[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.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< No they don't, full stop.

Hey now.. are you saying they got kicked out from <platforms>?

Because that would put us halfway there.

I would still disagree with you on a host of other issues, but at least you would admit your initial statement was not accurate ( paraphrased as 'they left to form their own communities').

Also, who made you the authority of who gets to be toxic and who is not? I find you toxic. Do I get to ban you? I don't like your fringe theory on 'fringe conspiracy theories spreading' spreading any further..

Do you see how ridiculous it gets and how fast this argument ends up in absurd situation we are currently in? Do I really need to spell out why it is a really, really bad idea to go down the rabbit hole you suggest?

<< You don't own Twitter,

Musk does. Are you ok with with the toxic rules he imposes?

Again, do you really want to go down this rabbit hole?

late edit:

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

It is, at best, an assertion. You don't believe me? Look at Biden's laptop saga. The downright moronic attempts to shut it down in this panicky fashion only reinforced the belief that it must be true, because it was being clamped down so hard and NOW, partially, thanks to your asserted, proclaimed and clearly enforced wisdom, we get to see at least two year show of House hearings on it. Great Job!

So yeah, so very effective.

[phailhaus]

> Do I really need to spell out why it is a really, really bad idea to go down the rabbit hole you suggest?

You should! Where does the rabbit hole of "platforms get to choose what they ban" lead us? Are you suggesting that a YouTube channel is a human right now?

> You don't believe me? Look at Biden's laptop saga

Here's the problem: your thesis assumes that these groups are acting in good faith. They are not. The GOP has repeatedly stated that they will impeach the president over anything, regardless of if it's true or not. Remember Benghazi? Remember how Trump pressured Ukraine to open up any investigation into Biden? He didn't care if it was real, he needed the headlines and the political edge.

There is no universe in which they go "oh nevermind, we were wrong about the laptop." It is in their interest to ignore facts. And here you are, suggesting that the solution is simply to make it more public as if it has any credence. Should we also widely disseminate QAnon literature and talking points, simply because they exist?

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< And here you are, suggesting that the solution is simply to make it more public as if it has any credence.

My friend.

You have learned nothing. No. Worse than nothing. You have learned the wrong lesson and you will clearly repeat it again so allow me to spell it out for you. You somehow managed to learn that after you survive a Streisand effect, you clearly did not CLAMP down hard enough. You managed not to learn that it is a proper response to NOT encourage another such effect in the form of another round of censorship of public opinions, but to somehow double down on. Scratch that! Triple down!

And note that now the environment has really changed and people are actually paying attention to some of this. Do you really think censorship approach is the right approach?

<< Here's the problem: your thesis assumes that these groups are acting in good faith.

It literally does not matter. The action banning a piece of news MADE IT CREDIBLE in the eyes of the public. Whether Republicans released in good faith is meaningless here. Why is it so hard to understand? The public believed it, to an extent supported some candidates based on those and will now actively demand Biden's impeachment. This choice made it happen! Your advocated choice made it happen. Can you see what I am showing you? I simple cause and effect. And multiple ripples.

<< The GOP has repeatedly stated that they will impeach the president over anything, regardless of if it's true or not.

So what? Ever since Clinton impeachment meant nothing and became a political tool just like anything else. I will even let you on a little secret. Biden will be impeached too. It is pure luck ( just like Trump's ) that it won't get past senate. The only time it would matter is IF the president is removed from power. That is it. But now.. they have a reason for impeachment that a good portion of the population may actually side with ( and people were kinda split over Trump's impeachment ). So again, and I am beating a dead horse for a reason, great job making that laptop thing credible! This combined with Rs ability to actually make people dislike their targets ( Hillary comes to mind ) will be a wild spectacle.

<< Should we also widely disseminate QAnon literature and talking points, simply because they exist?

You sure as fuck should not treat it like it should be automatically removed from everywhere making it instantly credible.

<< There is no universe in which they go "oh nevermind, we were wrong about the laptop."

Why would they? They were right to bet on it! Not to mention, your endorsed approach surely did not help. They actually managed to monetize this! It is god damn impressive. And that is before we even get to the actual content of the thing, which will be a lot of fun for US population to watch. Can you imagine, crack addict in the white house bait articles already? That Chapelle was a prophet.

<< And here you are, suggesting that the solution is simply to make it more public as if it has any credence

I will tell you a little story from the old country. A really short one. Actually, it is not even a story. It is a saying. It goes: Don't touch shit for you may smear yourself.

All you had to do is nothing and it would have died on its own. But nope. Gotta intervene. Gotta tell people what they can think, what they can and cannot see for I AM THE ARBITER TRUTH. I don't think I exaggerate that much, but this is my impression of people on Twitter trying to make a decision on it.

<< Should we also widely disseminate QAnon literature and talking points, simply because they exist?

You don't have to disseminate shit, but the moment you stop others from doing it you are feeding the very thing you purport to fight.

<< Are you suggesting that a YouTube channel is a human right now?

Strawman, but I will bite anyway, but you raised an interesting point.

I am suggesting that at certain point, you can't effectively be a global square and claim not be one at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive states. You do not get to be a planet and claim you have no gravitational pull for purposes of physics. Which is basically the entire reason 230 comes into this discussion at all ( companies wanting to have two mutually exclusive states, which is one of the reasons for the mess we are in ).

Listen, if it was up to me ( say I am the emperor of the Earth ), social media would not exist. Period. They are clearly more hassle than they are worth. But since I am kinda not in a position of the supreme overlord, I would like to maybe just cut them to size just a little bit ( you know.. post clear rules of what is allowed and what is not..stuff like that.. none of that vague 'hate speech' ). Failing that. I am ok with guaranteed access.

<< Where does the rabbit hole of "platforms get to choose what they ban" lead us?

The platforms that are the size and reach of nation-states ( scratch that, globe ) can silence you at will. Today, it is a ban flat earth believers. Tomorrow, we are going to ban 88 so as not to offend China ( and simultaneously strike a blow against nazi sympathizers -- huzzah ). Day after that, we are going to ban 77, because 4chan and 8kun got together and figured out a way that to pass some obscenity filter is to say 'Canadian' instead of 'Boomer' ( which just became a slur ). You cannot win this arms race. You just can't.

And all this is before we get the final point. You. The rabbit hole always leads down to "you" or a person with zero self-preservation instinct. You think the tool in front of you will not touch you for you are the righteous, of the right mind ( and/or have 'gott mit uns' on your insignia ), but, well, things and mores change. Not that many decades ago gays were thought to be mentally ill. My not so subtle point is that what was kosher today, may not be kosher in the future. If I were you, I would think several times before I was ready to support 'ban everything foundation for it is the sovereign right of a platform to act as it pleaseath'.

Yes, you are a clean model citizen today. Tomorrow, we shall see, won't we. Oh, your face will be so red then.

[msla]

> The action banning a piece of news MADE IT CREDIBLE in the eyes of the public.

No. If that worked, necrophilia would be credible in the eyes of the public. It's banned so completely it isn't even mentioned except as an extreme fetish for people who are, presumably, mentally ill in the eyes of the mainstream. Banning necrophilia does nothing for it: It only finds purchase among a tiny few, the ones predisposed to go for it. Idiocies like the imaginary laptop are similar: Only those predisposed to fall for such fallacies are swayed, as proven by Republicans losing elections of late.

Besides, the people who support the DON'T SAY GAY bill certainly think banning discussion of a thing makes it go away entirely. Reality refutes them.

[TheOtherHobbes]

I'm pretty sure the constant repetition in trad media - especially for-profit noise machines like Fox and Infowars - had a lot more to do with that than any ban.

I read the Financial Times and there was a constant stream of obvious troll accounts trying to force the laptop narrative into threads, whether they fitted or not.

Moderation is a small element of a cultural immune system which exists to protect everyone from organised - actually industrialised - bad actors.

No one really cares if a few individuals believe something weird about UFOs or whatever. But when those beliefs are encouraged as part of a deliberate campaign to undermine scientific authority and replace it with irrational emotively charged authoritarian conformity, that's a very different game.

And that is exactly what's been happening with the anti-vax and anti-masking campaigns around Covid, and even more obviously with all things QAnon.

The latter has been incredibly toxic and destructive to families and individuals, and it only spreads because Q content is easily accessible on popular trad and social media channels.

The harder it is to spread and access this content, the less effective it is.

[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.

[mcbits]

I can't point to specifics, but I do remember a lot of similarly bizarre beliefs on YouTube leading up to 2012, like people trying to prove that the sun is now orbiting north-to-south because we're in the middle of a pole shift. An enormous chunk of that historical record is now lost to all future historians because they said the wrong things when Covid came around.

[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.