7 ms·

> The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platfo

> The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups. While this may solve immediate problems (such as the planning of unlawful or otherwise socially harmful events), we should consider the long-term impacts of de-platforming. Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust, potentially increasing social conflict in the long-term? Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse, or are we simply throwing up our hands and declaring that some percentage of the population must always have their speech regulated? (I suppose this question applies for both social groups and for individuals.)

ABeeSea 6y ago
These groups are already generating social conflict. De-platforming ISIS from Twitter and YouTube worked to stop their massive growth of new members through propaganda. There is no reason to believe it won’t also work on American right-wing terrorist and Christian terrorists. “Capitol Hill Attack Video Shows Rioters Pray With Lifted Hands After Violating Senate Chamber” https://faithfullymagazine.com/capitol-hill-attack-video-pray/ https://faithfullymagazine.com/capitol-hill-attack-video-pra... “How QAnon uses religion to lure unsuspecting Christians” https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/us/qanon-religion-churches/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/us/qanon-religion-churches/in... “How White Evangelical Christians Fused With Trump Extremism” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/how-white-evangelical-christians-fused-with-trump-extremism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/how-white-evangelical-... Edit: Changed “American right-wing and Christian terrorists” to “American right-wing terrorists and Christian terrorists” to remove the ambiguity on whether I mean “American right-wing” as an adjective or a noun (I meant it as an adjective to the noun terrorist.)
- lettergram 6y ago
  And BLM & ANTIFA use Facebook and Twitter? We banning those? It’s insane to say “because “terrorists” use Twitter, let’s shutdown Twitter” instead we remove them from the platform. Parlor was working with the FBI and was kicking people off their platform breaking their terms. It makes no sense what’s currently happening.
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    I’m looking through the @blklivesmatter Twitter account and I don’t see any calls to violence. Can you point me to one? https://mobile.twitter.com/Blklivesmatter https://mobile.twitter.com/Blklivesmatter
    - IronWolve 6y ago
      Twitter just removed a bunch of Antifa, after the last few days of violence, and twitter was not deplatformed. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1352399672594345985 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1352399672594345985
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      This seems like a bad faith and easily broken argument. Point me to a single call to violence from Trump. Even Twitter’s own blog post about his ban couldn’t name a single example. Meanwhile the amount of economic damage and deaths from BLM related riots is much much greater than the recent Capitol riot. Based on what the standards for “incitement are, everything relating to BLM should be deplatformed. The fact that it isn’t is telling and a clear indication of double standards.
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        There is no law that requires MSNBC, Fox News, or Twitter, to be fair and balanced, and frankly I doubt one could be written that would pass first amendment scrutiny.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >These groups are already generating social conflict. De-platforming ISIS from Twitter and YouTube worked to stop their massive growth of new members through propaganda. There is no reason to believe it won’t also work on American right-wing and Christian terrorists. If I am following this correctly. The American right-wing(republicans) is equivalent to a terrorist organization that beheads people amongst other war crimes. If I may make a recommendation. Don't treat half your country as if they are terrorists.
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    You did read it wrong. “American right-wing” was an adjective on the noun “terrorist.” You interpreted “American right-wing” as a noun. I updated the language.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- kart23 6y ago
  False equivalence. Look, I know where you're coming from. But 99% of ISIS members would be tried and convicted of terrorism because of hard evidence showing intent to kill. 99% of right-wing people are not going to be convicted of terrorism. Sure, there are some that are making serious threats and have shown intent to follow up on said threats, but believing in conspiracy theories and weird cults isn't a crime. I'm open to hearing evidence otherwise.
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    I never said the entire right-wing is terrorists. The militia groups and q-anon recruit right-wing Christians to extremist causes in the same way ISIS recruited right-wing Muslims to extremist causes. In both cases, they use propaganda and recruitment tactics to radicalize a segment of these groups. They even target the same demographic of disillusioned or aimless young to middle-aged men. The radicalized militias like oathkeepers, 3%ers, vanguard, proud boys, etc are serious threats.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > 99% of ISIS members would be tried and convicted of terrorism because of hard evidence showing intent to kill. 99% of right-wing people are not going to be convicted of terrorism ISIS being a foreign terrorist group, the U.S. can criminalise membership. Extremists being a domestic group, mere association can’t be criminalised [EDIT: is difficult to criminalise]. Only individual actions can be criminally pursued. Other than that legal distinction, the two groups (right-wing extremists, not all right wing Americans, and bona fide ISIS members, not everyone in ISIS-occupied territory) are comparable. They spread their misinformation similarly. And could be expected to be similarly curtailed by deplatforming.
    - ABeeSea 6y ago
      > ISIS being a foreign terrorist group, the U.S. can criminalise membership. Extremists being a domestic group, mere association can’t be criminalised. Only individual actions can be criminally pursued. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse suggested RICO’ing the militia groups today. The members could be criminally liable even if individual actions can’t be proven (similar to how the mob was taken down.) https://mobile.twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1352382112742203392 https://mobile.twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/135238211274...
zimpenfish 6y ago
> Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse It's not really "fringe" groups that are the issue here; it's "extreme" groups - no-one is calling for the flat earthers to be deplatformed, for example. > Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust Probably but I'd guess only among the people who are already inclined that way already. > the population must always have their speech regulated If you put "some of" after "have", it's the situation we already have.
- wolco5 6y ago
  I believe deplatforming of flat earthers is already happening. Anyone who holds that position is not allowed on television and not allowed to run national tv ads and wouldn't be allowed to teach.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    Here's Mark Sargent (King of Flat Earth) on reasonably high profile UK TV show less than a year ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wClJlarfyhE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wClJlarfyhE
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>While this may solve immediate problems (such as the planning of unlawful or otherwise socially harmful events), we should consider the long-term impacts of de-platforming. Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust, potentially increasing social conflict in the long-term? Political divide in the USA has greatly increased in the last couple months. The blame lay solely at the hands of left leaning entities. >Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse, or are we simply throwing up our hands and declaring that some percentage of the population must always have their speech regulated? (I suppose this question applies for both social groups and for individuals.) That's smoke and mirrors at best. The deplatforming being done in the name of banning 'conspiracy theories' and 'violent speech' is not at all a legitimate assertion. This has been a coordinated effort to deplatform political opponents. "censorship" or "freespeech" are not considerations or problems. The platforms(twitteR) can decide if they want those people on their platform. What it does mean is that eventually new platforms will exist that the left cant shutdown. The right-wing will move there and there will be even less political discourse and even more echo chamber issues. More importantly, this level of deplatforming is orchestrated, it not only confirms the election was stolen, it makes this election the worst election in us history.
- gruez 6y ago
  >The blame lay solely at the hands of left leaning entities. [...] This has been a coordinated effort to deplatform political opponents. How many entities did they end up deplatforming? The outgoing president, and a few right-wing forums? Meanwhile all the republican congressman and PACs are untouched. If they really want to shut down the opposition, they seem to be doing a pretty bad job.
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    Or they are doing an amazing job.
grayfaced 6y ago
Too soon to say on this current round. But it's generally considered to have been an effective strategy in dealing with Isis and Al Qaeda. But that was a combined campaign to eliminate recruitment by de-platforming, and eliminate existing membership militarily. It's possible de-platforming these domestic groups will just further radicalize the existing members. But it should inhibit their growth.
- sonotathrowaway 6y ago
  There’s good data to show that deplatforming did wonders for Reddit in reducing the amount of hate speech and harassment that flowed across their platform. Similarly, deplatforming 8chan has done wonders in reducing the amount of mass murderers they inspire. I think a dispassionate analysis would dispel the idea that it’s not effective, and most such arguments are fueled more by emotion than objective facts.
  - rhizome 6y ago
    Milo was wiped off the map of public consciousness, which is good evidence for the effectiveness of deplatforming in itself.
  - Number157 6y ago
    Every time I open reddit there's harassment and hate speech right on the front page. It's just happening against people the reddit admins hate and "good hatred" doesn't count.
danans 6y ago
> Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust Anger and distrust are sparked, stoked and fueled far more by personalities in media and politics who actively promote them than by de-platforming. > Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse People organizing and advocating violence are not fringe groups. The paradox of tolerance applies here: You can't extend tolerance to those who advocate for intolerance without destroying tolerance in the process.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > The paradox of tolerance applies here: You can't extend tolerance to those who advocate for intolerance without destroying tolerance in the process. I don't understand how this is a paradox. You can't extend tolerance to people who commit arson and murder, or e.g. refuse to hire black people because they're black. You can let people say whatever they want, because then you can refute their arguments and refuse to implement their proposals.
  - AshWolfy 6y ago
    Yeah well just refute the arguments for the people who think democrats, hollywood, and the (((globalists))) and kidnapping and killing children to drink their blood, thatll convince them
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Here's a pretty good start: https://www.thestreet.com/phildavis/news/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon https://www.thestreet.com/phildavis/news/a-game-designers-an... Show them the method of operation of the theory building so they can recognize it and stop participating in it.
      - AshWolfy 6y ago
        People dont like to think they are being tricked, and will actively reject truth if it contradicts what they already believe. Doing something like this can be great, but it takes time and effort, meanwhile acts of terrorism are being committed now. Most qanoners dont really believe it, and if separated from their echo chambers, will deradicalize themselves
rhizome 6y ago
This isn't censorship, and saying that it is censorship is a bad-faith tell or a sign of naivete. Furthermore, these people are already angry and distrustful, so how much of a movement's psychoses should the commercial world be forced to accomodate? Fringe groups have options they've always had: colo and common-carrier lines into their own server/racks/datacenter. Only thing missing is talent, which is nobody's problem but theirs.
- harry8 6y ago
  I must be naieve because I don't think I'm bad faith here. I don't know if it's the right thing to do or not, I haven't made up my mind and may not. Please elaborate why you think this is not censorship and the distinction. What do you think this is? These are not leading questions they're genuine because I don't understand your point the way you're assuming I do.
  - djrogers 6y ago
    GP is under the (incorrect) impression that censorship is only possible if enacted by a government entity. That’s blatantly and provably false, but nevertheless comes up in many discussions of censorship.
    - 3np 6y ago
      Tone it down. It’s semantics, not logic.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Yeah, it's three different things. The First Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the government. Free speech is the principle that suppressing allegedly false information is more dangerous than not suppressing it because if the information is actually false you can refute it but if the information is actually true then it allows powerful actors to suppress atrocities and lie with impunity. Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of speech. Private censorship is not a violation of the First Amendment but it's still censorship.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wolco5 6y ago
I don't think it is wise because whoever is in power will change fringe groups who need to be censored. Today it's the far right, during wwii it was anyone from Japan tomorrow it could be blm or women with tails. The one thing we know is it will change. What's important is to being as open as possible and having open structures. All of these are education problems not free speech problems. Speech is a signal not something to be repressed
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse [...]? I'd say yes, but not by shifting the whole movement away from extremism, but by slowly siphoning individuals out of those groups until only a small minority of crazy extremists is left. The best counter to a massive disinformation campaign is information on the same massive scale. Sadly, it often seems easier to just silence lies instead of charging straight at it.

ABeeSea 6y ago

These groups are already generating social conflict. De-platforming ISIS from Twitter and YouTube worked to stop their massive growth of new members through propaganda. There is no reason to believe it won’t also work on American right-wing terrorist and Christian terrorists. “Capitol Hill Attack Video Shows Rioters Pray With Lifted Hands After Violating Senate Chamber” https://faithfullymagazine.com/capitol-hill-attack-video-pray/ https://faithfullymagazine.com/capitol-hill-attack-video-pra... “How QAnon uses religion to lure unsuspecting Christians” https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/us/qanon-religion-churches/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/us/qanon-religion-churches/in... “How White Evangelical Christians Fused With Trump Extremism” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/how-white-evangelical-christians-fused-with-trump-extremism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/how-white-evangelical-... Edit: Changed “American right-wing and Christian terrorists” to “American right-wing terrorists and Christian terrorists” to remove the ambiguity on whether I mean “American right-wing” as an adjective or a noun (I meant it as an adjective to the noun terrorist.)

lettergram 6y ago
And BLM & ANTIFA use Facebook and Twitter? We banning those? It’s insane to say “because “terrorists” use Twitter, let’s shutdown Twitter” instead we remove them from the platform. Parlor was working with the FBI and was kicking people off their platform breaking their terms. It makes no sense what’s currently happening.
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  I’m looking through the @blklivesmatter Twitter account and I don’t see any calls to violence. Can you point me to one? https://mobile.twitter.com/Blklivesmatter https://mobile.twitter.com/Blklivesmatter
  - IronWolve 6y ago
    Twitter just removed a bunch of Antifa, after the last few days of violence, and twitter was not deplatformed. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1352399672594345985 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1352399672594345985
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    This seems like a bad faith and easily broken argument. Point me to a single call to violence from Trump. Even Twitter’s own blog post about his ban couldn’t name a single example. Meanwhile the amount of economic damage and deaths from BLM related riots is much much greater than the recent Capitol riot. Based on what the standards for “incitement are, everything relating to BLM should be deplatformed. The fact that it isn’t is telling and a clear indication of double standards.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      There is no law that requires MSNBC, Fox News, or Twitter, to be fair and balanced, and frankly I doubt one could be written that would pass first amendment scrutiny.
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>These groups are already generating social conflict. De-platforming ISIS from Twitter and YouTube worked to stop their massive growth of new members through propaganda. There is no reason to believe it won’t also work on American right-wing and Christian terrorists. If I am following this correctly. The American right-wing(republicans) is equivalent to a terrorist organization that beheads people amongst other war crimes. If I may make a recommendation. Don't treat half your country as if they are terrorists.
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  You did read it wrong. “American right-wing” was an adjective on the noun “terrorist.” You interpreted “American right-wing” as a noun. I updated the language.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kart23 6y ago
False equivalence. Look, I know where you're coming from. But 99% of ISIS members would be tried and convicted of terrorism because of hard evidence showing intent to kill. 99% of right-wing people are not going to be convicted of terrorism. Sure, there are some that are making serious threats and have shown intent to follow up on said threats, but believing in conspiracy theories and weird cults isn't a crime. I'm open to hearing evidence otherwise.
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  I never said the entire right-wing is terrorists. The militia groups and q-anon recruit right-wing Christians to extremist causes in the same way ISIS recruited right-wing Muslims to extremist causes. In both cases, they use propaganda and recruitment tactics to radicalize a segment of these groups. They even target the same demographic of disillusioned or aimless young to middle-aged men. The radicalized militias like oathkeepers, 3%ers, vanguard, proud boys, etc are serious threats.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > 99% of ISIS members would be tried and convicted of terrorism because of hard evidence showing intent to kill. 99% of right-wing people are not going to be convicted of terrorism ISIS being a foreign terrorist group, the U.S. can criminalise membership. Extremists being a domestic group, mere association can’t be criminalised [EDIT: is difficult to criminalise]. Only individual actions can be criminally pursued. Other than that legal distinction, the two groups (right-wing extremists, not all right wing Americans, and bona fide ISIS members, not everyone in ISIS-occupied territory) are comparable. They spread their misinformation similarly. And could be expected to be similarly curtailed by deplatforming.
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    > ISIS being a foreign terrorist group, the U.S. can criminalise membership. Extremists being a domestic group, mere association can’t be criminalised. Only individual actions can be criminally pursued. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse suggested RICO’ing the militia groups today. The members could be criminally liable even if individual actions can’t be proven (similar to how the mob was taken down.) https://mobile.twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1352382112742203392 https://mobile.twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/135238211274...

zimpenfish 6y ago

> Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse It's not really "fringe" groups that are the issue here; it's "extreme" groups - no-one is calling for the flat earthers to be deplatformed, for example. > Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust Probably but I'd guess only among the people who are already inclined that way already. > the population must always have their speech regulated If you put "some of" after "have", it's the situation we already have.

wolco5 6y ago
I believe deplatforming of flat earthers is already happening. Anyone who holds that position is not allowed on television and not allowed to run national tv ads and wouldn't be allowed to teach.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  Here's Mark Sargent (King of Flat Earth) on reasonably high profile UK TV show less than a year ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wClJlarfyhE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wClJlarfyhE

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

>While this may solve immediate problems (such as the planning of unlawful or otherwise socially harmful events), we should consider the long-term impacts of de-platforming. Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust, potentially increasing social conflict in the long-term? Political divide in the USA has greatly increased in the last couple months. The blame lay solely at the hands of left leaning entities. >Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse, or are we simply throwing up our hands and declaring that some percentage of the population must always have their speech regulated? (I suppose this question applies for both social groups and for individuals.) That's smoke and mirrors at best. The deplatforming being done in the name of banning 'conspiracy theories' and 'violent speech' is not at all a legitimate assertion. This has been a coordinated effort to deplatform political opponents. "censorship" or "freespeech" are not considerations or problems. The platforms(twitteR) can decide if they want those people on their platform. What it does mean is that eventually new platforms will exist that the left cant shutdown. The right-wing will move there and there will be even less political discourse and even more echo chamber issues. More importantly, this level of deplatforming is orchestrated, it not only confirms the election was stolen, it makes this election the worst election in us history.

gruez 6y ago
>The blame lay solely at the hands of left leaning entities. [...] This has been a coordinated effort to deplatform political opponents. How many entities did they end up deplatforming? The outgoing president, and a few right-wing forums? Meanwhile all the republican congressman and PACs are untouched. If they really want to shut down the opposition, they seem to be doing a pretty bad job.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  Or they are doing an amazing job.

grayfaced 6y ago

Too soon to say on this current round. But it's generally considered to have been an effective strategy in dealing with Isis and Al Qaeda. But that was a combined campaign to eliminate recruitment by de-platforming, and eliminate existing membership militarily. It's possible de-platforming these domestic groups will just further radicalize the existing members. But it should inhibit their growth.

sonotathrowaway 6y ago
There’s good data to show that deplatforming did wonders for Reddit in reducing the amount of hate speech and harassment that flowed across their platform. Similarly, deplatforming 8chan has done wonders in reducing the amount of mass murderers they inspire. I think a dispassionate analysis would dispel the idea that it’s not effective, and most such arguments are fueled more by emotion than objective facts.
- rhizome 6y ago
  Milo was wiped off the map of public consciousness, which is good evidence for the effectiveness of deplatforming in itself.
- Number157 6y ago
  Every time I open reddit there's harassment and hate speech right on the front page. It's just happening against people the reddit admins hate and "good hatred" doesn't count.

danans 6y ago

> Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust Anger and distrust are sparked, stoked and fueled far more by personalities in media and politics who actively promote them than by de-platforming. > Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse People organizing and advocating violence are not fringe groups. The paradox of tolerance applies here: You can't extend tolerance to those who advocate for intolerance without destroying tolerance in the process.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> The paradox of tolerance applies here: You can't extend tolerance to those who advocate for intolerance without destroying tolerance in the process. I don't understand how this is a paradox. You can't extend tolerance to people who commit arson and murder, or e.g. refuse to hire black people because they're black. You can let people say whatever they want, because then you can refute their arguments and refuse to implement their proposals.
- AshWolfy 6y ago
  Yeah well just refute the arguments for the people who think democrats, hollywood, and the (((globalists))) and kidnapping and killing children to drink their blood, thatll convince them
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Here's a pretty good start: https://www.thestreet.com/phildavis/news/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon https://www.thestreet.com/phildavis/news/a-game-designers-an... Show them the method of operation of the theory building so they can recognize it and stop participating in it.
    - AshWolfy 6y ago
      People dont like to think they are being tricked, and will actively reject truth if it contradicts what they already believe. Doing something like this can be great, but it takes time and effort, meanwhile acts of terrorism are being committed now. Most qanoners dont really believe it, and if separated from their echo chambers, will deradicalize themselves

rhizome 6y ago

This isn't censorship, and saying that it is censorship is a bad-faith tell or a sign of naivete. Furthermore, these people are already angry and distrustful, so how much of a movement's psychoses should the commercial world be forced to accomodate? Fringe groups have options they've always had: colo and common-carrier lines into their own server/racks/datacenter. Only thing missing is talent, which is nobody's problem but theirs.

harry8 6y ago
I must be naieve because I don't think I'm bad faith here. I don't know if it's the right thing to do or not, I haven't made up my mind and may not. Please elaborate why you think this is not censorship and the distinction. What do you think this is? These are not leading questions they're genuine because I don't understand your point the way you're assuming I do.
- djrogers 6y ago
  GP is under the (incorrect) impression that censorship is only possible if enacted by a government entity. That’s blatantly and provably false, but nevertheless comes up in many discussions of censorship.
  - 3np 6y ago
    Tone it down. It’s semantics, not logic.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Yeah, it's three different things. The First Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the government. Free speech is the principle that suppressing allegedly false information is more dangerous than not suppressing it because if the information is actually false you can refute it but if the information is actually true then it allows powerful actors to suppress atrocities and lie with impunity. Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of speech. Private censorship is not a violation of the First Amendment but it's still censorship.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wolco5 6y ago

I don't think it is wise because whoever is in power will change fringe groups who need to be censored. Today it's the far right, during wwii it was anyone from Japan tomorrow it could be blm or women with tails. The one thing we know is it will change. What's important is to being as open as possible and having open structures. All of these are education problems not free speech problems. Speech is a signal not something to be repressed

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

> Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse [...]? I'd say yes, but not by shifting the whole movement away from extremism, but by slowly siphoning individuals out of those groups until only a small minority of crazy extremists is left. The best counter to a massive disinformation campaign is information on the same massive scale. Sadly, it often seems easier to just silence lies instead of charging straight at it.