[Comevius]

You have to be blind if you don't see that extremist groups are using gaming platforms to disseminate their ideas and recruit. They are trying to use every platform, but the mainstream ones are starting to become better at weeding them out, and young Western audiences on the gaming platforms are specifically susceptible, because they tend to be isolated, which is what these groups thrive on.

It has been long identified that these extremist groups can be best curbed by not letting them have access to audiences. Unfortunately now that they do it is likely that our countries are facing a new wave of violent extremism and terrorism. Free speech sounds wonderful, until you give an extremist group the power it needs to put knives, guns and bombs into the hands of isolated or disenfranchised people.

Obviously the other solution is to not leave people behind, to not let them be isolated and disenfranchised in the first place. The problem is that in some countries like the United States many politicians are working on the opposite, because that's how they themselves get elected.

[proc0]

> You have to be blind if you don't see that extremist groups are using gaming platforms to disseminate their ideas and recruit.

They definitely use phones too, so does that mean the Patriot Act is justified, and governments should tap into everyone's personal life? These are extremists, so they shouldn't be given a platform to communicate, and to achieve that, it has to be a solution that encompasses all users. This not only leads to false negatives, but abuse of power. At best this is lazy governing, solving a problem with a lot of collateral damage, at worse this is done purposefully to control the citizenry.

[peyton]

The unemployed, disenfranchised young men are piling up. Historically there’s only one way that turns out. We should probably solve the problem of leaving this population behind instead of trying to keep them from communicating. They’ll find a way to talk.

[Comevius]

Leaving people behind is never the solution. You have to try and create opportunities, because ultimately that's what people need. And they will get it from someone else if not from you.

The key to a healthy society is a big fat cushion at the bottom people can land on if they need be. Unlike what conservatives and libertarians say most people will want to do more with their lives than just to sit on the cushion, but even them sitting on it is cheaper than leaving people behind, because people get damaged, turn around and spread that damage like a disease, and from then on you are fighting a cumulative network effect.

[raxxorraxor]

In my opinion almost every statement of yours is wrong. Maybe it could become true if you treat everyone like a potential terrorist and some adopt this insanity.

It should not be a secret that if you suspect people of being potential terrorists, that they might not like you or anyone you are associated with. And maybe they will then just support those you dislike.

I think you are a victim of war propaganda that you perceive this as a significant threat. You are the extremist you try to call out. Without any evidence aside from maybe some rude internet chat from computer gamers. This is a complete insane assessment.

[whythre]

>Free speech sounds wonderful, until you give an extremist group the power it needs to put knives, guns and bombs into the hands of isolated or disenfranchised people.

Ah yes, the ol’ free speech to terrorism pipeline.

[Comevius]

Ah yes, the ol' free speech absolutism. You can't deal in absolutes when trying to solve complicated problems, never mind that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, or that free speech is meant to protect you from government censorship.

Not everyone deserves a voice, but even if you do we don't have to listen. We don't have to tolerate intolerance either, we are perfectly free to not tolerate it, in fact we must.

If you are curious who decides about who deserves a voice and who don't this is something they teach in high school, though not everyone receives civic education unfortunately.

[tarakat]

> free speech is meant to protect you from government censorship to ensure the balance of powers

That's the 1st amendment of the US constitution, not "free speech". Since this is a United Nations report, the context is wider than just the US.

> Not everyone deserves a voice, but even if you do we don't have to listen.

Ah the old "we". Only in practice it's not "we" or "I" deciding not to listen, but some other entity deciding on our behalf what we're allowed to hear. Sometimes a government, but most often a multinational corporation. For most of the world, a foreign corporation.

[Comevius]

Corporations only care about their bottom line, if it wouldn't be for the liberal governments and liberal customers for all they care ISIS could use their platforms to advertise. Hollywood is the same, it's just a happy accident that liberals tend to be able to spend more money.

And thank God for that because the conservatives are knee-deep in conspiracy theories, cults and domestic terrorism. If you want a conservative country visit Russia or Iran and try to exercise your free speech. That's coming to the United States too if the Republican Party can help it, their brand of Christian fascism is hardly better. Similarly conservative platforms on the internet are banning every morsel of dissent. For a conservative free speech means my free speech, but they are like that with everything. I'm not even generalizing, the conservative culture in the United States is like that. There is no denying it. It's ugly, but we are responsible for shining a light on it, otherwise we are letting it happen and we have already seen what that looks like.