive.
    - sabarn01 6y ago
      Then you are easily offended. I think that what Chisholm did and what Davis did are in the same category. Personal outreach. You said Davis was the only example so I gave you others. I don't think racism is structural problem Its a personal problem solved by individuals. The legacy of racism and its former codification may be structural and addressed in a structural way but they are fundamental different.
      - morelisp 6y ago
claudiawerner 6y ago
>Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only to a lesser extent) if it weren't illegal. The fact that people will download and masturbate to child porn because it is illegal is not a good argument against child porn laws. We (justifiably, I think) do not allow speech for the purposes of terrorist recruitment. The fact that someone is mistakenly banned for terrorist recruitment and later becomes radicalized is not a good argument to allow terrorist recruitment. The argument is fundamentally self-defeating; it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights. However, it also supposes that people in general lack sufficient ability to introspect after being censored - people are thought of here not as rational beings to use their rights of speech to engage in democratic deliberation, but as animals who when poked by a stick become enraged. >He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people? Does this work at scale? What of all the people who heard Davis or his ideas but were not persuaded? Is the number of people he failed to convince known? Finally, what of the people who, according to your theory, only become more 'radicalized' when they encounter the position that their views are wrong or harmful? There's just as good of a chance that one hundred Daryl Davis' trying to deradicalize people will actually cause radicals to dig in their heels. Maybe these hypothetical Davis' don't have a welcoming tone. Maybe the radical doesn't want to listen to a hypothetical Davis because of his race. Maybe the radical actually publicises the exchange and uses it as a megaphone to gish-gallop with 'radical' ideas. Maybe the radical convinces a hypothetical Davis that actually the radical and hateful ideas are correct. Doesn't honest and open dialogue, after all, permit both sending and receiving? I feel as though the Daryl Davis approach has a lot more risk and a lot less going for it empirically than you suppose.
- airhead969 6y ago
  > Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people? Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem. Cases in point: Saudi Arabia helps 9/11 terrorists; US meddling in South American politics promoting fascists, death squads, and the War on Drugs fueling powerful gangs and cartels; Western-caused climate change refugees fleeing Africa, the Middle East, and South America; Dec 8, 1947. > Does this work at scale? No. It doesn't matter if something is difficult or not if it is a moral duty to counter. "I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ― Chris Hedges." It is a moral imperative for anyone and everyone in a potential capacity of mentorship to dispel and debunk faulty ideas that neighborhood youth get involved with. No one can be an island onto themselves and local community is essential (although all-but-dissolved in most modern city life). (Boston Marathon Bombers) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - The Friends of Voltaire by Beatrice Hall When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism. There are some costs to having an open society, like the risks of being open. You might hear some idea you might not like, or find absolutely repugnant. Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir. Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to. Society will eventually come to a head if there become separate, hermetically-sealed ideological camps persist for much longer; this is a very dangerous phenomenon for social stability.
intended 6y ago
Daryl Davis does not scale. Pithy, but I say it after being a big fan of using him as an example. Persuasion has moved from the cottage industry of human interaction to industrialized consent manufacturing. Fox and cable television were the steam engine, social media is the industrial revolution. Human scale approaches such as Daryl’s are akin to using buckets to drain a sea.
- lliamander 6y ago
  The KKK, once one of the most powerful political forces in the United States, now can't even volunteer to clean up trash off a highway in Georgia. They numbers are tiny and politically they are impotent. And none of that change required hate speech laws.
  - intended 6y ago
    We don’t live in that era. Yes Recruiting for extremist causes has never been easier. There’s a list of extremist groups now that never existed before. And At no point in the recent past has there been a breach of security in the capitol like in Jan this year.
  - strgcmc 6y ago
    You are talking about squeezing one side of a balloon without noticing that the other end is getting bigger. The KKK is effectively a non-entity today in modern society, sure. That's partly because "they" became Proud Boys, Patriot Front, etc. etc. As with the broader societal trends of transitioning away from traditional pre-digital power structures and groups, a rich ecosystem of new white nationalist groups have sprung up in the digital age to feed off the same hate that the KKK used to organize around.
NoodleIncident 6y ago
> This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite How do you downplay "a few people" saying one thing, without giving even a single example of your imaginary opposite?
darkarmani 6y ago
Disrupting the operational tempo and capacity of these fringe groups doesn't mean you end up solving the problem for every person.

spaced-out 6y ago

>How do you balance trying to avoid creating these kinds of echo chambers, versus creating radicals by pushing them to other sites where there are no restrictions? By aggressively removing it to limit how many people are exposed, and ban those who continue to share it despite being warned.

ds206 6y ago
And all those evil drug users need to be aggressively removed to limit how many people are exposed to drugs... /s
eplanit 6y ago
Which is censorship. The thesis of the article asserts it is ineffective, and counter-productive to the parent comment's point.
- loopz 6y ago
  No, it is anti-targeted propaganda.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules. If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

rednerrus 6y ago
Who decides?
- tablespoon 6y ago
  > Who decides? Who decides if Nazis are allowed to put signs with Nazi slogans on your lawn?
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > on your lawn? Twitter and Facebook are common carriers[0], not private residences. Edit: 0: By which I mean that are common carriers in practice, not that they are legally recognized as such.
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > Twitter and Facebook are common carriers, not private residences. Except they aren't actually common carriers. Some people are of the opinion they should be, but having an opinion doesn't make it so.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > Some people are of the opinion they should be I think (based on this) that you mean they aren't legally recognized as common carriers (which isn't what I said, but fair enough; edited to clarify).
6y ago

morelisp 6y ago

> I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. 1. Daryl Davis is literally the only person ever mentioned in this context. If you don't have another example, this doesn't even qualify as an anecdote anymore. 2. Over the course of multiple decades Davis has, via intense 1:1 work and personal connection and at great risk to himself, deradicalized something like 4 dozen people. Gab alone had something like 400k accounts.

sabarn01 6y ago
Megan Phelps-Roper Derek Black George Wallce Via Shirley Chisholm https://www.persuasion.community/p/lessons-of-a-black-pioneer https://www.persuasion.community/p/lessons-of-a-black-pionee... You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences which generally isn't viewed as a liberal perspective on how to reintegrate people into society.
- morelisp 6y ago
  > You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences This an extremely uncharitable reading of my comments. I said a structural problem needs a structural solution, not a personal one. To invoke Chisholm as a counter-argument is offensive.
  - sabarn01 6y ago
    Then you are easily offended. I think that what Chisholm did and what Davis did are in the same category. Personal outreach. You said Davis was the only example so I gave you others. I don't think racism is structural problem Its a personal problem solved by individuals. The legacy of racism and its former codification may be structural and addressed in a structural way but they are fundamental different.
    - morelisp 6y ago

claudiawerner 6y ago

>Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only to a lesser extent) if it weren't illegal. The fact that people will download and masturbate to child porn because it is illegal is not a good argument against child porn laws. We (justifiably, I think) do not allow speech for the purposes of terrorist recruitment. The fact that someone is mistakenly banned for terrorist recruitment and later becomes radicalized is not a good argument to allow terrorist recruitment. The argument is fundamentally self-defeating; it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights. However, it also supposes that people in general lack sufficient ability to introspect after being censored - people are thought of here not as rational beings to use their rights of speech to engage in democratic deliberation, but as animals who when poked by a stick become enraged. >He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people? Does this work at scale? What of all the people who heard Davis or his ideas but were not persuaded? Is the number of people he failed to convince known? Finally, what of the people who, according to your theory, only become more 'radicalized' when they encounter the position that their views are wrong or harmful? There's just as good of a chance that one hundred Daryl Davis' trying to deradicalize people will actually cause radicals to dig in their heels. Maybe these hypothetical Davis' don't have a welcoming tone. Maybe the radical doesn't want to listen to a hypothetical Davis because of his race. Maybe the radical actually publicises the exchange and uses it as a megaphone to gish-gallop with 'radical' ideas. Maybe the radical convinces a hypothetical Davis that actually the radical and hateful ideas are correct. Doesn't honest and open dialogue, after all, permit both sending and receiving? I feel as though the Daryl Davis approach has a lot more risk and a lot less going for it empirically than you suppose.

airhead969 6y ago
> Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people? Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem. Cases in point: Saudi Arabia helps 9/11 terrorists; US meddling in South American politics promoting fascists, death squads, and the War on Drugs fueling powerful gangs and cartels; Western-caused climate change refugees fleeing Africa, the Middle East, and South America; Dec 8, 1947. > Does this work at scale? No. It doesn't matter if something is difficult or not if it is a moral duty to counter. "I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ― Chris Hedges." It is a moral imperative for anyone and everyone in a potential capacity of mentorship to dispel and debunk faulty ideas that neighborhood youth get involved with. No one can be an island onto themselves and local community is essential (although all-but-dissolved in most modern city life). (Boston Marathon Bombers) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - The Friends of Voltaire by Beatrice Hall When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism. There are some costs to having an open society, like the risks of being open. You might hear some idea you might not like, or find absolutely repugnant. Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir. Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to. Society will eventually come to a head if there become separate, hermetically-sealed ideological camps persist for much longer; this is a very dangerous phenomenon for social stability.

intended 6y ago

Daryl Davis does not scale. Pithy, but I say it after being a big fan of using him as an example. Persuasion has moved from the cottage industry of human interaction to industrialized consent manufacturing. Fox and cable television were the steam engine, social media is the industrial revolution. Human scale approaches such as Daryl’s are akin to using buckets to drain a sea.

lliamander 6y ago
The KKK, once one of the most powerful political forces in the United States, now can't even volunteer to clean up trash off a highway in Georgia. They numbers are tiny and politically they are impotent. And none of that change required hate speech laws.
- intended 6y ago
  We don’t live in that era. Yes Recruiting for extremist causes has never been easier. There’s a list of extremist groups now that never existed before. And At no point in the recent past has there been a breach of security in the capitol like in Jan this year.
- strgcmc 6y ago
  You are talking about squeezing one side of a balloon without noticing that the other end is getting bigger. The KKK is effectively a non-entity today in modern society, sure. That's partly because "they" became Proud Boys, Patriot Front, etc. etc. As with the broader societal trends of transitioning away from traditional pre-digital power structures and groups, a rich ecosystem of new white nationalist groups have sprung up in the digital age to feed off the same hate that the KKK used to organize around.

NoodleIncident 6y ago

> This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite How do you downplay "a few people" saying one thing, without giving even a single example of your imaginary opposite?

darkarmani 6y ago

Disrupting the operational tempo and capacity of these fringe groups doesn't mean you end up solving the problem for every person.