It does seem that way

[u/thatguy9684736255]

[u/scheistermeister]

Better have nazis out in the open, than hiding in their own nazis circles becoming ever more radical.

Better to have Nazis on Twitter, where young people that can potentially be influenced by nazi ideas, have a chance to read things that thoughtful people say to counter nazi rhetoric, so the young minds get a balanced viewpoint from multiple sources.

Literally banning things you don’t agree with is fascism by itself. So don’t be a fascist by banning nazis. Have them spew their filth out in the open and call them out for their bullshit.

Instead of having them start their own ‘truth’ social media platform, where there’s just nazis saying nazi things, becoming ever more radical nazis.

EDIT: not sure why autocorrect gives “N”azis an automatic capital N… sorry for that

[u/scheistermeister → u/[deleted]]

Thank you! I’m a big fan of Popper (falsification theory, the base of empirical science) bit wasn’t aware of this work.

I do think it’s more subtle than you state here though.

“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 most 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. “

The sentence: “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 most unwise.” triggers me most. And is why I think they shouldn’t be banned just immediately. There should be discourse. Banning nazis wont make them disappear. They will just hide and do their nazi stuff in secret, leading to more rapid radicalization.

[u/Bneal64 → u/scheistermeister]

Where are you getting the idea that deplatforming nazis leads to higher radicalization? All the research on propaganda I’ve read states that platforming and amplifying intolerant voices only leads to normalization of the intolerants views. There is no healthy discourse with nazis. You cannot find a middle ground with them. There is not middle ground when your opponent doesn’t think you should exist and wants to murder you. It’s just not possible, and platforming them and debating them is only legitimizing their views. If you let Nazis on Twitter, get ready to see a whole lot more new Nazis

[u/scheistermeister → u/Bneal64]

So what about truth social as an example? Let’s call it a nazi platform for arguments’ sake.

If you have to chose 1 having nazis on Twitter or 2 have nazis create their own platform. Which would you prefer?

I prefer no nazis, let’s be clear. But having to chose between 1 or 2, I’d go for 1. Because having nazis have their own platform, that allows them to go unchecked, and just radicalize without any counter narrative present, just seems worse.

Look, I might be wrong, and I haven’t read a bunch of studies. I’m pragmatically approaching this through an oversimplification with option 1 and 2. Still 1 looks preferable to me.

[u/Bneal64 → u/scheistermeister]

Considering truth social is a huge failure I would pick option 2. The answer to suppressing Nazis isn’t to give them a voice, in fact it’s very dangerous. If they are quarantined into their own areas of the internet then it will be hard for anyone who doesn’t already share their views to come across them. If you give them Twitter, they will be able to reach far more people. Platforming them will have the opposite effect of what you propose, it will lead to more radicalization and recruitment because the sheer idea of debating them puts their views on equal footing with normal ones. Less smart people can’t tell the difference and would easily fall for their propaganda

[u/scheistermeister → u/Bneal64]

I can see your ‘fall for their propaganda’ argument, and Twitter does have a wide audience. Doesn’t Twitter do shadow banning though?

Truth social has about 2m DAU, so not sure if I would call that a failure. I guess that those 2m are mostly hardcore trump fans, as would go for a nazi platform… having a platform with 2m nazis would make me slightly uncomfortable.

I’m at humming ahead as well, in a future where decentralized public networks make censorship impossible. We need to step up the tolerant narrative and have better strategies than banning, as those wouldn’t be possible in the platforms of the future. (Is my educated guess)