26 ms·

Ultimately, I think right-leaning politicians want to ban deplatforming because deplatforming works and they have the most to lose from it. I see this as practi

Ultimately, I think right-leaning politicians want to ban deplatforming because deplatforming works and they have the most to lose from it. I see this as practical political calculus and a fight for survival rather than some ideological exercise.

trutannus 5y ago
Absolutely, that's what it actually is. That said, they do tend to sell it as an ideological exercise in "free speech suppression". Pointing this out is important anyway to make sure that people realize they're being bamboozled by some political strategy and not a genuine attack on their rights.
ttt0 5y ago
So does deplatforming work or is it just a myth, like some people say?
- 8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
  This apparent contradiction is just a moderately clever way of using an ambiguity in the word. If "deplatforming" is taken to mean "depriving people of an easy means to find and communicate to an audience" it can be an effective technique depending on context, alternative communication channels, etc. If "deplatforming" is taken to mean "a novel social ill based on depriving people of their right to communicate" then yeah it's a myth.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    That's basically the same thing. The purpose of doing the former is the latter, since everyone does it. Free speech is like encryption at this point. Sure, it's not technically illegal, but if you actually try to do something for the public to use then the system will find some way to make it impossible and shut you down.
    - 8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
      No the second embeds two important differences from the first: that this is new (it's as old as writing at least) and that it's bad (a value judgement you can fall on either side of).
      - ttt0 5y ago
        So to summarize, deplatforming is real, but it's a myth that it's a bad thing. Got it.
        8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
        Correct!
        ttt0 5y ago
        So tell me, are you describing what other people's beliefs are, are you explaining your own beliefs or are you just trolling?
        8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
        Well the first two at least. I'm describing my beliefs. They are also shared by a lot of people; y'all wouldn't have to yell about free speech so much if this view was unpopular. I admit that I also enjoy riling up first amendment fundamentalists but it isn't my main goal and these are my sincerely held beliefs so I don't think really qualifies as trolling.
        ttt0 5y ago
        Fair enough, I already knew all of that, I just wanted to make sure you're not trolling me by saying things you don't actually believe. Putting the potential straw man aside, wouldn't you say that your definition of a 'myth', whatever it might be, is ambiguous to the point where you can accuse anyone of spreading myths and disinformation, even if they're factually correct? For example, let's get everyone offended and say that someone could say that George Floyd getting killed by police is a myth, because he was killed for resisting and being a criminal, and it wasn't a bad thing at all. People cast a moral judgement on this event, so in a way it is a myth, is it not? Or is it when it's something that contradicts your own moral judgement?
ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "Ultimately, I think right-leaning politicians want to ban deplatforming because deplatforming works and they have the most to lose from it." If deplatforming worked, the LGBTQ rights movement would have failed because they were kept in the closet. Deplatforming does not work, particularly in an era where "The 'Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Censorship cannot eliminate an idea, but deplatforming succeeds with the goal of severely limiting the spread of ideas and controlling discourse. One can argue the Donald Trump has "routed around" being banned from Twitter and Facebook with his mini-blog on his personal website but that is nowhere near as effective of a communication tool as his old social media presence. I also assert that "The 'Net" of today is a much different one than that inspired John Gilmore's quote, as non-censoring alternatives to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have failed to gain much traction.
jfengel 5y ago
It is practical political calculus, but not necessarily because it works. It may be because objecting to deplatforming is more benefit than the actual deplatforming. A prominent politician does not lack means for getting their message out. If anything, being banned from a social media site provides free airtime on conventional media as they talk about it. It's unclear whether the net effect is positive, negative, or otherwise. But it is clear that riling up people with talk about "deplatforming" is pretty effective. And, at least for the past couple of decades, riling up their constituency has been a fairly effective political tactic.

trutannus 5y ago

Absolutely, that's what it actually is. That said, they do tend to sell it as an ideological exercise in "free speech suppression". Pointing this out is important anyway to make sure that people realize they're being bamboozled by some political strategy and not a genuine attack on their rights.

ttt0 5y ago

So does deplatforming work or is it just a myth, like some people say?

8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
This apparent contradiction is just a moderately clever way of using an ambiguity in the word. If "deplatforming" is taken to mean "depriving people of an easy means to find and communicate to an audience" it can be an effective technique depending on context, alternative communication channels, etc. If "deplatforming" is taken to mean "a novel social ill based on depriving people of their right to communicate" then yeah it's a myth.
- ttt0 5y ago
  That's basically the same thing. The purpose of doing the former is the latter, since everyone does it. Free speech is like encryption at this point. Sure, it's not technically illegal, but if you actually try to do something for the public to use then the system will find some way to make it impossible and shut you down.
  - 8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
    No the second embeds two important differences from the first: that this is new (it's as old as writing at least) and that it's bad (a value judgement you can fall on either side of).
    - ttt0 5y ago
      So to summarize, deplatforming is real, but it's a myth that it's a bad thing. Got it.
      - 8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
        Correct!
        ttt0 5y ago
        So tell me, are you describing what other people's beliefs are, are you explaining your own beliefs or are you just trolling?
        8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
        Well the first two at least. I'm describing my beliefs. They are also shared by a lot of people; y'all wouldn't have to yell about free speech so much if this view was unpopular. I admit that I also enjoy riling up first amendment fundamentalists but it isn't my main goal and these are my sincerely held beliefs so I don't think really qualifies as trolling.
        ttt0 5y ago
        Fair enough, I already knew all of that, I just wanted to make sure you're not trolling me by saying things you don't actually believe. Putting the potential straw man aside, wouldn't you say that your definition of a 'myth', whatever it might be, is ambiguous to the point where you can accuse anyone of spreading myths and disinformation, even if they're factually correct? For example, let's get everyone offended and say that someone could say that George Floyd getting killed by police is a myth, because he was killed for resisting and being a criminal, and it wasn't a bad thing at all. People cast a moral judgement on this event, so in a way it is a myth, is it not? Or is it when it's something that contradicts your own moral judgement?

ThrowawayR2 5y ago

> "Ultimately, I think right-leaning politicians want to ban deplatforming because deplatforming works and they have the most to lose from it." If deplatforming worked, the LGBTQ rights movement would have failed because they were kept in the closet. Deplatforming does not work, particularly in an era where "The 'Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

BitwiseFool 5y ago
Censorship cannot eliminate an idea, but deplatforming succeeds with the goal of severely limiting the spread of ideas and controlling discourse. One can argue the Donald Trump has "routed around" being banned from Twitter and Facebook with his mini-blog on his personal website but that is nowhere near as effective of a communication tool as his old social media presence. I also assert that "The 'Net" of today is a much different one than that inspired John Gilmore's quote, as non-censoring alternatives to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have failed to gain much traction.

jfengel 5y ago

It is practical political calculus, but not necessarily because it works. It may be because objecting to deplatforming is more benefit than the actual deplatforming. A prominent politician does not lack means for getting their message out. If anything, being banned from a social media site provides free airtime on conventional media as they talk about it. It's unclear whether the net effect is positive, negative, or otherwise. But it is clear that riling up people with talk about "deplatforming" is pretty effective. And, at least for the past couple of decades, riling up their constituency has been a fairly effective political tactic.