The article puts a finger on a couple troubling aspects of deplatforming: > …I am not convinced that censorship is an effective tactic for social change. Nor d

The article puts a finger on a couple troubling aspects of deplatforming: > …I am not convinced that censorship is an effective tactic for social change. Nor do I believe that it is in our best interests to entrust social media corporations with the power to moderate our discourse. > The negative effects of deplatforming have not been studied as thoroughly as the positive effects—which is not surprising, given that the phenomenon is only a few years old. But there are a few clear possibilities, like the creation of cult-like followings driven by a sense of persecution, information vacuums, and the proliferation of “underground” organizing… In short, deplatforming a leader of thought some people find objectionable is not only bad in the same way suppressing free speech is always bad, but it destroys trust in communication; confirms and strengthens their followers' belief that their leader's ideas are both a) right, and b) dangerous to powerful people; and it drives the leader and their followers away from more generally-approved sources of information. I see this frequently among right-wing types I associate with. It has become a badge of honor to be banned from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and for many there is no longer any way to evaluate truth except, "Does it confirm my biases?" The thing is, many of the people don't hold what I would consider "extremist" beliefs at all, but are being increasingly driven that direction by social and traditional media's attempts to control objectionable thought.