What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Alzrius]

This is absolutely not true, especially when we are talking about stuff like political extremism, racism, etc. As someone who watches is this stuff, "engagement" almost never works because it assumes honest engagement and often people with bad arguments don't actually engage with debate as much as use it as a platform to talk around the other side. Like, you can't "engage" with Alex Jones because he'll make the entire thing a farce, and all you are doing in the end is platforming their beliefs. Along with that, it's much harder to debunk in an engagement because it means you aren't able to make your own argument, but have to dissect theirs.

It might be uncomfortable, but often times deplatforming is a way, way more effective thing, in the same way moderators can ban trolls from a board. Alex Jones is, again, a good example of this, as someone who had massive reach and had it wrecked by getting deplatformed.

I disagree, deplatforming is almost always counterproductive, as it pushes away people who could have been convinced if they'd been engaged with. The problem is that "engagement" is too often taken to mean "confrontational," where people get in someone else's face and lash out at them, only to then turn around when the other person hardens their position and says "see? Talking to people doesn't work."

Talking to people does work. Maybe not every time, and quite often not immediately, but it has a better track record than the alternative, which invariably results in people doubling down on their positions and hardening their beliefs rather than questioning them. Of course, there are some individuals who won't change their ways, but those are the exceptions who prove the rule. Most people aren't Alex Jones, and punishing them for not believing as you do only pushes them into his camp, when what you want to do is exactly the opposite.

 

[Alzrius]

In normal discourse, that's true for the most part. But on the teh interwebz, it is a well-known trolling technique to take advantage of that good-faith urge to correct things. The troll's purpose, of course, is wasting others' time and cluttering up conversations.

It's much more efficient to just say "I don't waste my time arguing with idiots; here's a link to good information" or something. Puts the bad-faith troll in their place, and provides a more reliable source for serious readers.

Leaving aside the insulting aspect of it, I think that you could still call that debating since you are posting a link to more information. Likewise, doing it online typically means that you're debating in front of an audience, so even if the person you're talking to refuses to be convinced (or even to rationally engage), then you still have an opportunity to reach a lot of other people who you might not even realize are looking for answers.

 

[Alzrius]

That is not nearly the same and requires forming a relationship at a personal level. That's really closer to deprogramming than discussion.

It's a continuum, to be sure, but I think that it's the same in a lot of ways. At the very least, it's the natural progression of engagement, which is that it shouldn't be confrontational. You draw people out of odious systems of beliefs by befriending them and helping them to change, rather than beating them over the head with what a horrible person they are.

It's like the old saying goes: if you see a Nazi talking to four other people around a table, what you're looking at is four other people trying to de-Nazify the fifth.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I disagree, deplatforming is almost always counterproductive, as it pushes away people who could have been convinced if they'd been engaged with. The problem is that "engagement" is too often taken to mean "confrontational," where people get in someone else's face and lash out at them, only to then turn around when the other person hardens their position and says "see? Talking to people doesn't work."

No, it really doesn't. Like, the efficacy of deplatforming is pretty easily seen in a variety of data. Engaging with people in this regard often isn't, and this is easily seen in stuff like moderation: imagine a board where you could just say anything and you had to debate people on things like racial slurs and get them to stop using it that way. It wouldn't work for obvious reasons. We don't have discussions over that stuff because we know it's wrong and we don't have to platform that sort of bad behavior.

Talking to people does work. Maybe not every time, and quite often not immediately, but it has a better track record than the alternative, which invariably results in people doubling down on their positions and hardening their beliefs rather than questioning them. Of course, there are some individuals who won't change their ways, but those are the exceptions who prove the rule. Most people aren't Alex Jones, and punishing them for not believing as you do only pushes them into his camp, when what you want to do is exactly the opposite.

Again, this doesn't work as a discussion tactic. It doesn't even always work if you form a personal relationship. Allowing people this sort of platforming just doesn't work and only allows them to increase their reach, increase their prominence in the discussion, and validate and legitimize their positions by giving them a seat at the table. It would be the same as putting a Klan member on a roundtable discussion on racial justice: it doesn't happen because platforming their views would give them legitimacy, while debunking their views isn't worth the time it takes.

It's a continuum, to be sure, but I think that it's the same in a lot of ways. At the very least, it's the natural progression of engagement, which is that it shouldn't be confrontational. You draw people out of odious systems of beliefs by befriending them and helping them to change, rather than beating them over the head with what a horrible person they are.

It's like the old saying goes: if you see a Nazi talking to four other people around a table, what you're looking at is four other people trying to de-Nazify the fifth.

You're talking about "deprogramming", not "engagement". These are different things and can be treated different ways. We should show people empathy and try to pull them out of bad systems, but at the same time giving them a platform to do so and argue with people never works. Look at your own source: he didn't start out by debunking these people's arguments, but by engaging with them through other avenues and then built up to that. That's not discussion.

And I don't know that Nazi saying. I know the old story about the Nazi bar.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Long story short, I find the idea of just engaging with these ideas to be something close to this:

 

[Hussar]

All this free speech discussion rather misses @Sepulchrave II, very excellent points above where they pretty much won this thread and tucked it into bed with a gentle kiss on the forehead.

 

[Alzrius]

No, it really doesn't. Like, the efficacy of deplatforming is pretty easily seen in a variety of data. Engaging with people in this regard often isn't, and this is easily seen in stuff like moderation: imagine a board where you could just say anything and you had to debate people on things like racial slurs and get them to stop using it that way. It wouldn't work for obvious reasons. We don't have discussions over that stuff because we know it's wrong and we don't have to platform that sort of bad behavior.

That link misses the point, as it openly says that it's not concerned with the ethics involved with silencing people, which is what we're talking about. Even then, while limiting what people are allowed to say might slow misinformation, it doesn't work to limit or control access to ideas, which always find another vector to permeate through.

You say that "we" know "that stuff" is wrong, but this gives the impression that people just somehow come into that knowledge, and never question it. In fact, asking questions is a good thing, because even if we've already come to a conclusion, there's always going to be people who haven't. Whether it's young people who are naturally prone to doing what their authority figures don't want them to, disaffected people who are taking a second look at something they never considered before, or simply people who are tired of being told what the "right" answers are, you can't assume that any debate is ever truly settled.

There are always going to be people looking for answers, and then searching for the "why" behind those answers. You can't treat odious ideas like a disease, where you can simply quarantine them away from everyone else. All it does it give those ideas an air of mystique, and create an atmosphere that entices people who aren't satisfied with their current life. Far better to provide answers instead of insisting that there's no need to go looking.

Again, this doesn't work as a discussion tactic. It doesn't even always work if you form a personal relationship. Allowing people this sort of platforming just doesn't work and only allows them to increase their reach, increase their prominence in the discussion, and validate and legitimize their positions by giving them a seat at the table. It would be the same as putting a Klan member on a roundtable discussion on racial justice: it doesn't happen because platforming their views would give them legitimacy, while debunking their views isn't worth the time it takes.

On the contrary, it does work as a discussion tactic. It just doesn't get immediate results; changing hearts and minds isn't something you can fit on a bumper sticker (or a tweet for that matter). Being afraid that this increases the reach of people with odious ideas overlooks the fact that it also increases the reach of people with virtuous ideas, and likewise underestimates people's ability to understand and accept that virtue. If we take it to be true that the reasoning for tolerance, acceptance, diversity, etc. are stronger than the arguments against them, then there shouldn't be an issue with proclaiming those reasons far and wide, because we know they'll win out against ideas to the contrary (which has been the course of human history).

In other words, engagement has a proven track record of working. Deplatforming...not so much. You can take down individual people, sure, but it has a strong failure rate with suppressing the ideas they spout.

You're talking about "deprogramming", not "engagement". These are different things and can be treated different ways. We should show people empathy and try to pull them out of bad systems, but at the same time giving them a platform to do so and argue with people never works. Look at your own source: he didn't start out by debunking these people's arguments, but by engaging with them through other avenues and then built up to that. That's not discussion.

And I don't know that Nazi saying. I know the old story about the Nazi bar.

On the contrary, giving them a platform where you engage with them almost always works. It's just that it doesn't work immediately, and quite often works more with regard to the people watching than the one(s) you're debating. The difference between "deprogramming" and "engagement" that you're purporting in that regard has no real substance to it, as both involve putting them in contact with a wider group of people and letting them see that the ideas they've latched onto don't work. The podcast I linked to makes it clear that Daryl Davis did engage in discussion, rather than deprogramming; he openly says that, since he was talking to people in bars, in their cars, etc. Deplatforming simply pushes them back into their enclaves, isolating them further and allowing odious beliefs to be reinforced.

Bad ideas aren't diseases which can be pushes to the fringes where they'll fade away. They need to be showcased as to why they're bad, and what "bad" means. As Abraham Lincoln said, you destroy your enemies when you make them your friends.

 

[Alzrius]

I personally would not hang out with Nazi's. But you do you, with your Kitten image. Maybe that is why you got blocked on some threads.

Actually, that turned out to be a board issue, and I'm back in those threads now, presuming that this was what you were referring to.

But I will indeed keep trying to de-Nazify people who have odious beliefs, since that's how I contribute to a more tolerant and diverse society.

 

[Erik Alt]

Right, I'm just going to say it: whatever happens in an RPG is in no way comparable to the nazis, kkk, communists, calvinists or anything like that. Being upset about slavery in a GAME is just looking to be offended. Please stop being so offended about fiction you yourself can ignore.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That link misses the point, as it openly says that it's not concerned with the ethics involved with silencing people, which is what we're talking about. Even then, while limiting what people are allowed to say might slow misinformation, it doesn't work to limit or control access to ideas, which always find another vector to permeate through.

No, you're trying to ignore that deplatforming works, and the information goes directly against the idea that they will "always find another vector". You talk about the ethics of deplatforming, but there's plenty of ethical conundrums about platforming bad actors. I prefer to keep my platform relatively safe and welcoming, which would mean more moderation so that the most vulnerable feel welcome. You may differ and that's your choice. But the ethical questions cut both ways, and I feel pretty comfortable about where I stand on it.

You say that "we" know "that stuff" is wrong, but this gives the impression that people just somehow come into that knowledge, and never question it. In fact, asking questions is a good thing, because even if we've already come to a conclusion, there's always going to be people who haven't. Whether it's young people who are naturally prone to doing what their authority figures don't want them to, disaffected people who are taking a second look at something they never considered before, or simply people who are tired of being told what the "right" answers are, you can't assume that any debate is ever truly settled.

What do you think we're talking about? Because I'm talking about bigotry and such. When you're talking about engaging Nazis, I don't see a reason to platform their ideas and views. It's counterproductive and giving them big outlets to espouse those views is generally way more harmful because you give them a bullhorn to do so. Again, imagine if every time we had to talk about racial justice we had to debate a Nazi on-air. That's not constructive, that's actively destructive to the discussion because we are ceding easily-drawn boundaries as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

There are always going to be people looking for answers, and then searching for the "why" behind those answers. You can't treat odious ideas like a disease, where you can simply quarantine them away from everyone else. All it does it give those ideas an air of mystique, and create an atmosphere that entices people who aren't satisfied with their current life. Far better to provide answers instead of insisting that there's no need to go looking.

I mean, you can. We don't need to have a debate why slurs are unacceptable every time someone decides to use them, just as we don't need to engage them in a good faith discussion to convince them they are wrong. In fact, we know this doesn't work, which is why we have something called the backfire effect.

On the contrary, it does work as a discussion tactic. It just doesn't get immediate results; changing hearts and minds isn't something you can fit on a bumper sticker (or a tweet for that matter). Being afraid that this increases the reach of people with odious ideas overlooks the fact that it also increases the reach of people with virtuous ideas, and likewise underestimates people's ability to understand and accept that virtue. If we take it to be true that the reasoning for tolerance, acceptance, diversity, etc. are stronger than the arguments against them, then there shouldn't be an issue with proclaiming those reasons far and wide, because we know they'll win out against ideas to the contrary (which has been the course of human history).

Again, this is not a "discussion" tactic. It's a "deprogramming" tactic. These are very different and require very different approaches. The latter is not a workable approach to content and platform moderation, and really needs to come from outside those discussions first.

Also it doesn't increase the reach of odious people, as we have dozens of cases against this: removing people from platforms decreases their reach almost every time. It's only when you replatform them that they can regain their reach. Alex Jones and the other examples in the post I link go directly against what you say and you can't provide any evidence to counter.

In other words, engagement has a proven track record of working. Deplatforming...not so much. You can take down individual people, sure, but it has a strong failure rate with suppressing the ideas they spout.

I mean, that's not what "engagement" is. Again, deprogramming is very different than "engagement" and "discussion". Deplatforming works, and I've provided data that shows that it cuts down on toxicity. I can continue to show data in this regard, but at this point I think you're not really engaging with the premise.

On the contrary, giving them a platform where you engage with them almost always works. It's just that it doesn't work immediately, and quite often works more with regard to the people watching than the one(s) you're debating. The difference between "deprogramming" and "engagement" that you're purporting in that regard has no real substance to it, as both involve putting them in contact with a wider group of people and letting them see that the ideas they've latched onto don't work. The podcast I linked to makes it clear that Daryl Davis did engage in discussion, rather than deprogramming; he openly says that, since he was talking to people in bars, in their cars, etc. Deplatforming simply pushes them back into their enclaves, isolating them further and allowing odious beliefs to be reinforced.

It does. It really, really does. Like right now we are in a discussion, and I'm engaging you. I'm not trying to deprogram you. That is what you think engagement is, but it is not: deprogramming something is not just talking on a subject, but a long process of pulling someone away from the edge. Your view of how people change their minds does not really reflect what we know about how people react to their beliefs being changed, and it even ignores the article you posted yourself, where the person did not debate them on topics immediately but found inroads to form a relationship to bring down their belief system. That is not something that you do discussing a topic on a messageboard; in fact, the lack of personal investment makes it almost completely alien in that regard.

Bad ideas aren't diseases which can be pushes to the fringes where they'll fade away. They need to be showcased as to why they're bad, and what "bad" means. As Abraham Lincoln said, you destroy your enemies when you make them your friends.

Sure, but Lincoln didn't win the war with just words, and similarly Lincoln did not compromise on the 13th Amendment. Hell, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in some areas. The ideal and the reality are very different things.

And we also don't need to brook bad ideas in our discussions. We don't need to debate Nazis, racists, xenophobes, climate denialists, etc, every time they show their faces. It would grind every discussion we have to a halt. Having a common, established ground for discourse allows us to have fruitful discussions instead of endlessly litigating meaningless tangents.

Right, I'm just going to say it: whatever happens in an RPG is in no way comparable to the nazis, kkk, communists, calvinists or anything like that. Being upset about slavery in a GAME is just looking to be offended. Please stop being so offended about fiction you yourself can ignore.

I dunno, I think people who are offended that people are offended about something tend to be the people looking to get angry at something.

It's fine to get angry that something is in a game, especially when it's a touchy real-world subject. No one would bat an eye if people didn't like sexual assault in an RPG. That things transfer to stuff that carry culture weight for people (particularly minorities) shouldn't really be surprising.