[ltfey]

I despise Donald Trump but I think this was a mistake. The failure of January 6 removed any short-term danger Trump presented, so there was no immediate need to ban the guy. At the same time, the use of a dodgy ban to censor an unpopular, failed public figure normalized the concept of private companies deplatforming people for political reasons--something they will use against the left more than the right, going forward--and also gave the world the sense of leftists and liberals (whom most of the country conflates) as cancelistas.

Social media is a huge liability for us on the left, as well as for society at large. Its structure and dynamics serve the far-right, who are far more adept at using it than anyone else, but it is associated with its public-facing apparent liberalism, which means that blowback against its failures and heavy-handed actions will diminish our reputation rather than the right's.

[logicalmonster]

> normalized the concept of private companies deplatforming people for political reasons

Maybe there's an earlier example I can't think of, but I don't think this trend started with Trump. I think this trend really started with Alex Jones. Once it becomes acceptable to ban anybody for ideas, then nobody can be considered safe from the chopping block. That was the freedom of speech test that civilization failed.

> the far-right, who are far more adept at using it than anyone else

What property of social media makes it so that people on the right are more skilled at using it?

And how can you tell the difference between "people on the right are more skilled at social media" and "better ideas simply win out"? Which one is true if they both explain reality?