[12elephant]

On the contrary, banning people makes people seek out their narrative even more.

This idea that people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions and need you to spoon feed them the "right" information is the real problem here.

[evgen]

No it really doesn’t. This has been demonstrated repeatedly online and the research so far is quite clear: if you make it harder to disseminate and discuss disinformation and hate speech then fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information. People may believe in stupid things, but lazy is even more powerful than stupid.

[12elephant]

> fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information

More like fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information _where those researchers are looking_.

In reality, you're going to push people off Twitter and onto Gab, Parler, and Stormfront.

You can cite all the research you want. I've seen these effects of censorship first hand. Just makes matters way worse. If you believe all these people with different opinions are simply stupid, you're going to have a bad time. And, in my experience, such statements are a good proxy for middling intelligence on the part of the speaker.

[commandlinefan]

I'm more inclined to pay attention to the skeptics because they're the only ones saying anything. Their opponents are just saying "obey".

[wait_a_minute]

Yup, when you tear out someone’s tongue that just makes the skeptic community more adamant about finding out what they have to say and why they are saying it.

The people who are just saying “obey” are the ones who want power over everyone else.