[throwaway45349]

I get it, companies do not legally have to provide these services to right-wing groups persecuted off of Twitter. I'm saying that it's _morally_ wrong to deplatform.

Not necessarily because I enjoy having this speech hosted, but because isolating and pushing out so called "deplorables" is escalating the current American political conflicts to serious violence.

As I said in my other comment, when the disenfranchised can't speak, they get violent. If you disagree with these people, say that to them. Cutting them off from the mainstream public squares like Twitter and Facebook just creates a new generation of radicals.

Silicon Valley used to stand for freedom of speech for a reason.

[mewse]

> isolating and pushing out so called "deplorables" is escalating the current American political conflicts to serious violence.

Can you provide references that back up this claim?

Bear in mind that the deplatforming began after January 6th of this year, so any escalating violence which may have occurred on or before that point is not evidence of your claim. And after the events of the 6th I imagine it’d be difficult to compose a compelling argument that not deplatforming prevents violence.

In any case, the only news on the topic that I’ve seen has been that election misinformation on Facebook/Twitter has dropped by 70% since the deplatforming happened on those platforms[1]. That isn’t directly about violence, but presumably will result in less alt-right radicalisation, since their ability to reach new people is reduced. Though obviously it’s much too early to have a good understanding of the long-term impact of actions like this.

Which is why I’m so curious about how you’re making statements like this as if they’re plain facts. I’m super interested to see any references you can provide!

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinfo...

[throwaway45349]

The deplatforming has been going on for years, since at least 2016 when Trump was elected in the first place. In Twitter's case[0] they went after smaller users (edgy "russian bots") until ~2018, when they really ramped things up. This even hit left wing (anti-establishment) activists[1].

One of the conclusions of a recent purge by Reddit was that it just pushed the banned users into even more radical spaces online[2].

Of course we all know about The Streisand effect, and one article suggests that censorship just draws more attention to the banned content[3]. If we assume that ideas are somehow "contagious" or "infectious"[4] then we're just exposing people to them even more.

> In any case, the only news on the topic that I’ve seen has been that election misinformation on Facebook/Twitter has dropped by 70% since the deplatforming happened on those platforms.

But the deplatforming didn't make those people go away, it pushed them to platforms like Gab and Parler, right-wing echo chambers. This is like an extreme version of a filter bubble. Remember, millions of people supported what happened at the capitol[5], and there is zero hope of de-radicalising people if the left and right aren't talking. If anything, both sides will get more extreme.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#Twitter (see references)

[1]https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ba...

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

[3] https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://th...

[4]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00546-3

[5]https://www.statista.com/chart/23886/capitol-riot-approval/

[ceejayoz]

> One of the conclusions of a recent purge by Reddit was that it just pushed the banned users into even more radical spaces online[2].

You should re-read it. It offers that as a possibility, with terms like "may" and "could have". It does not conclude it did happen; it notes that some users migrated, but that's not at all surprising.

The hardcore folks are likely to always wind up somewhere, but driving them off Reddit likely makes it more difficult to recruit less initially strident users. As the study indicates, "the ban worked for Reddit".

[evgen]

Actually, there is a lot of weak evidence out there that de-platforming actually worked as intended. It did push some users to more radical spaces, but it also made it very difficult for weakly-interested users to be pushed into the space and become further radicalized. When 'the algorithm' can no longer suggest a slightly more radical version of the content you are currently viewing because that version has been de-platformed then it seems we start to see the norm drift back towards center rather than being pushed further to an extreme.

[ceejayoz]

I think you're agreeing with me?

[evgen]

Yes, probably should have been a bit more clear about my point. It was not just Reddit and I think the evidence is a bit stronger than you hint at. The fundamental problem facing the 'free speech uber alles' crowd is that there is a growing body of evidence that shows how de-platforming works to limit and contain the most violent and toxic online actors.

[danans]

> But the deplatforming didn't make those people go away, it pushed them to platforms like Gab and Parler, right-wing echo chambers

It has the effect of preventing violent content from using adjacent nonviolent content (i.e. baby and pet pictures, nonviolent political advocacy) on the mainstream platforms as a kind of "human shield".

Of course, this is a disappointment for anyone who finds the normalization of violence-provoking content desirable.

The problem is that there already exist plenty of forums on the internet for non mainstream but non violent speech. The only speech seeking a home is the violent speech.

[tptacek]

This is spawning a lengthy subthread but because you asked me, just for the record, I don't care about the competing moral claims. I'm just interested in what the law says here. The moral stuff never seems to converge to any kind of real insight on HN, but the legal stuff has a right and a wrong answer that we can hope to reach by debating it.

[DonHopkins]

It's also _morally_ wrong to plot violent insurrections and publish death threats, and if that's what you're doing, then "deplorable" is an apt description of you.

[clusterfish]

> If you disagree with these people, say that to them

That doesn't seem to be working in a post-truth world. Not sure what the solution is, but this isn't nearly enough.

[throwaway45349]

We live in a post truth world because of social media algorithms, which made that content successful. I think we need to heavily regulate those ASAP.

[clusterfish]

Government having the power to dictate which information should be spread more is not less of a problem...

[8note]

Is it platforming or deplatforming that is causing the escalation though?

When the white nationalists did not have a platform, was the escalation higher or lower than it is now? Granting them platforms seems like the issue that started the escalation to me.