5 ms·

> No Platforming and censoring opposing voices only leads them to thrive underground. Frustratingly, the article offers no evidence for this claim. I understa

by geofft 5y ago

> No Platforming and censoring opposing voices only leads them to thrive underground. Frustratingly, the article offers no evidence for this claim. I understand the argument that censorship and deplatforming are bad because they are morally wrong - that it doesn't matter the effect they have because they are inherently bad tools to use. But I don't really understand the argument that they're bad because they're ineffective. When you drive something underground, it thrives less than it would on the surface, no? We have plenty of examples of censorship being effective. Take opposition to the US invasions of Iraq, for instance. Anyone who opposed it - even the Dixie Chicks, famously - was deplatformed and attacked in the media. There was no reasonable debate about whether it was a good idea. And it turned out it was not a good idea, and there were no WMDs, and it was a quagmire. But because opposition was pushed underground, it had no political power. Or take another superpower. The PRC has no moral objection to censorship. And certainly there are non-moribund underground dissident political and religious movements, coded ways of referencing 4 June 1989, etc. But could any argument be made that the PRC has made a tactical mistake in pushing these movements underground, that they're thriving because they were underground and would be less successful above ground?

zanethomas 5y ago
> No Platforming and censoring opposing voices only leads > them to thrive underground. > Frustratingly, the article offers no evidence for this > claim. See Gab, Rumble, Locals, Bitchute et al ... that's where people banned/censored by big tech can still be found.
- tstrimple 5y ago
  If only the rejects from other platforms congregate on gab, they can’t mainstream their toxic views with the general public. That’s an example of deplatforming working.
  - hello_marmalade 5y ago
    The problem is that it causes those people to become more extreme because they get put into an echo chamber. It’s like putting a petty thief in with hardened criminals. They’re not coming out better than they went in, they’re coming out much, much worse. It’s the difference between seeing people say racist things on Twitter, and having someone shoot up a church. Extremists aren’t created out in public.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  if I look at the viewcount on bitchute the most popular channels are in the thousands when it comes to views. Not sure what Gab's or Rumble's numbers are, but I am almost certain they're significantly diminished, including in ad revenue for creators compared to giving them mainstream access. And that is enough. People argue against deplatforming as if the point is to somehow cure or enlighten the people who get kicked off. The actual point is to destroy the material means they require to operate. If you can diminish their audiences and revenues it will impact their reach and that means their influence and the financial incentive to keep going decreases. There's no evidence they're 'thriving' in the underground, and as long as they marinate in the underground that is good enough.
slibhb 5y ago
> We have plenty of examples of censorship being effective. Take opposition to the US invasions of Iraq, for instance. Anyone who opposed it - even the Dixie Chicks, famously - was deplatformed and attacked in the media. There was no reasonable debate about whether it was a good idea. And it turned out it was not a good idea, and there were no WMDs, and it was a quagmire. But because opposition was pushed underground, it had no political power. Decades later, the most common position among Americans is increasingly that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. Censorship did not work in the medium-run.
- orwin 5y ago
  Had the war been won in 2 years and a successful succession regime put in place in less than 5 years, censorship would've been successfull. There is still places where you can buy "Freedom fries" in the US (until at least fall 2019, i've not been back in the US for obvious reasons) You don't need it to work in the long term, you need it to work short-term and hope that you're right. Until the myth you created is deconstructed you are good. I'm not a huge fan of Baudrillard, but the point he raised in "The Gulf war do not exist" (he talked here about the first war) was basically unchallenged, and the myth of this war still stands. And i think Baudrillard have been well received in the US, no?
- watwut 5y ago
  > Censorship did not work in the medium-run It worked perfectly. No one is preventing you saying it was mistake, because it literally does not matter. It made War possible and the soldiers are still there.
zozbot234 5y ago
Do you really think most educated people in PRC don't know about 1989? They know, they just think it would be deeply unreasonable to raise this kind of controversy in public when the government is making the average Chinese's lives so much better. It's a very complicated game, and there are multiple sides pushing opposition underground. Opposition to the Iraq war was a very similar story, where many and perhaps most people were hopeful that promoting democratic values in the Middle East would actually work, and nip the root causes of Islamofascist terrorism in the bud. Of course the reality was very different.
- kfprt 5y ago
  They know what they are told and that is enough for them. There is no incentive to open pandoras box.
shkkmo 5y ago
> Take opposition to the US invasions of Iraq, for instance. Anyone who opposed it - even the Dixie Chicks, famously - was deplatformed and attacked in the media. I know of lots of people who participated quite vocally on protests against that war. None of the were fired or kicked out of any organization. I don't think I would consider that opposition "underground". > But could any argument be made that the PRC has made a tactical mistake in pushing these movements underground, that they're thriving because they were underground and would be less successful above ground? I think it is a tactical mistake. I think that trying to censor such a widely known and iconic event made the rest of their censorship and propaganda less effective because it makes the censorship so much more obvious. I do think censorship can be effective, especially against ideas and knowledge that are just starting to spread. I think the more brutal and authoritarian you can be, the more effectively you can censor things. However,I also think that there is clearly truth to the concerns about censorship with high personal consequences pushing widely spread ideas under ground. I think whether underground ideologies grow or shrink has a complicated dependency on network topology and state of spread. I think it's pretty clear that underground ideologies tend to become more extreme and harder to reconcile without violence.

by geofft 5y ago

zanethomas 5y ago

> No Platforming and censoring opposing voices only leads > them to thrive underground. > Frustratingly, the article offers no evidence for this > claim. See Gab, Rumble, Locals, Bitchute et al ... that's where people banned/censored by big tech can still be found.

tstrimple 5y ago
If only the rejects from other platforms congregate on gab, they can’t mainstream their toxic views with the general public. That’s an example of deplatforming working.
- hello_marmalade 5y ago
  The problem is that it causes those people to become more extreme because they get put into an echo chamber. It’s like putting a petty thief in with hardened criminals. They’re not coming out better than they went in, they’re coming out much, much worse. It’s the difference between seeing people say racist things on Twitter, and having someone shoot up a church. Extremists aren’t created out in public.
Barrin92 5y ago
if I look at the viewcount on bitchute the most popular channels are in the thousands when it comes to views. Not sure what Gab's or Rumble's numbers are, but I am almost certain they're significantly diminished, including in ad revenue for creators compared to giving them mainstream access. And that is enough. People argue against deplatforming as if the point is to somehow cure or enlighten the people who get kicked off. The actual point is to destroy the material means they require to operate. If you can diminish their audiences and revenues it will impact their reach and that means their influence and the financial incentive to keep going decreases. There's no evidence they're 'thriving' in the underground, and as long as they marinate in the underground that is good enough.

slibhb 5y ago

> We have plenty of examples of censorship being effective. Take opposition to the US invasions of Iraq, for instance. Anyone who opposed it - even the Dixie Chicks, famously - was deplatformed and attacked in the media. There was no reasonable debate about whether it was a good idea. And it turned out it was not a good idea, and there were no WMDs, and it was a quagmire. But because opposition was pushed underground, it had no political power. Decades later, the most common position among Americans is increasingly that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. Censorship did not work in the medium-run.

orwin 5y ago
Had the war been won in 2 years and a successful succession regime put in place in less than 5 years, censorship would've been successfull. There is still places where you can buy "Freedom fries" in the US (until at least fall 2019, i've not been back in the US for obvious reasons) You don't need it to work in the long term, you need it to work short-term and hope that you're right. Until the myth you created is deconstructed you are good. I'm not a huge fan of Baudrillard, but the point he raised in "The Gulf war do not exist" (he talked here about the first war) was basically unchallenged, and the myth of this war still stands. And i think Baudrillard have been well received in the US, no?
watwut 5y ago
> Censorship did not work in the medium-run It worked perfectly. No one is preventing you saying it was mistake, because it literally does not matter. It made War possible and the soldiers are still there.

zozbot234 5y ago

Do you really think most educated people in PRC don't know about 1989? They know, they just think it would be deeply unreasonable to raise this kind of controversy in public when the government is making the average Chinese's lives so much better. It's a very complicated game, and there are multiple sides pushing opposition underground. Opposition to the Iraq war was a very similar story, where many and perhaps most people were hopeful that promoting democratic values in the Middle East would actually work, and nip the root causes of Islamofascist terrorism in the bud. Of course the reality was very different.

kfprt 5y ago
They know what they are told and that is enough for them. There is no incentive to open pandoras box.

shkkmo 5y ago

> Take opposition to the US invasions of Iraq, for instance. Anyone who opposed it - even the Dixie Chicks, famously - was deplatformed and attacked in the media. I know of lots of people who participated quite vocally on protests against that war. None of the were fired or kicked out of any organization. I don't think I would consider that opposition "underground". > But could any argument be made that the PRC has made a tactical mistake in pushing these movements underground, that they're thriving because they were underground and would be less successful above ground? I think it is a tactical mistake. I think that trying to censor such a widely known and iconic event made the rest of their censorship and propaganda less effective because it makes the censorship so much more obvious. I do think censorship can be effective, especially against ideas and knowledge that are just starting to spread. I think the more brutal and authoritarian you can be, the more effectively you can censor things. However,I also think that there is clearly truth to the concerns about censorship with high personal consequences pushing widely spread ideas under ground. I think whether underground ideologies grow or shrink has a complicated dependency on network topology and state of spread. I think it's pretty clear that underground ideologies tend to become more extreme and harder to reconcile without violence.