Hacker News Reader

Comment by pixl97 | Hacker News Reader

Have you been discussing this online with people that fervently believe the election was fraudulent? It is eerily similar to talking with someone in a cult. Any 'evidence' you present to them will be taken and 'debunked' by their fellow cult members.

There is already no counter balance.

Breaking up their platforms into smaller pieces is actually helpful and will keep them from readily finding new members on the internet.

View on HN

I think this is something that largely gets ignored in all of these discussions about deplatforming, free speech, etc. There is a baked in assumption that all people are rational and will respond to well-reasoned arguments and evidence and will eventually arrive at a reasonable and evidence-based conclusion if you just bear with them and try harder. But my experience so far has not shown this to be the case.

I’ve tried to have a calm and reasonable discourse with people who believe in things like QAnon, anti-vaccination theories, the “deep state”, GMO conspiracies, among others, and I’m a single voice among however many hundreds or thousands of others they are listening to. No amount of evidence or rational argument will sway these people because they are swimming in a sea of voices reinforcing their views.

I’m not sure if deplatforming is the right solution here but I also don’t know what the alternatives are. Should we let them keep espousing and spreading patently false information that is actually causing harm to society to a large audience and hope that people just ignore it? That doesn’t seem like a good solution, either.

To be honest, rational argument and evidence doesn't exactly sway people of the opposite belief because they, too, are swimming in a sea of like voices.

Every time big tech bans or suspends a user, another supporter of Trump is born.

I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree that both "sides" are susceptible to group think and a mob mentality. I consider myself fairly moderate which is why I include examples of extreme views from the left (anti-vaccination theories, GMO conspiracies, 9/11 “truthers”) in my analysis, as well. I’m not a fan of misinformation no matter what the source is and do my best to try to “lead” people away from it.

That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?:

- Group A claims X.

- Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X.

- Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated.

- Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true.

- Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X.

- Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence.

What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion?

And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)?

I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?

Agreement, and conclusion should be reached by applying procedures to which sides* agree: be it a coin tossing, asking oracle, or voting. Opposing side won't magically disappear when your side achieves power over media. What will likely happen instead they will get more reasonable motivation to wrestle this power from your hands with any means possible.

*Btw, usually there are more then two sides: it's just stale majoritarian system which leaves people just two unsatisfactory choices in US.

> to which sides* agree:

But that assumes both sides are operating in good faith - it's pretty clear in the example that A are not (as are some sides in the real world.)

The example tells about inability to reach conclusion in debates, but explicitly assumes good faith, you probably skipped the final part. And in real life as well, not a lot of people would be inclined to choose civil war instead of political/cultural one.

> Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated.

Recall my post that evidence cannot sway "person N".

Every time we accept violent behavior, that behavior grows.

Violent thinking exists whether or not we "accept it". By putting all the violent thinking people on their own isolated platform, we are facilitating the escalation of their thinking into coordinating actions.

The best school to become a thief is jail. Concentrating violent thinking people together will agitate the self-radicalization that occurs. How do you avoid this?

> The best school to become a thief is jail.

I think that's a US thing. Other countries seem to be genuinely more rehabilitative. Looks like 55% of the state prison population is there for violent offenses: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

Handling non-violent offenders away from the violent ones might be a good start.

I completely agree with this. You will find a ton of stories about nonviolent people who had to become/join violent groups in prison just to stay alive and not be abused incessantly.

You can't you just have to let it happen until they implode and you can throw them in prison but at least you've limited their recruitment.

Agreed, now do antifa and BLM

Giving how gullible the general public is, I think this will be a great way to stop the flow of garbage into their gullible minds. Sure the zealots and mentally unstable will find other means to communicate with each other but deplatforming Trump right now is critical to preventing another Capitol building repeat. He needs to be stalled until he has to show up in NY state for tax/real estate fraud charges. Then he will be more focused on that rather than trying to stir up more mayhem.

You are assuming that they will not ultimately form censorship resistant platforms that that will be far more dangerous than having their conversations visible to the majority.

Not only is that game of whack-a-mole unsustainable, it will lead to the creation of un-silencible platforms. ...and if they are scalable they might become the new standard.

It will be pretty sad if social media platforms are ultimately displaced by the platforms created due to their censorship.

And it's a fair assumption. If they do, those platform won't have state-like power and leverage like Facebook or Twitter, and will be way easier to patrol. The real solution would be to break down facebook and regulate gigantic internet leviathans to avoid that they become more powerful than nation states. While we work on it, this might be the best solution we have to stop easy radicalization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com