3 ms·

Future donations need to come with anti-deplatfoming clauses.

by melony 5y ago

EdwardDiego 5y ago
Is it deplatforming when you've committed egregious crimes?
- mindslight 5y ago
  The leaders who made "deplatforming" a topic have also normalized committing egregious crimes, so yes it would seem to be so.
  - EdwardDiego 5y ago
    ...can you expand on that?
    - mindslight 5y ago
      The centralized power of webapps have been a concern for hackers since webapps became popular. I and many others have been talking about this for well over a decade. And on this front, we should all work towards decentralized software to eliminate this societal threat. However, "deplatforming" is a more recent political term meant to drive indignance at the existence of social repercussions (eg political hacks talking on FOX about being "deplatformed" by other channels). It's a motte and bailey set up - the motte is the longstanding issue of unaccountable centralized authorities, and the bailey is the wider tolerance of bad-faith debate-destroying spam that used to be confined to AM radio. Furthermore, the leaders of The Party pushing this issue of "deplatforming" have also been committing notorious crimes. Off the top of my head - dereliction of duty (many counts), plotting to overthrow the US government, obstruction of congress, statutory rape, and human trafficking. These crimes are an integral part of their public reputations, and therefore a large part of why they might be "deplatformed". And so, it is quite in line with its overall usage to apply the term "deplatforming" here. The Sacklers committed crimes, and so their shamed name is being removed from a wing of the Met - an institution that doesn't want to be associated with them. Basic accountability does look an awful lot like like injustice, when one brushes past the inconvenient details.
      - EdwardDiego 5y ago
        Thank you for expanding :) I can kinda see your point.
jfengel 5y ago
And future charitable organizations are going to be turning down a lot more donations. You can't de-platform somebody who hasn't been platformed. And somebody demanding an "anti-deplatforming" clause has just given you a heads-up that they're doing something that would make you think twice about giving them your platform in the first place. That'll suck for organizations that need the money. But it'll suck less than being seen as a way of burnishing a person's bad reputation or easing their guilty conscience.

Future donations need to come with anti-deplatfoming clauses.

by melony 5y ago

Future donations need to come with anti-deplatfoming clauses.

EdwardDiego 5y ago

Is it deplatforming when you've committed egregious crimes?

mindslight 5y ago
The leaders who made "deplatforming" a topic have also normalized committing egregious crimes, so yes it would seem to be so.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  ...can you expand on that?
  - mindslight 5y ago
    The centralized power of webapps have been a concern for hackers since webapps became popular. I and many others have been talking about this for well over a decade. And on this front, we should all work towards decentralized software to eliminate this societal threat. However, "deplatforming" is a more recent political term meant to drive indignance at the existence of social repercussions (eg political hacks talking on FOX about being "deplatformed" by other channels). It's a motte and bailey set up - the motte is the longstanding issue of unaccountable centralized authorities, and the bailey is the wider tolerance of bad-faith debate-destroying spam that used to be confined to AM radio. Furthermore, the leaders of The Party pushing this issue of "deplatforming" have also been committing notorious crimes. Off the top of my head - dereliction of duty (many counts), plotting to overthrow the US government, obstruction of congress, statutory rape, and human trafficking. These crimes are an integral part of their public reputations, and therefore a large part of why they might be "deplatformed". And so, it is quite in line with its overall usage to apply the term "deplatforming" here. The Sacklers committed crimes, and so their shamed name is being removed from a wing of the Met - an institution that doesn't want to be associated with them. Basic accountability does look an awful lot like like injustice, when one brushes past the inconvenient details.
    - EdwardDiego 5y ago
      Thank you for expanding :) I can kinda see your point.

jfengel 5y ago

And future charitable organizations are going to be turning down a lot more donations. You can't de-platform somebody who hasn't been platformed. And somebody demanding an "anti-deplatforming" clause has just given you a heads-up that they're doing something that would make you think twice about giving them your platform in the first place. That'll suck for organizations that need the money. But it'll suck less than being seen as a way of burnishing a person's bad reputation or easing their guilty conscience.