5 ms·

Of course deplatforming works. The point is that it only works in your favour when you're privileged enough that the establishment at large agrees with your vie

by zen_1 4y ago

Of course deplatforming works. The point is that it only works in your favour when you're privileged enough that the establishment at large agrees with your views on who the heretics are and what should be done to said heretics. As a thought experiment I'd encourage you to think about how causes you agree with might be deplatformed, and which groups would jump at the chance to do so. Bonus case study: censorship by various middle eastern governments

UncleMeat 4y ago
If we let Tate stay on social media, will Iran stop oppressing gay people? This isn't a real trade. Platforming bigots won't actually prevent bigots from deplatforming subaltern groups when they have the power to do so.
- zen_1 4y ago
  >Platforming bigots won't actually prevent bigots from deplatforming subaltern groups when they have the power to do so. Well if you had legal protections for speech on online public spaces (twitter, youtube, FB, IG and so on) and a strong court system, that would actually protect subaltern groups from being deplatformed, yes. It's a lot easier for the "bigots" (though I would have chosen the word zealots myself) to deplatform subaltern groups when that's an accepted method of dealing with dissent, as opposed to being something that's just not done. The (quite common) view you're espousing of "We should censor and deplatform exactly the set of people *I* find morally abhorrent" stinks of "This is classic "I'm right, so political systems should cater to me."" type thinking. For what it's worth I think Tate is an absolute piece of shit.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    I don't believe that the court system in the US has any influence on the legal rights of gay people in Iran. But even if we ignore the point about the middle east and focus entirely on one nation, legal defenses for majority groups have observably failed to protect subaltern groups for the entire history of the country. I do not have confidence that a strong court system protecting white male misogynists will actually consistently protect black gay women, for example. I believe that your statement about the ease of oppression is not actually supported by historical or modern evidence.
    - zen_1 4y ago
      Ignoring the whataboutism about Iran (I brought up middle eastern governments as an example of the effects of deplatforming when it's organized by people with different biases to you, not to imply some kind of ridiculous tit for tat). Really? You don't think the main reason the US is as desegregated as it is today is because of a strong supreme court that issued rulings such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia? Clearly these are all examples of the supreme court failing to protect subaltern groups, which is why all white primaries are still the norm, schools and buses are still segregated, and interracial marriage is still illegal. Is any court system perfect? Of course not, but the American court system is infinitely better than the court of public opinion when it comes to protecting individual rights for all individuals, regardless of identity. What planet's history were you even referring to, again? I'm not even American and I'm still aware of these civil rights victories. But oh no "white (well mixed-race in Tate's case) male misogynists" will also have their speech protected, so I guess these rights have got to go. Your rights are not predicated on your identity or your beliefs, no matter how abhorrent.
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        The courts have indeed been part of the steps towards justice. I didn’t say the courts have never done good. I said that enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media.
        zen_1 4y ago
        > enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. Virulent bigotry alone is not, and should never be, a crime. You are literally advocating for thoughtcrimes to be punished by the courts. > And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media. Well I was suggesting that governments regulate the tech monopolies to protect speech on their platforms, given that they are the de facto public square of modern political discourse. I recognize that Tate's freedom of speech was not violated by private platforms censoring him, I'm asserting that those platforms should either be regulated as public squares with the same duty to uphold freedom of (legal) speech, or have their monopolies broken up (i.e. Open APIs and interchange format, with social media monopolies ideally switching to a federated model where nobody has the power to "deplatform" someone else unilaterally).
sascha_sl 4y ago
No, the "establishment at large" does not even agree I should exist. Many publications (and now some US states and both likely candidates for future prime minister of the UK) constantly opine people like me would just go away if we just got talked out of it hard enough. The "establishment at large" loves to debate about which rights I should have, opines on if I should be allowed to participate in sports without being informed on the mechanics or ever caring about "women's sports" before it turned into a culture war topic, if I should be able to use public toilets safely (trick question, it's never safe). Or, DeSantis special, if my mere existence being discussed in schools constitutes grooming... I could go on all day. TikTok and YouTube both have a policy of limiting the spread of anything they can identify as LGBT. If I choose not to censor myself on these platforms my reach will be null. So I'm directly affected. I just don't think it's somehow impossible to draw a line of acceptable behavior on that platform. A policy of no intervention just leaves you with whatever capitalism feels like that day - and while capitalism really loves to pretend to care about diversity, it really is more of a marketing gag than a anywhere close to a true belief. But Andrew Tate can be the embodiment of toxic masculinity / incel culture / misogyny as long as it pays and nobody complains?

by zen_1 4y ago

UncleMeat 4y ago

If we let Tate stay on social media, will Iran stop oppressing gay people? This isn't a real trade. Platforming bigots won't actually prevent bigots from deplatforming subaltern groups when they have the power to do so.

zen_1 4y ago
>Platforming bigots won't actually prevent bigots from deplatforming subaltern groups when they have the power to do so. Well if you had legal protections for speech on online public spaces (twitter, youtube, FB, IG and so on) and a strong court system, that would actually protect subaltern groups from being deplatformed, yes. It's a lot easier for the "bigots" (though I would have chosen the word zealots myself) to deplatform subaltern groups when that's an accepted method of dealing with dissent, as opposed to being something that's just not done. The (quite common) view you're espousing of "We should censor and deplatform exactly the set of people *I* find morally abhorrent" stinks of "This is classic "I'm right, so political systems should cater to me."" type thinking. For what it's worth I think Tate is an absolute piece of shit.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  I don't believe that the court system in the US has any influence on the legal rights of gay people in Iran. But even if we ignore the point about the middle east and focus entirely on one nation, legal defenses for majority groups have observably failed to protect subaltern groups for the entire history of the country. I do not have confidence that a strong court system protecting white male misogynists will actually consistently protect black gay women, for example. I believe that your statement about the ease of oppression is not actually supported by historical or modern evidence.
  - zen_1 4y ago
    Ignoring the whataboutism about Iran (I brought up middle eastern governments as an example of the effects of deplatforming when it's organized by people with different biases to you, not to imply some kind of ridiculous tit for tat). Really? You don't think the main reason the US is as desegregated as it is today is because of a strong supreme court that issued rulings such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia? Clearly these are all examples of the supreme court failing to protect subaltern groups, which is why all white primaries are still the norm, schools and buses are still segregated, and interracial marriage is still illegal. Is any court system perfect? Of course not, but the American court system is infinitely better than the court of public opinion when it comes to protecting individual rights for all individuals, regardless of identity. What planet's history were you even referring to, again? I'm not even American and I'm still aware of these civil rights victories. But oh no "white (well mixed-race in Tate's case) male misogynists" will also have their speech protected, so I guess these rights have got to go. Your rights are not predicated on your identity or your beliefs, no matter how abhorrent.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      The courts have indeed been part of the steps towards justice. I didn’t say the courts have never done good. I said that enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media.
      - zen_1 4y ago
        > enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. Virulent bigotry alone is not, and should never be, a crime. You are literally advocating for thoughtcrimes to be punished by the courts. > And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media. Well I was suggesting that governments regulate the tech monopolies to protect speech on their platforms, given that they are the de facto public square of modern political discourse. I recognize that Tate's freedom of speech was not violated by private platforms censoring him, I'm asserting that those platforms should either be regulated as public squares with the same duty to uphold freedom of (legal) speech, or have their monopolies broken up (i.e. Open APIs and interchange format, with social media monopolies ideally switching to a federated model where nobody has the power to "deplatform" someone else unilaterally).

sascha_sl 4y ago

No, the "establishment at large" does not even agree I should exist. Many publications (and now some US states and both likely candidates for future prime minister of the UK) constantly opine people like me would just go away if we just got talked out of it hard enough. The "establishment at large" loves to debate about which rights I should have, opines on if I should be allowed to participate in sports without being informed on the mechanics or ever caring about "women's sports" before it turned into a culture war topic, if I should be able to use public toilets safely (trick question, it's never safe). Or, DeSantis special, if my mere existence being discussed in schools constitutes grooming... I could go on all day. TikTok and YouTube both have a policy of limiting the spread of anything they can identify as LGBT. If I choose not to censor myself on these platforms my reach will be null. So I'm directly affected. I just don't think it's somehow impossible to draw a line of acceptable behavior on that platform. A policy of no intervention just leaves you with whatever capitalism feels like that day - and while capitalism really loves to pretend to care about diversity, it really is more of a marketing gag than a anywhere close to a true belief. But Andrew Tate can be the embodiment of toxic masculinity / incel culture / misogyny as long as it pays and nobody complains?