4 ms·

> There is evidence that deplatforming works. 'Works' in what sense? Does it make the sort of people who believe this stuff less credulous? Or does it just m

> There is evidence that deplatforming works. 'Works' in what sense? Does it make the sort of people who believe this stuff less credulous? Or does it just make them less likely to listen to the specific blowhard being deplatformed, and less likely to believe the specific conspiracy theory being peddled? It's not like there's a shortage; both conspiracy theories and con-men are fungible. (And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan?)

krapp 5y ago
Let me ask you this - if deplatforming doesn't work, what are all of the people concerned about it worried about? It works in the sense that it deprives people of the power-multiplying capabilities of large platforms to spread disinformation. It doesn't stop the spread, but it does slow the spread. Yes, Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists would still exist without Alex Jones egging them on, but there would have been fewer of them, and they might not have been so invested in the meme that they decided to harass victims of the shooting. >And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. Yes, that's why I'm making it against the first group, and not the second or third. I'm saying if you're spreading patently ridiculous nonsense like "Sandy Hook was a hoax," and that ridiculous nonsense is doing actual societal harm, it's perfectly legitimate for platforms to decide that you should take your big breadboard and tinfoil hat elsewhere. >If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan? I'm not supporting deplatforming in the case of simple political disagreement, so in that case, no.
- ineptech 5y ago
  I think the main thing we disagree on is: I don't think Alex Jones has any power, or changes anyone's mind. He doesn't have a silver tongue, a deft wit, or evidence on his side. He's just a schmuck who tosses out bullshit to see what sticks. What you're dancing around, though, is that you can't talk about why this particular piece of bullshit sticks if you're pretending it's apolitical. The Sandy Hook hoax idea, as I understand it, is the theory that there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights, and they staged a fake school shooting to gain support. Right? Well, you can pin the second bit on Alex Jones, at least partly, but the other part, the "there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights" part, that's a meme that the mainstream right has been pushing relentlessly for something like two generations. And it is not a conspiracy theory; it's literally true (albeit often exaggerated). So my point, the reason I think deplatforming Jones would be ineffectual, is that the damage is already done. A generation has been convinced that the anti-gun brigade is so powerful and pernicious that faking a school shooting is something they might realistically do. That is the problem. I don't know if that problem is solveable, but I don't think deplatforming people like Alex Jones really affects it.
  - uniqueid 5y ago
    This description of Alex Jones doesn't sit well with the fact that Jones was a friend of a sitting POTUS and has thousands of fanatical listeners driving around with 'InfoWars' bumperstickers. He may be a blithering loon but he's also powerful and influential.

krapp 5y ago

Let me ask you this - if deplatforming doesn't work, what are all of the people concerned about it worried about? It works in the sense that it deprives people of the power-multiplying capabilities of large platforms to spread disinformation. It doesn't stop the spread, but it does slow the spread. Yes, Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists would still exist without Alex Jones egging them on, but there would have been fewer of them, and they might not have been so invested in the meme that they decided to harass victims of the shooting. >And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. Yes, that's why I'm making it against the first group, and not the second or third. I'm saying if you're spreading patently ridiculous nonsense like "Sandy Hook was a hoax," and that ridiculous nonsense is doing actual societal harm, it's perfectly legitimate for platforms to decide that you should take your big breadboard and tinfoil hat elsewhere. >If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan? I'm not supporting deplatforming in the case of simple political disagreement, so in that case, no.

ineptech 5y ago
I think the main thing we disagree on is: I don't think Alex Jones has any power, or changes anyone's mind. He doesn't have a silver tongue, a deft wit, or evidence on his side. He's just a schmuck who tosses out bullshit to see what sticks. What you're dancing around, though, is that you can't talk about why this particular piece of bullshit sticks if you're pretending it's apolitical. The Sandy Hook hoax idea, as I understand it, is the theory that there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights, and they staged a fake school shooting to gain support. Right? Well, you can pin the second bit on Alex Jones, at least partly, but the other part, the "there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights" part, that's a meme that the mainstream right has been pushing relentlessly for something like two generations. And it is not a conspiracy theory; it's literally true (albeit often exaggerated). So my point, the reason I think deplatforming Jones would be ineffectual, is that the damage is already done. A generation has been convinced that the anti-gun brigade is so powerful and pernicious that faking a school shooting is something they might realistically do. That is the problem. I don't know if that problem is solveable, but I don't think deplatforming people like Alex Jones really affects it.
- uniqueid 5y ago
  This description of Alex Jones doesn't sit well with the fact that Jones was a friend of a sitting POTUS and has thousands of fanatical listeners driving around with 'InfoWars' bumperstickers. He may be a blithering loon but he's also powerful and influential.