This is gonna turn in to a good slapfight. Bring it on but remember... No scratching or hairpulling.
Opinion on the merits of deplatforming
- Thread starter teezzy
- Start date
Did you read that? No? Seems so. Decency, boy. Btw are you stuck being 16 years old?LMAO
Bruh learn to fucking google. Plenty of fucking recepts out there. He was a gamergater. That's not up for debate.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #53
Guys let's be civil. We're better than other certain sites here.
The case of the late John Bain is an interesting one because nuance is necessary in order to properly assess his stance on Gamergate. John Bain was stubborn. He didn't change opinions easily and he didn't admit when he was wrong easily. I followed his career almost from the beginning and I've watched hundreds, maybe thousands of hours of his content. He did support Gamergate when it started out as supposedly a campaign for ethics in games journalism and he doubled down on it even when it became clear that Gamergate's goals were quite different.
So on one hand we have this fact that can't be disputed and on the other we have the rest of his life in which he was never involved in any controversy whatsoever, at least as far as I know. I see no pattern in his behavior that would suggest that his support of Gamergate was fueled by misogyny instead of ego.
So on one hand we have this fact that can't be disputed and on the other we have the rest of his life in which he was never involved in any controversy whatsoever, at least as far as I know. I see no pattern in his behavior that would suggest that his support of Gamergate was fueled by misogyny instead of ego.
sigh ... do we really need to drag all of that stuff out yet again? hasn't everything that could be said about this already been said?
folks, please ...
folks, please ...
Read it plenty as did read many other of his posts defending Gamergate and pretending it isn't a harassment campaing. The dipshit even says at the end "actually, it's the anti-gamergaters that are driving away women from the gaming industry", but it seems you missed that somehow.
It's interesting you're trying to call anyone else 16 years old though.
Actually, nah. If the dude reads the thing above and actually tries to claim TB wasn't progamergate, then he is a piece of shit and I will call him exactly that. I ain't going to be civil with pieces of shit.
This is a much better title for the thread.
John Bain did support Gamergate and never backed down from that support. It is up to the individual to decide if he did so because he was part of the alt-right or because he didn't know when to quit. It's not possible to reach a consensus because there is a lot of subjectivity involved but hopefully we can at least understand each other's point of view even if we disagree completely with it.
John Bain did support Gamergate and never backed down from that support. It is up to the individual to decide if he did so because he was part of the alt-right or because he didn't know when to quit. It's not possible to reach a consensus because there is a lot of subjectivity involved but hopefully we can at least understand each other's point of view even if we disagree completely with it.
Alt-Right I doubt. I think he just saw merits in their claims and thought he needed to be a voice for them that didn't revolve around twittereggs yelling at journos.
Deplatforming works when you explain why you're doing it. Universities started banning Milo by explicitly stating that why they find his shenanigans unacceptable.
Telling people to fuck off and leaving them to their own devices to interpret why they were banned usually doesnt work, because someone (usually who agrees with what they said) will provide a more or less reasonable explanation (to them) and that's when radicalization occurs.
Telling people to fuck off and leaving them to their own devices to interpret why they were banned usually doesnt work, because someone (usually who agrees with what they said) will provide a more or less reasonable explanation (to them) and that's when radicalization occurs.
Interesting how you managed to completely avoid actually addressing any of the things pointed out and how he is explicitly supporting gamergate in that post.
Not that I'm surprised, anyways.
I'm not sure the first part is totally true anymore. No matter what view you hold, you're likely going to find enough people who agree with you to solidify your stance, and that includes not agreeing with the deplatforming. "Acceptable discourse" has kind of become an outdated concept after the internet made it clear that every single opinion no matter how repugnant is represented.
What I mean is that ideologies are never truly defeated. 'Ideas are bulletproof' and all that.
But per standard practice on forums, someone is shown the door with something like (banned for being sexist) without actually explaining (educating) why. I kinda understand why this is that way, since it is difficult to separate trolls from actual ignorant people. But I've seen communities torn apart more often because they mock the mods/admins than actual offensive actions.
This post hasn't been sitting well with me and since it seems nobody will speak up, I will
You could make the same points while retaining a modicum of civility. Calling TB a dipshit and a piece of shit does not belong in the kind of place I think MetaCouncil is supposed to be. This kind of vitriolic behavior is exactly what's wrong with the current state of the discussion.
You didn't need those insults to make the point that he was pro-gg, a racist and a misogynist from your perspective. Those qualifiers are scathing enough to anyone civilized enough to understand their meaning.
Life is fleeting and fragile enough as is, and before we know it, it's gone already. Don't allow some random ignoramuses on the internet to get you to feel this badly. In fact don't let them make you even feel bad period. Fuck 'em.
Pro-gg translates directly to "piece of shit", sorry.
Also, you should worry that there is someone in this forum with the gall to perpetuate the lie that TB wasn't pro-GG, even after reading a post written by TB himself where he basically says "GG is actually about ethics" "the victims of Gamergate are all liars that want to get the media on their side" and "actually it's anti-GG folks that are driving away women from the industry". Worry about that instead of a couple of mean words to people that harass and send death threats to women. Boo fuckin hoo
I guess Shaun illustrates my point better. He confronts (and destroys) his opponents very graciously.
Oh if you are really interested in that I would gladly do it but I don't think it will do any good. I don't think you will ever change your mind about any of this because you are sure you are the good one here and everyone else is a horrible, racist, sexist, transphobe piece of shit who is per default wrong. more than a lmao will not come out of it.
You are still wrong. If GG is the alt-right, transphobe, sexist movement that I think it is, than TB was not a part of it. Is games-journalism still shit? Yes it is. It was before GG and it still is shit. So, if calling games journalism shit, i guess Sterling is also a GG?
Are you somehow phisically incapable of reading or something? Cause he ain't sayi g " game journalism is shit " in that post. He says in that post that victims of Gamergate are just liars trying to get the media on their side, that "GG is actually about ethics" and that "actually it's the Anti-Gamergaters that are making women go away from the industry". I worry for your mental capabilities of you can't figure out how that is supposed to not be pro-GG
thank you for your worries
and yeah, maybe I'm bad at reading but he is saying that games journalism is shit in that post. and no, i don't think it is pro-GG. I think it is pro-"what_naive_people_thought_gamergate_was_or_should_be_but_didn't_consider_that_the_internet_is_a_cesspool". Now, you will say that, there was no misunderstanding what GG was about and if TB wrote what he wrote he got what he deserved. And we begin anew.
just to be sure:
you think TB supported a sexist, misogynistic, transphobe and far-right group? He supported that group because he himself was a far-right misogynist?
You're terrible at reading, because I pointed out many of the terrible things in that post that has jackshit to do with "gaming journalism is terrible". I think gaming journalism is terrible too and somehow miraculously I never aligned myself with gamergate. Awfully convenient that you somehow missed all the points I explained above though.thank you for your worries
and yeah, maybe I'm bad at reading but he is saying that games journalism is shit in that post. and no, i don't think it is pro-GG. I think it is pro-"what_naive_people_thought_gamergate_was_or_should_be_but_didn't_consider_that_the_internet_is_a_cesspool". Now, you will say that, there was no misunderstanding what GG was about and if TB wrote what he wrote he got what he deserved. And we begin anew.
just to be sure:
you think TB supported a sexist, misogynistic, transphobe and far-right group? He supported that group because he himself was a far-right misogynist?
You are as much of a visitor as anyone else. No user owns the place, even though it may look like so because of what happened in your anecdote.
There are toxic people, who, for some reason, are let free to vent you with their contained aggressivity at every opportunity. They will make you feel unwelcome, they will be mean, they won't have an ounce of empathy, care, or even think about what happens to you after they managed to vent you and trigger you. That is a fact.
However:
- it is not your fault and what they say does not mean anything about you,
- you should not care about them, you should care about the other people, who thankfully are many more,
- remember that the majority of nice users is silent, that is the core of toxic users whom you hear from and who try to vent you.
Last edited:
I think that as American society continues to collapse, the internet (which is... uh... super American in tone) by proxy has become this warground. What has happened is that people have become convinced that THIS IS WAR, and they're basically resorting to the "clear and present danger" doctrine. Which in a nutshell argued that deplatforming (and imprisoning) people opposed to military conscription was acceptable even though it clearly violated the spirit and intent of American law.
"When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight ."
I think the starkest problem is a crippling lack of self awareness. Deplatforming people I agree with = bad. Deplatforming people I don't agree with = good.
Violent action in service of causes I agree with = Freedom Fighting. Violent action in service of causes I disagree with = Terrorism. This is not a new problem.
And people feel justified in the ferocity of their attempts because this is war. But think about it. This is no different to all those people in America who sought to root out the communists working in the film industry to get them fired. They were at war with communism. Communism was evil. Ergo, anyone with communist beliefs had to be deplatformed otherwise they would use their position to spread their evil communist beliefs.
As far as Chinese citizens are concerned, they successfully deplatformed Red Candle Games and their horrifically offensive videogame Devotion. They will continue to strive to deplatform every single videogame and videogame company that is critical of China. Ubisoft shivers People who don't agree with China don't view that as valid deplatforming. Because Taiwan = good. China = bad. But here's a hint, bucko. The Chinese outnumber you by a hilarious margin, and deplatforming is all about having the loudest and most morally outraged outrage campaign.
Back when George Orwell attempted to publish Animal Farm, there was a widespread campaign in the literary world to prevent the book's publication because it was disrespectful to the heroes of the Red Army and Stalin ands tuff. Every publisher Orwell approached turned it down due to these behind the scenes actions. The man who finally chose to publish it was pressured by his friends and his own wife who told him that the book shouldn't be published. The entire British literary world was super pro-Stalin back in the day. Orwell was the odd one out with his, "Stalin is not a bro" attitude. (TS Eliot wrote him a letter explaining that he wouldn't publish the book due to its Trotskyite politics.)
And that was just behind the scenes stuff in a pre internet era. Can you imagine trying to publish a book like Animal Farm today in a political atmosphere where people would dog-pile any publisher on twitter who even DARED consider publishing it?
As China grows as a superpower, you're gonna have to deal with Chinese people disagreeing with that guy you appointed as CEO. That developer who was critical of China on Twitter. That movie company that dares make a movie China doesn't like. So far the language barrier has curbed a lot of that stuff. But it's only a matter of time.
The English speaking internet has been super lucky if disfunctional. Since the internet was invented, we haven't had another world war. What the hell are we going to do if another war breaks out? People on twitter will be screaming at each other about how their side of the conflict is the right one. Suppose a youtuber MrBigCuddles says, "Oh, yea, Coalition A is clearly wrong and Coalition B was right to preemptively bomb them!" Then Coalition A's members scream that MyBigCuddles needs to be deplatformed because the blood of dead children is on his hands.
The internet has a hard enough time handling Israel stuff. It can't even handle CONSOLE WARS. Imagine what happens when 20% of your forum (Coalition C) is literally at war with the other 80% (Coalition D). And the 80% is screaming and calling the 20% murderers and warmongers and shit. How do you handle that? There's no plan.
I have no doubt that Russian language forums have to deal with this stuff due to a lot of people seeing Putin as a murderer and a dictator. (Which he is, BTW, and this a relatively uncontroversial position because this is the English speaking internet and we have very few Russian nationalists here.)
I think that eventually we may see the internet fragment along political and geographical lines. I'm not sure the melting pot internet actually has a long term future because tensions are clearly reaching a boiling point. The current deplatforming fixation is kind of a death rattle of a disintegrating society and internet, It's a war effort, isn't it? I think. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but the tone of the internet is getting angrier and angrier. Social media is feeding the anger. Social media drives these campaigns in a way that traditional forums never could.
"When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight ."
I think the starkest problem is a crippling lack of self awareness. Deplatforming people I agree with = bad. Deplatforming people I don't agree with = good.
Violent action in service of causes I agree with = Freedom Fighting. Violent action in service of causes I disagree with = Terrorism. This is not a new problem.
And people feel justified in the ferocity of their attempts because this is war. But think about it. This is no different to all those people in America who sought to root out the communists working in the film industry to get them fired. They were at war with communism. Communism was evil. Ergo, anyone with communist beliefs had to be deplatformed otherwise they would use their position to spread their evil communist beliefs.
As far as Chinese citizens are concerned, they successfully deplatformed Red Candle Games and their horrifically offensive videogame Devotion. They will continue to strive to deplatform every single videogame and videogame company that is critical of China. Ubisoft shivers People who don't agree with China don't view that as valid deplatforming. Because Taiwan = good. China = bad. But here's a hint, bucko. The Chinese outnumber you by a hilarious margin, and deplatforming is all about having the loudest and most morally outraged outrage campaign.
Back when George Orwell attempted to publish Animal Farm, there was a widespread campaign in the literary world to prevent the book's publication because it was disrespectful to the heroes of the Red Army and Stalin ands tuff. Every publisher Orwell approached turned it down due to these behind the scenes actions. The man who finally chose to publish it was pressured by his friends and his own wife who told him that the book shouldn't be published. The entire British literary world was super pro-Stalin back in the day. Orwell was the odd one out with his, "Stalin is not a bro" attitude. (TS Eliot wrote him a letter explaining that he wouldn't publish the book due to its Trotskyite politics.)
And that was just behind the scenes stuff in a pre internet era. Can you imagine trying to publish a book like Animal Farm today in a political atmosphere where people would dog-pile any publisher on twitter who even DARED consider publishing it?
As China grows as a superpower, you're gonna have to deal with Chinese people disagreeing with that guy you appointed as CEO. That developer who was critical of China on Twitter. That movie company that dares make a movie China doesn't like. So far the language barrier has curbed a lot of that stuff. But it's only a matter of time.
The English speaking internet has been super lucky if disfunctional. Since the internet was invented, we haven't had another world war. What the hell are we going to do if another war breaks out? People on twitter will be screaming at each other about how their side of the conflict is the right one. Suppose a youtuber MrBigCuddles says, "Oh, yea, Coalition A is clearly wrong and Coalition B was right to preemptively bomb them!" Then Coalition A's members scream that MyBigCuddles needs to be deplatformed because the blood of dead children is on his hands.
The internet has a hard enough time handling Israel stuff. It can't even handle CONSOLE WARS. Imagine what happens when 20% of your forum (Coalition C) is literally at war with the other 80% (Coalition D). And the 80% is screaming and calling the 20% murderers and warmongers and shit. How do you handle that? There's no plan.
I have no doubt that Russian language forums have to deal with this stuff due to a lot of people seeing Putin as a murderer and a dictator. (Which he is, BTW, and this a relatively uncontroversial position because this is the English speaking internet and we have very few Russian nationalists here.)
I think that eventually we may see the internet fragment along political and geographical lines. I'm not sure the melting pot internet actually has a long term future because tensions are clearly reaching a boiling point. The current deplatforming fixation is kind of a death rattle of a disintegrating society and internet, It's a war effort, isn't it? I think. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but the tone of the internet is getting angrier and angrier. Social media is feeding the anger. Social media drives these campaigns in a way that traditional forums never could.
That's a really interesting post that touches on the heart of the matter. More often than not you know what's right, but how do you find out if you are wrong? And does that scale up to the internet? How do you enact objectivity in moderation and access on matters that are intensely emotional and, sometimes, subjective? As you say, it's a topic old as time and one much better people have dedicated themselves to. I'd love to know what conclusions they came to.
I strongly believe that kindness and empathy are the way to go about this problem, discussing instead of yelling. Yet even that might not be enough and some people will not be swayed. Their convictions hold as strong as your own. Yelling and insulting still does nothing to solve the problem. In that regard, boy is social media pouring hydrogen into the fire. I don't have the answers, but I can see what clearly doesn't work - even though it has benefits other than fixing the problem.
How do you make someone who will never see eye to eye with you stop causing harm to the things you care about? Does anyone have any serious thought about this?
Last edited:
A quick rule of thumb to test cognitive bias is to invert the statement and see if you still agree with it, and if not then consider why not.
Deplatforming doesn't work, and it literally never has.
We have 6 thousand odd years of human history to prove that, and numerous despotic regimes that have attempted to suppress heretical speech or attacks on orthodoxy, and those ideas still persist.
Some people still believe the earth is flat ffs.
The dangerous people are the ideologues who value their ideology over humanity; it doesn't matter if you generally agree with their ideology or not. As soon as you start thinking 'the cause' is more important than 'the person', you become a piece of shit.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #79
Maybe I'm nuts but I think a big problem is people take their online personas far too seriously. What matters most is having the balls to stand up for what you feel is right in the real world...
... spit shines Bernie bumper sticker on his 2011 Honda Civic while mumbling off about how he has no clue who TotalBiscuit is or why people care so much about video game streamers not named Jeff Gerstmann to begin with
... spit shines Bernie bumper sticker on his 2011 Honda Civic while mumbling off about how he has no clue who TotalBiscuit is or why people care so much about video game streamers not named Jeff Gerstmann to begin with
That's a really hard question to answer. Some people are a lost cause so nothing can be done, for others education seems like the most effective option.
He also said this:
I'm not sure what that has to do with my posts. I wasn't the one bringing up TB in this thread, SRossi was, with a insanely false statement I've proven false with pretty clear evidence. Are we not supposed to call out insane lies and false statements out when we see them being peddled in the forum?
Take it up to the person that brought him up, not me for pointing out a Gamergate was in fact a Gamergater.
Social media was a mistake. Making the world so intimately interconnected was a mistake. Preserving people's every waking thought was a mistake. As an example, we don't know what Edgar Allan Poe's views on racism and slavery were. We can make guesses based on his books. On his freeing a slave he inherited. But we don't know, ultimately. And you know what? Maybe not knowing is best. What we don't know won't hurt us. The desire to know every private thought of every creative person on this planet is a recipe for disaster.
Suppose you read a wonderful work of fiction written by a Chinese author. Do you really want to know that author's opinion on Chinese re-education camps? The social credit system? Do you really want to know what they think about Islam? I feel like at a certain point, you have to just sit down and eat your kibble. The alternative is madness. Just obsessive madness. By all means, be critical of bad governments doing bad things. Be critical of people who praise things you consider to be bad. But at some point you have to make peace with the fact that you can't make all the badness (from your perspective) go away without being some kind of mass murdering dictator.
Deplatforming works in the sense that you can temporarily silence ideas you don't like. Just ask any despot that locked up all the journalists. But it doesn't solve the underlying issues. And when you do it carelessly, it creates the impression that your particular ideology is totalitarian. One of the worst character traits of gleeful deplatformers is a firm belief in the unimpeachable morality of their cause. You can't reason with these people. You can't say, "Imagine if the situation were reversed." Because my side = good. Their side = bad. How dare you try to equate the two! The golden rule? Get that nonsense out of here.
In the end, people should focus on their own patch of soil. Their own communities. Their own local governments. Their little hobbies. That's how we used to function. And it's a lot healthier. Be aware of what is going on around the world, but stop obsessing over it. Obsessing over it (something social media fuels in a horrifying way) just makes people angry and bitter. I think that making the world a better place begins with making your local community a better place. Leading by example. Stuff like that. If you want to stop young people being seduced by an ideology you disagree with, you don't ban Harry Potter. You don't try to deplatform J.K. Rowling. That's going to get you nowhere. If you wanna stop your kids reading Harry Potter, all the power to you. How you raise your kids is your business.
Fear and anger over internet celebrities having concerning opinions and potentially being a negative influence on children in particular is not a new idea. It's a modern manifestation of people being very worried about the corrupting influence of stuff like Penny Dreadfuls. Or Elvis the Pelvis. People have always been worried about the entertainment their children consume. Youtube is just the latest version. Way worse than earlier versions, sure, but basically the same.
But in the modern political context, there is a common sentiment that adults, much like children need to be shielded from poisonous ideologies. The idea isn't wholly without merit. Let's face it -- people are easily led to do really bad things. But the approach of burning and banning and throwing rotten fruit and hounding the people who worship the wrong deity out of town often has rather negative effects long term.
If children are embracing Nazism, then I think you're looking at deeper problems. You can ban all the toxic youtubers you want. You can cause as much collateral damage against "problematic" individuals as you want. Something has gone wrong under the surface.
I'm not usually one to dabble in this subject, but as someone born in NZ, I can't help feeling that their kneejerk gun legislation and censorship legislation after the terrible massacre is a frantic attempt to paper something rotten underneath. Something very bad is happening all around the world. And I feel like there's this brewing desperation. Nobody really knows how to fix the slow collapse of the global economy and perhaps social structure itself, so maybe... I dunno, banning more stuff will help. At least you're doing something. At least people sleep a little more soundly. The vultures are circling, preying on the rotting flesh. Maybe if we revoke all the vulture visas and forcibly cancel all their stupid vulture conferences the smell of decay will go away. Yea, and maybe throwing Hitler in prison will magically solve Germany's anti-Semitism problem.
Suppose you read a wonderful work of fiction written by a Chinese author. Do you really want to know that author's opinion on Chinese re-education camps? The social credit system? Do you really want to know what they think about Islam? I feel like at a certain point, you have to just sit down and eat your kibble. The alternative is madness. Just obsessive madness. By all means, be critical of bad governments doing bad things. Be critical of people who praise things you consider to be bad. But at some point you have to make peace with the fact that you can't make all the badness (from your perspective) go away without being some kind of mass murdering dictator.
Deplatforming works in the sense that you can temporarily silence ideas you don't like. Just ask any despot that locked up all the journalists. But it doesn't solve the underlying issues. And when you do it carelessly, it creates the impression that your particular ideology is totalitarian. One of the worst character traits of gleeful deplatformers is a firm belief in the unimpeachable morality of their cause. You can't reason with these people. You can't say, "Imagine if the situation were reversed." Because my side = good. Their side = bad. How dare you try to equate the two! The golden rule? Get that nonsense out of here.
In the end, people should focus on their own patch of soil. Their own communities. Their own local governments. Their little hobbies. That's how we used to function. And it's a lot healthier. Be aware of what is going on around the world, but stop obsessing over it. Obsessing over it (something social media fuels in a horrifying way) just makes people angry and bitter. I think that making the world a better place begins with making your local community a better place. Leading by example. Stuff like that. If you want to stop young people being seduced by an ideology you disagree with, you don't ban Harry Potter. You don't try to deplatform J.K. Rowling. That's going to get you nowhere. If you wanna stop your kids reading Harry Potter, all the power to you. How you raise your kids is your business.
Fear and anger over internet celebrities having concerning opinions and potentially being a negative influence on children in particular is not a new idea. It's a modern manifestation of people being very worried about the corrupting influence of stuff like Penny Dreadfuls. Or Elvis the Pelvis. People have always been worried about the entertainment their children consume. Youtube is just the latest version. Way worse than earlier versions, sure, but basically the same.
But in the modern political context, there is a common sentiment that adults, much like children need to be shielded from poisonous ideologies. The idea isn't wholly without merit. Let's face it -- people are easily led to do really bad things. But the approach of burning and banning and throwing rotten fruit and hounding the people who worship the wrong deity out of town often has rather negative effects long term.
If children are embracing Nazism, then I think you're looking at deeper problems. You can ban all the toxic youtubers you want. You can cause as much collateral damage against "problematic" individuals as you want. Something has gone wrong under the surface.
I'm not usually one to dabble in this subject, but as someone born in NZ, I can't help feeling that their kneejerk gun legislation and censorship legislation after the terrible massacre is a frantic attempt to paper something rotten underneath. Something very bad is happening all around the world. And I feel like there's this brewing desperation. Nobody really knows how to fix the slow collapse of the global economy and perhaps social structure itself, so maybe... I dunno, banning more stuff will help. At least you're doing something. At least people sleep a little more soundly. The vultures are circling, preying on the rotting flesh. Maybe if we revoke all the vulture visas and forcibly cancel all their stupid vulture conferences the smell of decay will go away. Yea, and maybe throwing Hitler in prison will magically solve Germany's anti-Semitism problem.
I think there are two ideas around "deplatforming" that are becoming conflated here. From what I've seen, nobody actually believes that you can extinguish white supremacy, nazism, or other repugnant ideas solely by removing them from social media. But on the other hand, giving them unfettered access to social media is effectively giving them a free stage, stadium, and megaphone, complete with a huge advertising budget. This is exacerbated by sites such as youtube using recommendation algorithms that boost fringe right wing and conspiracy bullshit. And I hate to say it, but ordinary people just don' t have the critical thinking capacity to evaluate this stuff. If someone with decent production values and a loud voice makes a video on youtube, that's just as good as the evening news on tv, right?
I know many people who despair that (mostly old) people in their lives are becoming radicalized by youtube especially. They're suckered by the thought of being special, that they're part of a small community of those who actually see the truth, that the government, mainstream media, and shadow organizations are controlling everything. It's beyond ridiculous. It's also pretty scary. These ideas also galvanize violence, which has resulted in people being hurt and even killed in the USA at least.
I'm not aware of any hard evidence resulting from people like Alex Jones being deplatformed, but I do know that I personally have heard less about his bullshit being mentioned in the usual media I consume like podcasts, twitter, blogs, or general newsfeeds. No doubt he still has a loyal audience. But if he's prevented from growing that audience, that is a good thing. Deplatforming is an essential part of a broader solution to radicalization and polarization imo.
I know many people who despair that (mostly old) people in their lives are becoming radicalized by youtube especially. They're suckered by the thought of being special, that they're part of a small community of those who actually see the truth, that the government, mainstream media, and shadow organizations are controlling everything. It's beyond ridiculous. It's also pretty scary. These ideas also galvanize violence, which has resulted in people being hurt and even killed in the USA at least.
I'm not aware of any hard evidence resulting from people like Alex Jones being deplatformed, but I do know that I personally have heard less about his bullshit being mentioned in the usual media I consume like podcasts, twitter, blogs, or general newsfeeds. No doubt he still has a loyal audience. But if he's prevented from growing that audience, that is a good thing. Deplatforming is an essential part of a broader solution to radicalization and polarization imo.
The ignore function on this site is pretty great. Plus BernardoOne is right, deplatforming him from my view has already improved my forum experience
