[acbart]

I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them. Didn't the Reddit folks discover that shutting down hateful subreddits prevents them from popping back up effectively? I believe this is the citation[1].

[1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

[gkoberger]

Yeah but... this is the President of the United States we're talking about, not a random Reddit user. He's already been raised up and legitimized. I don't think that study applies... in fact, I don't think any study applies, since this is the first time we've ever seen this.

[jobigoud]

On the other hand, this is his personal account @realDonaldTrump, not the official @POTUS that he decided he was above of.

[Orou]

> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them.

Who do you believe should have final say over which person or group of people can have a platform, and who can't?

Should it be whoever owns that particular platform? Should it be the government? Should it be the court of public opinion? I've yet to see a compelling argument for deplatforming that answers this question, because what is acceptable to society has large grey areas that are constantly shifting. I think the intentions are nothing but wonderful - I'm very glad that communities like those in the report you cited, and many similar ones, no longer exist on Reddit. The problem as I see it is that censorship lowers visibility of hate speech very effectively, but if anything seems to strengthen people's convictions that they are right about what they believe. Hateful subreddits may disappear, but is that clear evidence that the people that participated in them changed their minds about what they had expressed online? I find that conclusion dubious at best.

I see this issue most strongly with conspiracy theorists, which seem to be a dime a dozen in 2020. Censorship is nothing if not evidence that what someone is saying is true - see the recent "Plandemic" viral video as a great example.

Deplatforming is, like I said, well-intentioned, but like so many "solutions" it is obsessed with the symptom of the disease, not the cause. It is based on the very old but very wrong notion that 'if only everyone believed what I believe, all the world would be at peace'. That notion is the cornerstone of religious dogma and has been the justification for religious conversion, forcible or otherwise, for millennia. There are proven ways to moderate people's beliefs through civil discourse. The issue is that it is so time consuming, unsatisfying, and thankless (not to mention that you don't get to play moral superiority games) that I'm not surprised people would rather just throw down the banhammer instead.

[jolux]

The point of deplatforming is not to change the minds of true believers in extremist causes, it’s to hinder their ability to recruit.

[sfj]

“The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems slip through your fingers.”

Censoring the point of view of others merely lends credence to their point of view. Unless you find a way to censor them completely, you will cause more and more people to lose faith in your ideals.

[jolux]

Got any proof of that?

[sfj]

All the new alternative social networks and video sites that have cropped up and the old ones that have ben gaining in popularity is evidence that people are beginning to turn away. Ex. lbry.tv, bitchute.com, gab.com, voat.co, phuks.co, zerohedge.com

[jakelazaroff]

This is an expected consequence of deplatforming — once you kick them off, those people are going to go somewhere. For this argument to work, you need to show that those networks are able to grow more than they would as a community on a mainstream platform.

[injustice]

Your reply has violated our community guidelines and you have been deducted 5 points for use of the word "extremist". You have 3 points remaining before account suspension.

See how that works? Very slippery slope.

[ikt]

A slippery slope to what? People migrating to a website that's reasonable?

[injustice]

So you would rather funnel two differing views to two platforms where they can both agree with each other in an echo chamber, rather than reasonable healthy adult discussions and sharing of ideas?

Sounds very segregationist.

[bobdole12345]

This isn't Nam Smokey! There are rules!

I think if the president of the US is unable to operate within the terms of service, he shouldn't get a platform.

Why is that something you're going to argue against?

Am I the only one who gives a fuck about the rules around here?

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Why is the president driving around in a motorcade, has VORFAHRT everywhere, sharpshooters, AF-One and so on, while you have to wait at red lights, and being searched at airports?

/me plays AC/DC - Thunderstruck

[iateanapple]

> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them

Despite huge deplatforming efforts over the last decade fringe views have grown to become mainstream and there is less trust between people than ever.

[jolux]

I would argue that misinformation via the web has only metastasized over the past decade and the deplatforming efforts have been comparatively minimal.

[iateanapple]

> the deplatforming efforts have been comparatively minimal

Compared to what?

From my perspective the tech censors are already on thin ice - I actually don’t see how they could ramp up efforts much more without facing serious opposition.