I've been very much on team "ban the fucking NAZIs, Jack" but based on what we see in private networks, I'm not sure there *is* good harm reduction, it just hides it.
-
-
Show this thread
-
E.G. if you're not on Gab, you don't see how truly awful people on Gab are. Great! Except, it's not like they're not on here, too. And, it's not the ideas forged in that deplorable fire aren't made stronger by it.
Show this thread -
I'm not proposing any solutions in this thread. (I'm working on one, though.) Instead, this is just a prelude to a prompt: What's the strongest experimental or empirical defense of social network deplatforming and platform-controlled moderation that you've seen?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Segregation leads to radicalization, radicalization leads to the dark side. Conversely, mutual exposure is the only possible path to temperance & growth. ie.
@SarahKSilverman's highlight of such a case with@meganphelps, formerly of the WBChttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmgZgHpv8Zs … -
And on social media, mutual exposure is *almost* like weak ties, which lots of tools and solutions sever aggressively
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Banning helps movements appear more legitimate by removing undiplomatic honest crazies and leaving only house-trained persuasive figures. Deplatforming give targets worldwide fame. I wouldn't have heard of many deplatformed US people if it weren't for deplatforming/face punches.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.