[pryce]

> The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there.

This is an idea worth examining more closely. In one view, social media acts as simply a passive reflection of an existing culture; in another, social media reproduces that culture which later becomes (in part) a reflection of social media etc. The causality goes both ways.

Organised white supremacists have decided that social media can also be used to help steer society, and it can be -and is- used as a recruitment vector, two things that wouldn't be possible if the 'passive reflection' model was accurate.

For what it's worth, I'm undecided as to whether this particular proposed response is workable or harmful or effective or whether it risks liberties collaterally. But I view that as a separate question from whether social media plays a significant role in white nationalist recruitment.

[CodiePetersen]

I definitely agree. I totally understand that they use it. And hell with the amount of demographic information advertisers give, I'd wager you could target down to the individual for your message. I just don't think censorship is the way. If anything you just run them into more private circles where potential recruits won't readily see the other side of the argument.

[meheleventyone]

Seems like a false dichotomy you can both run white supremacists into private circles and provide a counter-narrative that’s readily available. See Islamist radicalisation for example.

The other issue with the concept of winning a war of ideas is that the other side isn’t usually available in the venues espousing white supremacy. They are already private circles in that sense with moderation. So we’re in the situation of hoping the people being actively radicalised by them happen on other side of the argument and haven’t already been poisoned to it. Which seems like wishful thinking.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

I believe it's something in between both views: Society is just shifting its operations to social media. This does bring a few changes, but ultimately nothing new is happening, it's just happening somewhere else and becomes easier to identify.

[roca]

I think the growth of flat-earth and anti-vax believers are two examples that disprove your statement. Before the Internet, the average person simply would not have come into contact with material promoting these ideas.

[yc12340]

> I think the growth of flat-earth and anti-vax believers are two examples that disprove your statement

What growth are you talking about? Is there an actual research, that indicates that number of flat-earthers have grown compared to previous decades?

And why do you think, that there is a relationships between flat-earth nuts and social media, as opposed to, say, HIV, cancer and other diseases and social media? Social media made you more aware about flat-earthers than before, but it didn't turn you into one.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

Good point.

Then again, the same way people can become aware of the problems with their political system through the internet. I understand this has happened in Syria within the last generation or so.