[Barrin92]

>. Pushing these radicals onto radical websites only further radicalizes them. That should be an axiomatic fact, yet nobody seems to understand it.

First off, that's not an axiomatic fact, that's the definition of an empirical question. Secondly, even if it was true, who cares? You can't enlighten every crazy person on the planet, it's a waste of time. The goal of effective policy is to isolate radical elements to a point where they can't target mainstream communities of people who hold malleable beliefs. That is effective prevention.

I also see absolutely no evidence that the thesis of further radicalisation is even true. Here in Germany we have taken fairly strong, preventative measures to tackle hate speech and conspiracies online. It seems to have mostly worked, we have I think, one of the least polarized populations right now, broadly speaking. Insofar as there are fringe elements in their dedicated spaces, because they are in dedicated spaces, they can be monitored.

edit: another important point I forgot to mention, a lot of radical activity today uses commercial platforms for revenue to further fund their cause, maybe nowhere as evident as in the US where that sort of political activity seems to be a legitimate business. Depriving extremists of those revenue streams alone probably does significant damage to their cause.

[darepublic]

You're not engaging with the articles main point, that this censorship and exclusion is not evenly applied, and that it is rather conspicuously applied along political lines. There are many non scientific, ideology driven ideas that have been bullying their way into every facet of communication these days. Labelling people who resist this trend as fringe radicals who should be segregated and monitored is frankly disgusting.

[rayiner]

For example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019... (AOC: “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.").

This is flat-earth conspiracy theory level falsehood. And it’s a falsehood about an extremely politically and socially important issue that if widely accepted could have massive repercussions. Is YouTube going to censor it?

[millstone]

This is hyperbole and AOC would be the first to acknowledge it. If "the world will literally end in 12 years" were to take root, then it would be a massive problem for society, not just YouTube.

[Ma8ee]

That might be hyperbole, but some people in Australia or California might not think she’s so far off already today.

[factotvm]

Predictions are different than lies.

[factotvm]

According to the downvotes, my statement must be false and predictions are the same as lies.

If it’s been proven false, don’t say it. If it can’t be proven false, carry on, as that’s not against the terms and conditions.

Or, a false equivalency between saying the election was stolen, and saying the world will end in 12 years if we don’t do something.

[rayiner]

“Proven false” clearly isn’t the standard. Nobody has proven the election fraud claims false. (Or the Hunter Biden e-mails story.) Like AOC’s misinformation about climate change, the conclusions are just extremely unlikely based on the facts we know. That’s been a high enough bar for censorship.

[factotvm]

But one is about the past and one is about the future.

And those items in the past have been heavily investigated, brought to the courts, and due to no evidence, summarily rebuked.

Apples and oranges.

Don’t get me wrong, the world ending in 12 years is a silly thing to say.

[Barrin92]

>and that it is rather conspicuously applied along political lines. There are many non scientific, ideology driven ideas that have been bullying their way into every facet of communication these days.

Yes, but not all of them are equally dangerous, so there actually is no reason to assume they ought to be evenly treated. There are ideologies that lead to people shooting up a restaurant or behead non-believers in the streets, and then there are people who are just annoyingly woke, or to take that example from the comment below, are overly cautious about climate change.

There's a difference between something that is merely non-scientific or silly and something that gets people killed or threatens democratic society or peaceful transition of power. That false equivalence seems prominent in US discourse when it comes to identifying and dealing with radicalism. The numbers of domestic terrorism in the US by political orientation actually make that very clear as well.

[borepop]

Isolating fringe radicals who explicitly aim to topple democratic systems is vastly preferable, in my opinion, to the actions of those fringe radicals to intimidate voters, threaten elected officials and poll workers with violence, and openly foment civil war that could bring untold misery to millions. It's not all that different from how the lectures of Anwar al-Awlaki were removed from YouTube back in 2017. Not every idea, no matter how pernicious, needs to be given room to flourish.

[tasogare]

> Here in Germany we have taken fairly strong, preventative measures to tackle hate speech

Only when those speeches are formulated in German.

[cambalache]

> even if it was true, who cares?

So what did you ban them in the first time?

> The goal of effective policy is to isolate radical elements to a point where they can't target mainstream communities of people who hold malleable beliefs. That is effective prevention.

Let's say I think Google is a threat to individual rights. Are their on their right to prevent people with "malleable beliefs"(how condescending) to listen to that message? Is that what you want? A corporate-controlled Internet and society? If you think they are free to go elsewhere you must know that the natural direction in unfettered capitalism is that the winners accumulate more and more in bigger conglomerates. That is an extremely dangerous game, courting a fascist society, in the original meaning of the term.

[jb_gericke]

As opposed to? Government controlled or moderated media would be devoid of agenda? I also don't see how capitalism is to blame, we are already seeing new social media platforms emerge pandering to the other side of the partisan spectrum. At the end of the day, YouTube and their ilk have executive decision making over the content they surface. I don't believe they should be beholden to some 'higher' journalistic ideals around objectivity. As a consumer if I'm not happy with their policies (extending well beyond content moderation), I'm obliged to go elsewhere. Whether this drives further polarisation or results in the creation of fringe or radicalised groups is actually besides the point.