Hacker News Reader

Comment by blakesterz | Hacker News Reader

I think this one from Vice arrives at an opposite conclusion. I think they're covering at least similar things?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-...

This is from 2018 & talks about Alex Jones.

“We’ve been running a research project over last year, and when someone relatively famous gets no platformed by Facebook or Twitter or YouTube, there's an initial flashpoint, where some of their audience will move with them” Joan Donovan, Data and Society’s platform accountability research lead, told me on the phone, “but generally the falloff is pretty significant and they don’t gain the same amplification power they had prior to the moment they were taken off these bigger platforms.”

View on HN

But what we are seeing here is deplatforming of organizations and people that represent the leadership of a much more mainstream movement that includes a huge fraction of the U.S. - half the country voted for trump! So this is one of those things where a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind. I don't think this is going to end well.

[edit] - as an nuclear engineer - that study you cited reminds me of perturbation theory. You make a small tweak to the system and develop a model to fit how such small changes affect the larger system. But perturbation theory conclusions don't scale accurately up to "large" perturbations. If you pull the control rods a tiny bit in a subcritical reactor - you get higher neutron-multiplication factor for your existing/present neutron sources. So you might think that if you pull the rods 10 times as far, you get 10 times the multiplication - but you'd be wrong. If you pull them 10 times as far you go super critical and then you get like 1,000,000,000 times as much multiplication.

I don't think everyone who voted for trump is aligned with the most seditious followers....at the end of the day there are really only two parties to vote for and a lot of different issues lumped into those two parties...single issue voters (e.g.,those against abortion) are going to vote for the Republicans. It also wasn't half the country, it was less than half of everyone who voted which was ~25% of the country. While it's still a substantial number of people I think saying that its half the country and that they all support the most heinous party leaders is disingenuous.

I do wonder if we're going to end up with a fractured Republican Party after this, or even a new third party with a base made up of all those most seditious followers. From what I can see happening, it seems pretty likely. I'm not sure what the consequences might be for all of us if that happens.

Personally,I would like to see this happen in both parties. A seperate party for tea party fatalists and a seperate party for leftist-progressives. I think such a change would be helpful for better parsing out where each proportion of the populations values lie outside of the RNC/DNC framework.

Democrats are too diverse to agree internally, and Republicans seem to be co-opted by disruptive movements. More parties could change the discussions toward policy and projects.

If the "most seditious followers" leave to form a third party, then the Republican Party can become a normal, center-right party. That's not a bad outcome.

Duverger's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) provides insight as to why this is unlikely to happen.

Yeah, but when someone's "preferred" side (even if they didn't really like them) is being steam-rolled like this many of those people are not going to be okay with it - not the least of which is because of the authoritarian/dystopian precedent being set. This could be a path to a 1-party system. China and Russia are good examples of how well 1 party systems turn out. I think anybody who doesn't want a 1 party system should be concerned about all this.

The general party isn't being steam rolled though? The GOP held more seats than expected in the house and senate.the general party still has robust representation. They are just deplatforming the most extreme members who seem to be the most predisposed to violence.

California is a one-party system and has been for 20 years. I don't really like that model, but it seems to have worked at least in the medium term.

Things might be different at national level, though. States have to deal with more nuts-and-bolts practical issues, so that grounds the politicians somewhat. National issues tend to be more idealistic, so one-party rule could become extreme.

California is not a one party system. It has republican representatives both in the state and national legislatures. It has had one-party rule for a long time, and whether it has “worked” is far from clear. On the contrary, the beleaguered opposition has meant that the government is increasingly running with things that have mostly symbolic or political value rather than work together to solve urgent problems such as the deplorable housing situation and fragmented public transit.

No, it's not a one-party system, at least not in the case of Russia. It's just that anyone from the "wrong" parties can't use any mass media to get their message out.

If the tech companies want to short-circuit the right's ability to organize from now until the 21st, that's kind of reasonable, given recent events. Past that, though? They need to be very careful about continuing this. If they do, they need rationales and policies that are clearly stated, and clearly seen to be applied in an unbiased manner.

This also fits with the argument that they're not being de-platformed due to political beliefs, but because of violations of the law and the terms of service.

I know several conservatives who voted for Trump not because they love the guy, but because in the two-party system he's more closely aligned with their personal views on things like immigration, taxes, military, etc. I'd also argue that for the average American, the Trump of 2016 wasn't exactly an extremist hoping to overthrow the government.

The American political climate has polarized both sides. It's really unfortunate that in some circles, someone can't say or express conservative views without being lumped into the radical right-wing Trump Patriots. Similarly, some can't express liberal views without being lumped with radical left-wingers. And as a result of this, de-platforming the right-wing extremist is commented on as "silencing half the country" which just isn't true.

If your country does become a one party system; join that party and change it from the inside.

You're talking about a very complex phenomenon. I don't think predicting what will happen is an easy thing in this situation. Also, Alex Jones is a special case, because he was overwhelmingly and universally de-platformed. This stuff might work differently when the de-platforming is also ideologically bifurcated (i.e. they are not universally de-platformed).

Also, you have to ask yourself:

While pushing a community underground might decrease their reach significantly, does it radicalize them, and increase the overall potential violence for society?

Did any of the companies loose a lot of stock value after de-platforming Alex Jones?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com