3 ms·

> This type of categorical banning from public discussion never works. It just creates martyrs. I see this, or forms of it, oft repeated but it's never synced

> This type of categorical banning from public discussion never works. It just creates martyrs. I see this, or forms of it, oft repeated but it's never synced up with reality for me. Sure, you will have some hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool proponents of someone/some topic that will follow them to the ends of the earth but you stop the radicalization of so many more than I have to count it as a net-win. I used to be staunchly 100%-free-speech, no-holds-barred but I am, and have been, coming to the realization that it's simply not tenable when you factor in technology/internet. Banning Parlor from App Stores and infrastructure absolutely cut down on their users. Sure, some will continue to use it but you cut off the on-ramp for radicalization. Same story with YouTube, actually it's even MORE compelling for YouTube since the majority people going to Parlor were people already inclined to think a certain way (aka: believe the election was stolen, COVID is a hoax, Democrats drink baby's blood, etc). With YouTube we have endless examples of people being slowly radicalized as YouTube's algorithm takes them further and further down the rabbit hole and, unlike Parlor, you can start down that path while watching something completely innocuous. See also: Reddit banning T_D or other subs promoting violence and hatred.

nitrogen 5y ago
Suppressing the visible symptom of a cultural problem -- Parler, YouTube videos, whatever -- doesn't solve the cultural problem. It just means you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. People are still rolling coal with their flags flying if that's what they want to do. It's kind of like pushing homelessness underground, except the phenomenon being suppressed has a lot more potential energy. You squish a balloon, and the air/water just moves elsewhere. Eventually the balloon pops though, and we actually get to see what we've been trying to hide from and suppress.
- joshstrange 5y ago
  Ok, I understand what you are saying but I think this is a little different from “hiding the homeless” or putting them on a bus with a one-way ticket. I agree that people will just go further underground however it does stop the initial radicalization. People are on platforms like FB, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc because they expect them to be safe (different people will define that differently of course). They also expect most (if not all) the content to be true (of course we know this isn’t always the case). Allowing lies, dis/misinformation to spread on one of these platforms legitimizes it for people. As humans we are much more likely to believe content we see on a major platform vs myrandomthoughts.blogspot.com. That said, once radicalized on a major platform you might believe the afore mentioned site but you wouldn’t have given it a second look prior to that. So again, preventing the initial radicalizing by not allowing disinformation laundering on major platform does have an impact and stops the slide down for many, many people.

nitrogen 5y ago

Suppressing the visible symptom of a cultural problem -- Parler, YouTube videos, whatever -- doesn't solve the cultural problem. It just means you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. People are still rolling coal with their flags flying if that's what they want to do. It's kind of like pushing homelessness underground, except the phenomenon being suppressed has a lot more potential energy. You squish a balloon, and the air/water just moves elsewhere. Eventually the balloon pops though, and we actually get to see what we've been trying to hide from and suppress.

joshstrange 5y ago
Ok, I understand what you are saying but I think this is a little different from “hiding the homeless” or putting them on a bus with a one-way ticket. I agree that people will just go further underground however it does stop the initial radicalization. People are on platforms like FB, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc because they expect them to be safe (different people will define that differently of course). They also expect most (if not all) the content to be true (of course we know this isn’t always the case). Allowing lies, dis/misinformation to spread on one of these platforms legitimizes it for people. As humans we are much more likely to believe content we see on a major platform vs myrandomthoughts.blogspot.com. That said, once radicalized on a major platform you might believe the afore mentioned site but you wouldn’t have given it a second look prior to that. So again, preventing the initial radicalizing by not allowing disinformation laundering on major platform does have an impact and stops the slide down for many, many people.