Seems like Silicon Valley is starting move in the "right" direction, but they still have a ways to go.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-shootout-internet/new-zealand-mosque-attackers-plan-began-and-ended-online-idUSKCN1QW1MV
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/health/anti-vax-harassment-eprise/index.html

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work
https://mashable.com/article/deplatforming-alex-jones-2018/#2u.hKku4Pqqk
https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/20/deplatforming


How supportive are you of tech companies deplatforming shitty communities?

3/19/2019 2:23:27 PM

Russia could claim that's what they're trying to do with their "Cyber Security Bill"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47517263

3/19/2019 3:02:31 PM

yeah, sure. it's their platform.

3/19/2019 3:12:25 PM

To answer the OP, it is shitty to deplatform shitty communities. A tolerant society means more than just not having the government arrest them. We must allow them to exist and engage in the legal life they desire. Deplatforming is akin to refusing to sell your house to them or serve them in your restaurant, which is shitty behavior. Be tolerant of those you disagree with. You never know when society will change its mind on what constitutes a "shitty community" and you'll find yourself on the other side of things.

[Edited on March 19, 2019 at 8:46 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/19/2019 8:45:56 PM

You don't serve people in your restaurant when they shit on your floor.

3/19/2019 9:13:05 PM

Quote :

"allow them to exist and engage in the legal life"

Usage of reddit and Twitter is allowing them to engage in legal life?

Quote :

"Deplatforming is akin to refusing to sell your house to them or serve them in your restaurant"

Nope. Not even close. But even if it was, that's your prerogative as a house owner or a restaurant owner.

3/19/2019 9:20:34 PM

There's an argument to be had about to what degree private companies have a responsibility to fairly or evenly apply their rules. I've heard both sides of this argument and I think both have merits. I tend towards thinking that big tech companies pretty much can ban who they want.

But beyond what they should be allowed to do, I'm unconvinced that deplatforming achieves the desired outcomes. The theory goes something like this: bad ideas can spread easily on the internet because it democratizes speech. Every voice has basically the same weight. Some ideas are particularly cancerous and can easily metastasize. A good example would be the anti-vax movement. The "shut them down" theory would say: without a platform, these bad ideas could never take root and a lot of people would still be alive today. FWIW, I think that's actually a decent take.

My criticism is that these punitive actions are not done in isolation. The people drawn to what you believe are bad ideas are not simply going to change their mind after you ban the people they like listening to. What's more likely is that they'll now become even more convinced that left-leaning tech companies are conspiring to shut down their point of view. This further galvanizes the United States and pushes what is already a practically ungovernable nation closer to chaos.

In general, I think modern social media is primarily bad for people. The only thing good about it is that it fosters communication and discussion. Once that goes away, it's difficult for me to believe that social media is actually improving any lives at all, aside from social media tech companies and adjacent businesses.

[Edited on March 19, 2019 at 9:30 PM. Reason : ]

3/19/2019 9:28:16 PM

It's probably better to have 100 slightly more crazy conspiracy kooks and racist, then to have 10000 slightly less crazy ones.

Deplatforming works. It's not fool proof, nothing is, but look at milo and Richard Spencer, how much you hear from them these days?

3/19/2019 11:31:54 PM

^^ Thanks for the reasoned post. That's the kind of feedback I was looking to read. But I think this prediction is pretty silly: "This further galvanizes the United States and pushes what is already a practically ungovernable nation closer to chaos"

^ That's where I'm at.

[Edited on March 20, 2019 at 12:16 AM. Reason : ]

3/20/2019 12:13:41 AM

Quote :

"Nope. Not even close. But even if it was, that's your prerogative as a house owner or a restaurant owner."

It is your prerogative to be an asshole, yes, that is correct. But I'm still going to call such a person a "bad person." Deplatforming someone for no reason beyond you don't like them or their beliefs makes you an immoral bad person. Of course, if they're committing crimes, such as shitting on your metaphorical floor, then of course you should ban them (say harassing other users, posting illegal content, etc.). But, nearly all social media is shit, so if you're going to deplatform people for posting shit, you might as well shut down the platform, as that would be akin to banning people from your restroom because they actually used it to dispose of fesses.

That is my moral argument. I also don't believe deplatforming works. Lots of people believe bad things. Throwing them off twitter doesn't stop them from spreading those ideas. If anything, the "TRUTH they don't want you to know" mentality is a thing. Banning the Nazi party in Germany has not eliminated it. It has fueled it, as the constant persecution and ejection from public spaces has forced them to live and communicate only with like minded individuals, an echo chamber they cannot escape because they're being shunned by the rest of society.

Think of North Korea. Their government spends a lot of effort forcibly keeping their citizenry off Twitter and Facebook. Bastions of bad ideas need their members to be isolated from the wider world, so don't do them the favor of doing that for them.

[Edited on March 20, 2019 at 1:28 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/20/2019 1:14:43 AM

Yes surely there would be fewer nazis in Germany if the laws went away. Surely.

3/20/2019 7:45:17 AM

Quote :

"A tolerant society means more than just not having the government arrest them. We must allow them to exist and engage in the legal life they desire."

The old "You're a bigot if you are intolerant of bigots!!" argument.

3/20/2019 9:10:16 AM

Quote :

" If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.?—?In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

3/20/2019 9:30:51 AM

Increasingly I tend towards the belief that social media companies should be viewed as publishers of content rather than mere platforms. It's a change in perspective that makes sense on its own merits and would also shift the conversation about deplatforming.

Publishers aren't judged for picking and choosing what they want to publish. Even LoneSnark would not judge a newspaper to print every kooky letter to the editor it received, or a book publisher for turning down shitty books. Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter can all decline to publish anything they like, and in general I think they should decline to publish anti-vaxxers who pose a risk to public health or Sandy Hook conspiracy material that releases the personal details of grieving parents.

The shitty communities have recourse to other publishers - 4chan, 8chan, whatever the fuck. Most people will rightly avoid these cesspools, keeping such publishers relatively small in terms of reach and influence compared to the big ones. I decline to use twitter in part on these same shittiness grounds; I've also significantly curtailed my use of facebook.

In summary: I think it's misguided to look at social media companies as "platforms" obligated to facilitate all speech; rather, they are publishers who can select content to maximize their customer base.

3/21/2019 11:39:28 AM

Their core function was originally meant to facilitate the exchange of ideas to strengthen our collective understanding of the world around us.

But it turns out there's a flaw in their implementations where malicious people, or just toxic ideas, can hurt the overall discourse. It makes sense to build mechanisms to prevent these diseased elements from spreading.

If you're against massive communication systems having mechanisms to stop outcomes harmful to society, it's the same thing as being anti-vaxx.

3/21/2019 12:20:46 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/instagram-is-the-internets-new-home-for-hate/585382/

3/21/2019 12:49:11 PM

^these people are why i want leftists to buy guns

3/21/2019 12:52:20 PM

I know plenty of lefties that have guns. They just don't weirdly tie their identity to gun ownership.

3/21/2019 1:04:27 PM

What’s more American than a bunch of incels on 4chan forcing Charlottesville public schools to close for a second straight day because of threats of violent ethnic cleansing?

Gotta compete in the marketplace of ideas!

3/22/2019 7:55:13 AM

^ I don't understand. Are you suggesting that if only they had been banned from Twitter they would not now be committing a bunch of felonies?

If that is so, then thank goodness. Better they wind up in Prison for their crimes.

3/22/2019 4:29:58 PM

I've "deplatformed" a lot of people from thewolfweb over the years. very often hesitantly. I always wonder where they end up going next to spew their nonsense, cus you know being kicked off a website is not gonna change who they are on the inside. The shitty people and communities are still out there, it's just a matter of whether or not this strategy makes the cancer more isolated and prone to dying off, or do all the cancers end up finding each other in a place where they can fuel on each other's warped minds and ultimately spread further.

[Edited on March 22, 2019 at 5:08 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2019 5:07:07 PM

I get the slippery slope reluctance, but I think it's shameful when companies allow shitty communities that do measurable harm to society to fester on their platforms. If you have a community of people are who are fomenting hate against and planning or celebrating violence against victims of mass shootings or against a gender or racial group for recent examples, then they should be forced into the shadows and not allowed to celebrate their hatred in open society where unsuspecting but pliable people can be influenced and recruited to engage in their shittiness.

3/22/2019 11:20:47 PM

One final reason: Twitter and Facebook answer subpoena's from prosecutors. Ranting and raving offline doesn't. By allowing them to continue to operate in the light by working for non-Nazi employers and living in non-Nazi housing and using non-Nazi web services, there remains a barrier to engaging in what the rest of us should actually be concerned about: Criminal activity, where-by their landlord, employer, and web-services provider will happily be a whistle blower to provide evidence against them. But, if we shun them into the shadows, it becomes much harder to monitor them.

3/23/2019 12:39:25 AM

So your position is, "These crazy people will act less crazy if they're in the open on the internet." My position - and I think that of others on the pro-deplatforming side - is, "There would be fewer crazy people if we cut off the flow of crazy on the internet."

3/23/2019 2:58:24 PM

^^
The social media platforms are how these people grow their numbers. There’s numerous articles out there drawing parallels between how isis effectively used social media to radicalize people and how white supremacists do the same thing. The purpose of deplatforming is to remove this vector for the spreading disease.

It doesn’t matter if someone is racist in the comfort of their own home, if the barriers to organizing are higher than their level of motivation.

3/23/2019 3:05:19 PM

Quote :

"There’s numerous articles out there drawing parallels between how isis effectively used social media to radicalize people and how white supremacists do the same thing. The purpose of deplatforming is to remove this vector for the spreading disease."

Yup.

3/23/2019 4:21:11 PM

https://gizmodo.com/paypal-gofundme-yank-accounts-for-far-right-militia-ro-1834193555

4/21/2019 10:27:21 AM

CNN: Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and others from its platforms as 'dangerous'.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech/facebook-ban-louis-farrakhan-infowars-alex-jones-milo-laura-loomer/index.html

Big news!

5/2/2019 4:38:54 PM

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/05/05/what-happened-after-my-13-year-old-son-joined-the-alt-right

Quote :

"But the transfer, midyear, to a new school—after he’d been wrongly accused, unfairly treated, then unceremoniously dropped by his friends—shattered Sam. He felt totally alone. I counseled patience, naively unprepared for what came next: when he found people to talk to on Reddit and 4chan. Those online pals were happy to explain that all girls lie—especially about rape. And they had lots more knowledge to impart. They told Sam that Islam is an inherently violent religion and that Jews run global financial networks. (We’re Jewish and don’t know anyone who runs anything, but I guess the evidence was convincing.) They insisted that the wage gap is a fallacy, that feminazis are destroying families, that people need guns to protect themselves from government incursions onto private property. They declared that women who abort their babies should be jailed. Sam prides himself on questioning conventional wisdom and subjecting claims to intellectual scrutiny. For kids today, that means Googling stuff. One might think these searches would turn up a variety of perspectives, including at least a few compelling counterarguments. One would be wrong. The Google searches flooded his developing brain with endless bias-confirming “proof” to back up whichever specious alt-right standard was being hoisted that week. Each set of results acted like fertilizer sprinkled on weeds: A forest of distortion flourished."

5/8/2019 4:16:13 PM

^all she had to do is explain to her kid why the people on the internet were wrong. hah. deplatforming is modern day book burning. i encourage my kid to read facts and opinions from many different viewpoints and come to her own conclusion.

[Edited on May 9, 2019 at 8:50 AM. Reason : obviously cant harm self or others]

5/9/2019 8:47:18 AM

we see how well that works for you.....

5/9/2019 9:06:59 AM

^ikr, she is really smart and talented

5/9/2019 9:12:45 AM

Because teens are famously known for listening attentively to their parents' every word.

Christ, you're the worst. I can only hope that you truly do encourage your kid to think and research for herself so your imprint on her is minimal.

Also - your logical disconnect here is astounding. You'd encourage your kid to research for herself, but when she gets sucked into a confirmation bias you'd expect her to listen to you when you tell her that internet people are wrong. Awesome.

5/9/2019 9:38:13 AM

^ok im the worst because i dont believe in book burning and want people to think for themselves. fine. if a parent thinks their kid is too young/dumb/impressionable to read crazy shit on the internet then they shouldnt let them have internet access

[Edited on May 9, 2019 at 10:07 AM. Reason : h]

5/9/2019 10:06:39 AM

Aside from the fact I didn't say a damn thing about book burning, or even deplatforming...

So...you're all about freedom of information for kids unless their parents deem it unnecessary by some imaginary barometer of young/dumb/impressionable? Who sets these arbitrary goalposts? Parents? Tons of these alt-right dickheads are parents, so is it responsible to have them be the gatekeepers for the information/education their children digest? Cool, bro.

5/9/2019 10:44:13 AM

i'd bet most parents of children who become radicalized online for various causes also thought their children were smart and sensible enough to be able to tell truth from fiction and were just normal kids goofing off online

5/9/2019 12:42:53 PM

Quote :

"im the worst because i dont believe in book burning"

I don't think anyone here agrees with that false equivalence

Quote :

"she is really smart and talented"

I can confirm both of those facts

5/9/2019 2:20:44 PM

People have been denied a platform since before books existed. It’s now effecting conservatives and right wing individuals in a disproportionate way and it’s as if the world is ending. Start a zine or something.

5/9/2019 10:42:15 PM

Quote :

"deplatforming is modern day book burning."

Looks to me like it's more akin to "modern day publisher deciding not to publish your book".

5/9/2019 10:45:31 PM

It’s as if they think they’re entitled to any platform they want.

Sorry...it’s never worked this way.

5/9/2019 10:51:57 PM

Quote :

"So...you're all about freedom of information for kids unless their parents deem it unnecessary by some imaginary barometer of young/dumb/impressionable? Who sets these arbitrary goalposts? Parents? "

yes parents. its easy to put spyware on their phone and see what theyre up to




i do think facebook should be able to kick people off their site tho. just that unless the person is doing something illegal facebook is being jerks



[Edited on May 10, 2019 at 9:35 AM. Reason : w]

5/10/2019 9:18:48 AM

Quote :

"just that unless the person is doing something illegal facebook is being jerks"

so websites shouldn't be allowed to moderate content on their site?

are editors for newspapers or magazines equally being jerks for choosing their content and not publishing anything someone sends in?

5/10/2019 9:41:36 AM

^that goes back to the publisher vs platform debate. facebook is saying theyre not liable for damages their users cause because they are a platform not a publisher.


[Edited on May 10, 2019 at 9:46 AM. Reason : theyre trying to have it both ways ]

5/10/2019 9:44:14 AM

I see that beatunc edited his comment equating denying a cake to a gay person (who did not choose to be gay) to kicking people off facebook for saying things that they as a company did not like (who choose to go to facebook to rant)

also illegality and breaking terms of service are two different things. Maybe we should expand protected class to include these people who feel discriminated against by facebook????



[Edited on May 10, 2019 at 9:48 AM. Reason : my god typos]

5/10/2019 9:46:27 AM

Quote :

"f^that goes back to the publisher vs platform debate. facebook is saying theyre not liable for damages their users cause because they are a platform not a publisher."

no, you skipped the first part of the comment:

Quote :

"so websites shouldn't be allowed to moderate content on their site? "

[Edited on May 10, 2019 at 10:16 AM. Reason : and facebook has an algorithm, it's a publisher ]

5/10/2019 10:14:55 AM

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/vb9px8/youtube-is-finally-banning-nazis-holocaust-denial-and-sandy-hook-truthers

6/5/2019 2:17:57 PM

https://m.ctpost.com/local/ctpost/article/Lawyers-Alex-Jones-sent-child-porn-to-Sandy-Hook-14005437.php

Also I wonder if that Dallas shooter was a member of a shitty community or 12. I wonder...

6/17/2019 7:16:20 PM

So Pizzagate was projection too.

6/17/2019 11:08:56 PM

the alex jones story is being reported a bit poorly, the porn was sent to his email address and was in the bulk emails from the server that were sent

6/18/2019 8:15:26 AM

Apparently The_Donald on reddit was quarantined. There has been an alarming amount of calls to violence against police and Democrats in Oregon on there and reddit finally said enough.

6/26/2019 1:43:25 PM