They need to calculate how much money they stand to gain or lose.
Have they deplatformed ISIS or other Islamic extremist groups? Did they need research for that??
There are multiple very interesting parts of this
You kick them off, they will then go to niche echochambers where they will become more extremist and quietly convince people, and they can create the illusion that they're the ones that are being prosecuted.
or
You kick them off and therefore they no longer have a platform to get people into their ranks, their niche eventually dies slowly and fucks off.
or
You keep them on platforms and because they're forced to listen to actual people with differing opinions they'll dampen their extremism
Their ideology is therefore also, very much in the public eye, and people can become more aware of them and fight them off that way. They'll also expose themselves.
or
You give them a platform and they have better reach, meaning they can get much larger audiences and spread their bullshit that way.
or
Who fucking gives a shit Curls, you're literally retarded, fuck you and fuck these idiots. Why are you such a cunt.
> inb4 the "muh freedom of speech!!!!" crowd starts bitching
While they're way too late starting it, I'm glad they are researching and not just going with what public pressure says. It seems like common sense that deplatforming hate speech is a good thing but I'd rather be sure about the consequences before jumping for a solution. After all, a lot of people seemed to think containment boards were a reasonable solution and look how that worked out.
But they're different because uh
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/2265/79ad83c5-2f32-4c2d-a539-a6cff7e27f46/sikn.png
Ok I'm not sure why they're different but they are somehow. Free speech! think of the CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW
This part here, at least, really doesn't seem to be the case by and large.
I can fix him! I know it looks bad but really it's my fault I have a black eye and 3 broken ribs. If I would just stop making so much noise and waking him up he wouldn't do this to me.
I love the idea of letting them stay for the sake of free speech absolutism and so they can expose themselves
but yeah ultimately these people don't listen and don't want to listen
they isolate themselves to start with
I don't care if they do, it's their platform and all
...but knowing twisted twit-logic I know they're gonna fuck it up and put a system in place that's either
automated and issues liberally applied bans
automated and be completely abusable by third parties to get people banned when they have a mild disagreement
hand-picks their bans manually, being too slow to actually make a difference
Ideologically we should strive to let the free market of ideas filter out bad ideas simply by letting them speak. Turns out most people who use twitter aren't open-minded to other ideas when they're spouting and repeating stupid rhetoric. Who knew?
They're already doing that without getting banned, as far as I've seen.
It only takes screenshots of people calling for them to be banned, or unrelated bans for other ToS violations. (Not that Twitter is infallible regarding banning people.)
In 2018, only 28% of fatal car crashes were due to drunk driving, which means that sober driving accounts for the majority of fatal car crashes. We should require a minimum level of drunkness before driving.
Check mate libs
It's worth noting that after the EU elections, Tommy Robinson said that being banned from social media really harmed his ability to gain traction with his campaign, so no platforming certainly can work. Whilst it does feed the victim complex of those who support them - and those people may move to other platforms - it makes the sort of repeated exposure needed to normalise their views to new people much harder.
I'm sort of ok with this. I still prefer they stay and be constantly laughed at how dumb their ideology is. Although if the ban does indeed come then I can see lot of people getting false bans. It's very easy to point at someone and say they are white-supremacist. Not to mention people's opinion can change overtime. So just because someone was racist at one point of their life doesn't mean they can never be redeemed ever again. So if Twitter does indeed do bans, I hope it's one year ban or something, and not permanent.
I don't think that strategy works on social media mainly because social media itself is dehumanizing. And hateful ideology relies on dehumanization.
>the decision to kick out white supremacists out is dependent on whether twitter can keep their extra cent or not
I know theyre a corporation but come on, do you really have to stop and think about that
On the subject of letting bad ideas speak for themselves, the people with the bad ideas have taken to dressing them up in more friendly language or lying about their motivations, and then they get signal boosted by people who you would think should have known better. Social media + Youtube were the best thing to ever happen to these people.
"Does giving white supremacists a platform drive away more users than the white supremacists we'll have driven away?"
Agreed, I take as example the flat-Earthers who are very prominent on Facebook and Twitter. They've got more exposition than ever thanks to that (as they wished), and have been laughed at all around the globe. There are people still today who come across and are like "wow, these guys are for real?".
Hey Jack while you are at it, research as well why any LGBT account can be quickly shutdown by mass reports or just by telling someone TERF, but then anyone can insult, harass or even threat us and go scot-free
is a mystery
It's debating?
Dude. If you own the platform, you can kick people off of it for any reason - including no reason at all! I'm not in the camp that believes simply getting rid of them will end all the alt-right-neonazi-whitesup-1488ers, but there's nothing to debate if you own the platform.
But I know what they are debating. You see, on twitter, you arn't the customer. You're the product. They casually harvest peoples info and sell it out. Banning a huge swath would be akin to a coffee company burning some of it's unsold product.
Twitter is debating if removing a chunk of users is worth having less info to sell. And this is why I dont use twitter.
Nazis we're talking about, and they think twice becauae money
What the fuck am I living in?
White supremacists - or why race supremacists, really, don't belong anywhere, let alone on Twitter.
Drive them out and back to the holes they're crawled out from, like the vermin they are.
watch what you say, or you could get criticized for being a Supremacist-Supremacist
i really don't want to know if that's somehow a thing people complain about
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
