3 ms·

"X is good for BitCoin" for any value of X, and not(X). Some people are beyond saving- there is nothing that you can say or do to get them to accept that their

"X is good for BitCoin" for any value of X, and not(X). Some people are beyond saving- there is nothing that you can say or do to get them to accept that their beliefs are wrong. So you're better off expending efforts on the option that disrupts the radicalization pipeline.

__blockcipher__ 5y ago
Depends what you consider the radicalization pipeline to be. For example, if you ban a user from Twitter, and they end up on Parler, they're gonna be exposed to a lot more "radical" (for lack of a better word) stuff than when they were just on Twitter. It's really not guaranteed that banning "undesirable" content actually does disrupt the pipeline, so much as just further balkanize and radicalize the dissidents.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > Depends what you consider the radicalization pipeline to be. Platforms, by their nature, are mostly worried about what's happening on their platforms - when it's occurring elsewhere, it is no longer their problem. It is a mistake to think YouTube wants to bring an end to all misinformation everywhere - their focus starts and ends with misinformation on YouTube. Balkanization is the best option they can hope for, as long as it's not on YT.
- RF_Savage 5y ago
  But that banned user cannot radicalize others on twitter, the larger platform with a wider reach. Parler is a niche platform for people already down the rabbit hole.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    A dead Jesus cannot create more followers, right? The arguments goes in both directions, if you don't handle it correctly then being too heavy handed has the opposite effect.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      > A dead Jesus cannot create more followers, right? Pontius Pilate doesn't really care, as long as he's washed his hands of the matter and has rid of the man (and crowds) from his court.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      For the Romans, all that mattered is that the followers didn't wish to start an actual rebellion against Rome. Which doesn't seem like they did from the writings of Paul and the rest of the NT and early Christianity.
- bmarquez 5y ago
  "Raises hand" I like to do in-depth research for myself (example: watching an entire Trump or Biden speech instead of relying on a selected soundbite), viewing the original video or source instead of blindly believing on what mainstream media says about them. Unfortunately as more things get censored from social media/YouTube whether fairly or unfairly, it looks like I'll have to spend more time on "alternative" platforms, being exposed to the stuff that is common on such platforms. In the end, there's going to be the Twitter echo chamber, and the Gab echo chamber, etc (note that Parler seems to be dead).
  - Retric 5y ago
    But your past the initial pipeline for radicalization. A slightly more effective approach for you might have been to remove such videos from their recommendation algorithm. But, that doesn’t mean it’s ineffective for people who would be initially discovering this stuff.
newbamboo 5y ago
I remember early in the pandemic YouTube was removing any video where the word “pandemic” was used. They also censored videos suggesting mask wearing might be beneficial. Similar censorship occurred regarding the now well accepted lab leak origin of the pandemic. Because lab leaks must be racist or something.
treesknees 5y ago
I feel bad but yes I agree with this. I have a family member who won't get the vaccine because of "5G Microchips" and "government tracking us" with "poison" (despite her receiving literal poison in the form of chemotherapy, and clutching her phone with Facebook and TikTok no problem...) What could I possibly say or do to convince this person otherwise? They are so far beyond rational understanding of the vaccine that I'd rather take down the misinformation than be afraid of somehow re-enforcing that family member's beliefs.
listless 5y ago
> “So you’re better off expending your efforts on the option that disrupts the radicalization pipeline” But the pipeline is not a single thing. It’s a mutating and evolving entity. If you remove the content from one place, it shows up in another, but now it has more credibility because it’s been “removed for truth”. Unless there is a plan to block these people from the internet entirely, disrupting the pipeline ends up being gasoline on a fire.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > If you remove the content from one place, it shows up in another, but now it has more credibility because it’s been “removed for truth”. Such is the nature of a decentralized internet. The only centralized authority that can keep people off the internet is the government, and it would immediately run into freedom of speech issues (and I'm not a fan of government action. I'd much rather have private sites use their free speech/editorial powers to combat this). Are many smaller fires better than fewer, but larger conflagrations? Depends on who you ask, I think so. However, platforms don't care about the larger picture, they are only concerned about the fires on their properties.

__blockcipher__ 5y ago

Depends what you consider the radicalization pipeline to be. For example, if you ban a user from Twitter, and they end up on Parler, they're gonna be exposed to a lot more "radical" (for lack of a better word) stuff than when they were just on Twitter. It's really not guaranteed that banning "undesirable" content actually does disrupt the pipeline, so much as just further balkanize and radicalize the dissidents.

sangnoir 5y ago
> Depends what you consider the radicalization pipeline to be. Platforms, by their nature, are mostly worried about what's happening on their platforms - when it's occurring elsewhere, it is no longer their problem. It is a mistake to think YouTube wants to bring an end to all misinformation everywhere - their focus starts and ends with misinformation on YouTube. Balkanization is the best option they can hope for, as long as it's not on YT.
RF_Savage 5y ago
But that banned user cannot radicalize others on twitter, the larger platform with a wider reach. Parler is a niche platform for people already down the rabbit hole.
- Jensson 5y ago
  A dead Jesus cannot create more followers, right? The arguments goes in both directions, if you don't handle it correctly then being too heavy handed has the opposite effect.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > A dead Jesus cannot create more followers, right? Pontius Pilate doesn't really care, as long as he's washed his hands of the matter and has rid of the man (and crowds) from his court.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    For the Romans, all that mattered is that the followers didn't wish to start an actual rebellion against Rome. Which doesn't seem like they did from the writings of Paul and the rest of the NT and early Christianity.
bmarquez 5y ago
"Raises hand" I like to do in-depth research for myself (example: watching an entire Trump or Biden speech instead of relying on a selected soundbite), viewing the original video or source instead of blindly believing on what mainstream media says about them. Unfortunately as more things get censored from social media/YouTube whether fairly or unfairly, it looks like I'll have to spend more time on "alternative" platforms, being exposed to the stuff that is common on such platforms. In the end, there's going to be the Twitter echo chamber, and the Gab echo chamber, etc (note that Parler seems to be dead).
- Retric 5y ago
  But your past the initial pipeline for radicalization. A slightly more effective approach for you might have been to remove such videos from their recommendation algorithm. But, that doesn’t mean it’s ineffective for people who would be initially discovering this stuff.

newbamboo 5y ago

I remember early in the pandemic YouTube was removing any video where the word “pandemic” was used. They also censored videos suggesting mask wearing might be beneficial. Similar censorship occurred regarding the now well accepted lab leak origin of the pandemic. Because lab leaks must be racist or something.

treesknees 5y ago

I feel bad but yes I agree with this. I have a family member who won't get the vaccine because of "5G Microchips" and "government tracking us" with "poison" (despite her receiving literal poison in the form of chemotherapy, and clutching her phone with Facebook and TikTok no problem...) What could I possibly say or do to convince this person otherwise? They are so far beyond rational understanding of the vaccine that I'd rather take down the misinformation than be afraid of somehow re-enforcing that family member's beliefs.

listless 5y ago

> “So you’re better off expending your efforts on the option that disrupts the radicalization pipeline” But the pipeline is not a single thing. It’s a mutating and evolving entity. If you remove the content from one place, it shows up in another, but now it has more credibility because it’s been “removed for truth”. Unless there is a plan to block these people from the internet entirely, disrupting the pipeline ends up being gasoline on a fire.

sangnoir 5y ago
> If you remove the content from one place, it shows up in another, but now it has more credibility because it’s been “removed for truth”. Such is the nature of a decentralized internet. The only centralized authority that can keep people off the internet is the government, and it would immediately run into freedom of speech issues (and I'm not a fan of government action. I'd much rather have private sites use their free speech/editorial powers to combat this). Are many smaller fires better than fewer, but larger conflagrations? Depends on who you ask, I think so. However, platforms don't care about the larger picture, they are only concerned about the fires on their properties.