[jmcdl]

Anyone who thinks this is a good thing is a very poor student of history.

[bmiller2]

History doesn’t have any precedent for this. Algorithmically defined echo chambers are a new frontier for society to tackle. We’ve tried the option of waving our hands and hoping for the best, and what we got was a literal riot at the holiest of holies. Maybe it’s time for society to reject extremists on the internet, like we reject them in our local communities.

[admiralspoo]

The fact the echo chambers are algorithmically determined or not is quite irrelevant -- the end result is the same -- cults. The historic precedent for minimizing bad influences of cults is decentralization and distribution so as to prevent systemic failure cascades in case where cultish behavior is endemic. This is federalism and anti-monopoly policies (for either government and private enterprise).

The solution, therefore, is that these centralized echo chambers need to be broken up into smaller pieces.

[Mountain_Skies]

They assume they will control the monster they're creating forever, believing it could never be subverted by their ideological enemies or even end up creating an ideology of its own that oppresses every other ideology. They're playing with fire that has to potential to hurt far more than themselves or their perceived enemies.

[amanaplanacanal]

By "they" do you mean the companies that own those platforms? Or somebody else? Do you mean that someone else could take their platforms away from them?

[xg15]

Twitter is a private company. It's their decision who they do business with, or is it not?

[x86_64Ubuntu]

I assure you that in the US, the threat posed during a resurgent white supremacy similar to Wilmington 1898 is NOT someone being banned from a social media platform

[Fezzik]

Can you elaborate? I don’t view Trump as being that far in likeness from David Duke, other than that Trump masks his hateful rhetoric every-so-slightly. Are you also all for having Davie Duke back on Twitter? And what in history enforces the idea that banning Trump is bad? I can’t think of a single incident that would indicate it will be anything but a boon for society.

This reminds me of when a teacher finally blows-up at the idiot student that has been incessantly disrupting class and has him suspended and all the non-crazies can get back to being productively educated. This is a good thing.

Edit, to add: not every shushing is the same. The context and circumstances can drastically change the nature of the shush.

[rasz]

Remember that time Hitler was deplatformed and nobody published Mein Kampf?

[zepto]

The biggest problem is that it will likely lead to a bunch of less visible alternatives arising.

Trump himself has claimed he’s going to start one.

[Mountain_Skies]

That and the temptation to ban more and more for an ever widening definition of wrong thought will be impossible to resist. Every time some entity gains this type of control, the use of it always ends up expanding until it reaches a breaking point. After that, things get really messy for everyone involved.

[_jfoi]

So you want this idiot to continue to have a platform to incite violence? You may be a student of history but your understanding of it is poor and honestly you sound like someone who supports this traitor.