4 ms·

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

• 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.