[phailhaus]

> We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own.

They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted. That's the problem with this line of thinking: people will only stick around if you're willing to accept their beliefs as reasonable to some extent. But nobody accepts that for ideas like Flat Earth or white supremacy, so they formed their own communities where they do.

There's no way around this. If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas. And if they are reasonable ideas, then why should they drop them? This is how they spread.

[throwaway0x7E6]

>They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted

none of youtube/twitter/reddit/twitch knockoffs existed (or had much traction) before massive purges on those platforms

[wahern]

4chan predates all of them. And there were plenty of thriving forums where odd and extreme ideas of all sorts were discussed before 4chan.

What mass social media sites like Twitter and Facebook provided was an easier way for the less technologically literate to discover extremist forums (as well as extremist ideas generally) without having to know someone from those circles beforehand.

IMO, what happened is that Western culture over the past 60 years became increasingly cynical, including it's intellectual culture (e.g. post-structuralist, deconstructive ideas have come to dominate both the left and the right). So you have a mass of people who simply don't know what to believe, because everything is about "they" coming to get you or oppress you. Anti-corporatism, cultural wars, identity politics etc, etc. Then we take a massive population--educated and uneducated--which has internalized this notion that all "conventional" ideas are inherently suspect, and dumped them into cyberspace.

I'm reminded of this quote from Oliver Wendall Holmes,

> When the ignorant are taught to doubt they do not know what they safely may believe. And it seems to me that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure.

Years ago I would have reflexively thought that sentiment oppressively paternalistic. Now not so much, partly because in reflection on my own life I can see how our culture effected how I processed ideas. I've learned (or relearned) to appreciate the fact that simply because Holmes often was oppressively paternalistic does not invalidate the central truths reflected in that sentiment.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< They weren't pushed out

I struggle hard to take this comment in good faith given how blatantly inaccurate it is. Still, I will assume poster is just ill-informed.

There were entire communities, who were effectively forced out of their respective online spots with arguments presented to them in order were: 'well find a different forum, website, cloudflare provider, isp'. Most recent such community was kiwifarms, but even before those there were multiple others than keep being 'moved'.

<<then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.

No. A rational person can tell that 'sky is made of marshmallow' is bs. If they cannot, some thinning of the herd is clearly necessary. If a person struggles with basics of life and cannot comprehend basic language, I have little to offer.

edit: Seriously. If I tell you that all humans are in fact cappucino makers, do most people go into existential crisis? No, they don't. Do you know why? Me neither, but I don't see you serving me a cappucino either.

It is a ridiculously bad argument. Please rewrite.

edit: I apologize for the angry language. In retrospect, I would have written it differently. I decided not to remove as it would potentially change the flow of the argument ( and make it look like I am trying to hide it or something ). I admit that something about parent's post rubbed me the wrong way and I can't quite put a finger on it. It is a lesson for me of sorts.

[phailhaus]

> No. A rational person can tell that 'sky is made of marshmallow' is bs. If they cannot, some thinning of the herd is clearly necessary. If a person struggles with basics of life and cannot comprehend basic language, I have little to offer.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. What in the world does "thinning of the herd" mean?! Are you advocating for eugenics?

> If I tell you that all humans are in fact cappucino makers, do most people go into existential crisis?

Who's going into an existential crisis? Flat Earthers are being told that their beliefs are garbage, and they are going into crisis and forming their own communities to reinforce their beliefs.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< Are you advocating for eugenics?

eugenics - the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable

I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will.

<< Who's going into an existential crisis?

You are. You chase people with 'wrong ideas' away. You cannot co-exist with an idea that somehow is not one that you believe in, which is why you equate existence of an idea next to you with your passive acceptance of that idea, which is ridiculous. Ideas exist regardless of whether you accept them or not. It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist.

Hell. I am this close to arguing with you on behalf of flat earthers, because I am almost certain based on the conversation so far you are the type of person, who would have sent Gallileo to jail for heresy.

[phailhaus]

> I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will.

What are the "warning labels" on believing that the Earth is flat?

> It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist.

Not sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about. Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs. If you get offended by that and run away to form your own community, thats your problem. You can't force me to pretend as if Flat Earth is a reasonable idea. We're thousands of years past that point.

I really don't understand your position. You are simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are being ignored, but also seem to think they should die.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<<They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted.

Your assertion is not valid. Your attempt at characterization and framing is misleading. They did not 'walk out'. They were either banned, shadow banned, or w/e current equivalent in a given community of removed is. As a result of said banning, they formed their own communities. Your entire premise is flawed from misrepresentation of that one key element.

<<I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs.

We are in agreement. Note that the same applies to others. Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere.

<< You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about.

It is not a straw man. You saying 'flat earthers' just picked up their toys and went away is, however, a lie. I am just calling it out.

<< I really don't understand your position.

I don't like misrepresentation of simple facts, but bold misstatements like those above require corrections.

<<You are simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are being ignored, but also seem to think they should die.

I will defend idiot's right to say stupid stuff. I have no problem with an idiot dying. It is not some sort of mystery.

[phailhaus]

> Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere.

No they don't, full stop. You don't own Twitter, you don't own YouTube, you don't own any of these platforms. Flat Earthers can say whatever the hell they want, but they don't have the "right" to force YouTube to carry their speech.

It is a simple fact that these bans are effective at preventing toxic behavior and fringe conspiracy theories from spreading.

[elpool2]

<< You saying 'flat earthers' just picked up their toys and went away is, however, a lie. I am just calling it out.

Do you have evidence of this? I'm not aware of any major deplatforming of flat earthers. There are still flat earth subreddits. Most people seem to think they're stupid and worthy of ridicule but ultimately not that harmful.

[pessimizer]

> Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs.

What I'm wondering is why you think that you're the host.

[vineyardmike]

> There's no way around this. If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.

This works both ways. Queer and other minority groups identity weren’t always accepted as reasonable ideas so they made their own spaces until they were allowed back in.

[kgwxd]

It doesn’t work both ways, the same people being ostracized now are the ones that didn’t/don’t except queer and other minority groups. The ones that want people in prison or dead for having attributes beyond their control. Not wanting people like that around has always been considered a reasonable idea by reasonable people.

[vineyardmike]

Yea that’s true.

My point was that the “group X needs to be accepted or they’ll make their own space” is a universal behavior.

If we make it hard for outsiders to make their own space, it will impact queer and similarly marginalized groups. Queer people still need their own space today because they’re still not always accepted. While we should accept reasonable people and allow them into our space, we do need a society that allows people to make their own space.

[generalizations]

> If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.

There is a giant middle ground between mocking an idea and accepting that it's reasonable, which you are ignoring.

[amanaplanacanal]

Something like "your ideas are completely wrong, but we won't mock you for them"?

[mcbits]

Something like: This person gets put in my personal ignore filter, which over time will get better at predicting who and what I want ignored. I can always go back and review what's being ignored and make changes. Individuals and their content can be ignored separately, so "I don't like this topic" doesn't ban someone who I like to engage with on other topics.

I'll also tag this person as a flat-earther so my computer will learn to cluster similar content, so I can query "flat-earther" when I want a chuckle.

[amanaplanacanal]

Sounds like creating your own email spam filter. Maybe that could work, but it doesn't seem likely.

[klabb3]

> There's no way around this.

Uhm, yes there is.

> If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.

No, you don't.

Apologies for the terseness, but there are solutions here. It's a problem of signal-to-noise ratio, not an issue of principles and tolerance. Reddit has done a lot by looking at user behavior, as opposed to content, and it's the best system so far for any public, global social media with plenty of bad actors. They've also federated human moderation, which is a step in the right direction.

[joshuamorton]

> No, you don't.

But your actions are doing that. You can say "I think these are unconscionable words" until you're blue in the face, but who are people going to believe, you, the person who lets people say those words, or someone else who bans people who say them?

Part of influencing user behavior is controlling which ideas can be discussed. Subreddits very aggressively do this by, like, having rules about what content can be discussed. More than a banlist of unacceptable topics and ideas, they only allow discussion of very particular topics. You can't post about politics on /r/pets. That is influencing user behavior by influencing content. What it feels acceptable to post (user behavior) is influenced by what you see (content). The two are inseparable. The difference between /r/science and /b/ is what content is allowed, because content creates community.

[phailhaus]

Reddit is my go-to example for effective moderation. Here's how they do it: every so often, they straight up ban entire communities from the platform.

[klabb3]

Yeah they do that too, but that's what I don't like, because I don't think opinions should be regulated by corporations. Also I can't tell if you're sarcastic. In case not, what is it effective at? Silencing people with bad opinions?

[ekidd]

I've moderated a number of internet forums. And at the end of the day, you have a choice:

1. You can keep the deliberate assholes, the abusers, the white supremacists, the people with actual swastikas in their profile photos, etc. (Some of these people are much worse than others, obviously.)

2. Or you can keep the nice, pleasant people you want to hang out with.

If you choose to keep (1), you'll eventually lose a significant fraction of (2).

I have zero desire to participate in unmoderated internet communities. Social spaces require some basic norms of behavior, and there has to be some mechanism for kicking people out.

If you want to encourage successful communities, people need to have the freedom of association.

[phailhaus]

Banning hate groups has been provably effective at reducing toxicity on the platform, [1] so the idea that bans will just cause the toxicity to spread to other subreddits turned out to be false. Analogously, there's no obligation for us to bend over backwards to avoid ostracizing hate groups and fringe conspiracy theorists. They are not interested in good-faith debate.

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-12-reddit-hate-subreddits-b...