[thebokehwokeh2]

I'd argue that in this case, it deplatforming absolutely worked in the way intended. There are 2 factors at play here. People who are willing to argue in good faith, and people who are simply trying to put forth an agenda regardless of what anyone says.

Those who likely moved to Gab and Voat and 4/8chan are likely persons that fit the latter description. There is no need to even have discussions with people like these on the internet. The best is for them to be deplatformed and continue their self flagellation. They are simply too far gone. If anything, these sites will probably radicalize, but it will also be easier for authorities to keep tabs on particularly dangerous accounts.

The concept of deplatforming is to protect the integrity of good faith discussion. The key idea there is "good faith". Persons like the aforementioned Milo clearly do not engage in any concept of good faith discussion. IMO there is no need for any discussion base like reddit or facebook to protect these types.

[panzagl]

Deplatforming can't work- otherwise the world would now be as white-bread homophobic and misogynistic as it was in the 50's when blacks, gays, and women were deplatformed.

[anigbrowl]

That kind of implies those social groups all had full participation on the social platform and were then kicked off it, no? I don't think you've thought this analogy through fully.

[ceres]

This isn't same thing and you know it. Deplatforming someone for being racist, homophobic and sexist is and should continue to be encouraged.

In your example, what they were doing was fundamentally wrong and if you asked any good person today they would tell you as much.

[CapricornNoble]

Please tell me you recognize the irony of your comment.

Your last sentence is essentially indistinguishable from the position held 50 years ago by people who also felt they were "morally right" in deplatforming.

[kerkeslager]

> People who are willing to argue in good faith, and people who are simply trying to put forth an agenda regardless of what anyone says.

I think that it would be wise to doubt one's own ability to differentiate between these two groups.

I also think that the purpose of public debate is not to persuade the person you are debating with: that's almost never possible. It's to persuade the audience. Bad faith arguments, if they really are bad faith arguments, are usually pretty easy to shoot down, so I don't think that we have anything to fear from bad-faith arguers.

In fact, deplatforming benefits bad-faith arguers because their bad-faith arguments look more reasonable when nobody confronts them.

At another level, deplatforming is a bad faith argument, by your own definition. Aren't you trying to put forth your agenda, regardless of what anyone says, by deplatforming people? Your agenda may be good, but that doesn't justify bad faith actions to support it.