I don't think we have the data to make a conclusion on this point, but why is the lack of success in respect of the second point sufficient to make us want to stop the first point?
Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech. Label everyone you disagree with a nazi and then demand platforms ban them. If the platforms do that, then people will slowly move on to other platforms. It's not going to change their beliefs one bit.
>Because it creates echochambers and it weaponizes the term hate speech.
Okay, so that's the downside of curating your platform. You need to contrast that downside with the upside of taking action.
Reasonable limits on Free Speech are plentiful, and there's an easy false dichotomy in believing that you can either censor everything or censor nothing. Is there a middle ground where we establish a solid rule set where we get most of the beneficial effects are retained, but a plurality of voices remain?
Also a note:
>It's not going to change their beliefs one bit.
This isn't supported by research and it's antithetical to your first line. If platforming isn't going to change beliefs, then why care about it? Just move over to Gab, Voat or any of the other offshoots created for deplatformed groups. Have you visited them? They're cesspools.
Overt changes in social acceptability and norms cause populations to reconsider their views, which is why people are upset by being deplatformed in the first place.
I don't think we have the data to make a conclusion on this point, but why is the lack of success in respect of the second point sufficient to make us want to stop the first point?