So deplatforming works, unless people become so unhinged at the efforts to shape them that they do crazy stuff like buy major media platforms? Guess what, they do!
But at least the Covid dissenter deplatforming worked, right? Or was the problem Musk there again?
One of my mantras is that powerful people believe all the crazy things regular people believe in, they just act differently on them. I think both Musk and Kennedy are great examples that you'd appreciate, as are Xi and Putin with their open mic life extension fantasies.
It's not long ago that Musk and even Trump himself, was aligned with your competent technocrats wielding the "suppression of irresponsible speech" powers.
I'm saying that Trump's re-election is not a compelling counter-example to the general argument for banning disinformation, because he was "re-"platformed for over a year by the time of the election.
You underestimate how much seeing a sitting president be deplatformed affected the voting public. It wasn’t just Musk, all this talk of “deplatforming” people on the right was an obviously clear erosion of free speech that pushed many moderates like myself rightward.
It wasn’t just banning Trump either, tbh one of the biggest ones was the banning of the Babylon Bee for a pretty tame joke. There’s a long list of other right-leaning accounts which were banned during that time as well.
I mean, who knows how well Trump would have done had he not been re-admitted to Twitter. It's a counter-factual. For what it's worth, I'm not advocating de-platforming right-wing voices. I just think there's an argument to be made that social media platforms have a responsibility to mitigate misinformation and incitements to violence. It should be done in a transparent and impartial manner. There are high-profile right-wing accounts that spread a lot of misinformation trying to whip up a frenzy. In the UK, Musk's un-banning brought accounts like Katie Hopkins, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson back online, a consequence of which was a series of violent riots last summer fuelled by false claims and Islamophobia. I hear people arguing that as long as anyone can share their ideas, then the truth will bubble to the top. Well, that's not how it's playing out.
Having private companies try and label things themselves which are misinformation or incitements to violence is a slippery slope which has never worked well in practice. As soon as you have a person in a company who's job it is to decide whether something is misinformation or not they immediately will apply their own personal biases.
The approach of allowing everything that is _legal_ to say is much better. If it is allowed by a court of law then companies should not be trying to apply their own additional filters. It can be downranked in the algorithm but at least allowing legal speech is important.
Even just looking at your statement, lumping Andrew Tate in with Tommy Robinson is a completely subjective thing, they are two wildly different people. Everything Tommy Robinson has said is true, he regularly states that he doesn’t care about race, he rejects white supremacists, and has a movement filled with peaceful normal Brits. Nothing he says or does is violent or illegal, his claims about Pakistani rape gangs are supported by evidence and first hand testimony. And more generally: not wanting to become a hated minority in your own country is not an extremist position. It doesn’t mean you hate others for their skin color or whatever type of “phobic” label you care to apply. People vote repeatedly for a government to stop the boats and every government that gets elected decides not to try for some mysterious reason, people are justifiably angry that their elected officials are doing the opposite of what they voted for.
Andrew Tate is yes of course a controversial dumb guy who does say things which are pretty out there, but the principle of allowing him to say everything which is legal in a court of law is important. Most normal people recognize that he’s outside the Overton window on many topics and it’s generally easy to counter his speech with better speech. But lumping crazies like Tate in with legitimate people like Robinson is a common tactic to delegitimize the people you disagree with.
Yes the guy who was sent to jail for saying words that the government didn’t like. He was further persecuted for making a film about it as well. Put in solitary confinement for nothing other than _saying words_.
He is completely correct about Pakistani rape gangs, the growth of Sharia courts and laws in the UK, and growing violence against the native British.
Side note: the UK government fines and jails more people for speech than most authoritarian dictatorships, including Russia.
Robinson was explicitly jailed for making libellous accusations. He invented claims that the refugee had bullied other kids, supplemented by unrelated photos that he stole. He admitted it was all fake, but then repeated the claims in a film. This is all clearly documented.
A 15 year old refugee boy had been assaulted, had water forced into his mouth, had had his arm broken, his sister had been assaulted. He's now terrified of going back to the school because of the hate that Robinson has filled other kids' heads with. Robinson's behaviour was utterly shameful, and it's shameful that you defend him in this instance.
> the UK government fines and jails more people for speech than most authoritarian dictatorships
“Making libelous accusations” = “saying words you don’t agree with”
“A photo he stole” - didn’t he just repost something he found on TikTok? How is that stealing?
Again all these things you say he did amount to him saying things you don’t like. He didn’t commit any violence or hurt anyone, just said words. You are trying to justify locking people up for saying things and that is what real authoritarian government looks like.
>Approximately 12,000 people are arrested annually in the UK for offensive online messages
>In 2023, specifically 12,183 people were arrested for sending or posting offensive messages on social media [3]
>Police are making around 30 arrests per day for offensive online messages [1]
>The trend shows significant increases: arrests have risen by 121% since 2017 [1] and by almost 58% since before the pandemic
Not a compelling argument...
Jan 2021 - Twitter bans Trump (for clear policy violations)
Apr 2022 - Musk buys Twitter
Aug 2023 - Twitter reinstates Trump's account
Nov 2024 - Trump re-elected, gives Musk cabinet position