[8fGTBjZxBcHq]

This apparent contradiction is just a moderately clever way of using an ambiguity in the word.

If "deplatforming" is taken to mean "depriving people of an easy means to find and communicate to an audience" it can be an effective technique depending on context, alternative communication channels, etc.

If "deplatforming" is taken to mean "a novel social ill based on depriving people of their right to communicate" then yeah it's a myth.

[ttt0]

That's basically the same thing. The purpose of doing the former is the latter, since everyone does it.

Free speech is like encryption at this point. Sure, it's not technically illegal, but if you actually try to do something for the public to use then the system will find some way to make it impossible and shut you down.

[8fGTBjZxBcHq]

No the second embeds two important differences from the first: that this is new (it's as old as writing at least) and that it's bad (a value judgement you can fall on either side of).

[ttt0]

So to summarize, deplatforming is real, but it's a myth that it's a bad thing. Got it.

[8fGTBjZxBcHq]

Correct!

[ttt0]

So tell me, are you describing what other people's beliefs are, are you explaining your own beliefs or are you just trolling?

[8fGTBjZxBcHq]

Well the first two at least. I'm describing my beliefs. They are also shared by a lot of people; y'all wouldn't have to yell about free speech so much if this view was unpopular.

I admit that I also enjoy riling up first amendment fundamentalists but it isn't my main goal and these are my sincerely held beliefs so I don't think really qualifies as trolling.