You pose the question "tell me how this is a winning strategy?" as a challenge. So, here is my attempt.
Just to clarify, I have a lot of sympathy for the position that you, Greenwald, Frank, and others are arguing. I love the spirit of it, even. I have both conservative and progressive friends and I just want everyone to feel content that they have been treated fairly, whoever takes home the elections.
Whether or not a strategy is winning, depends on what metric is used to evaluate it. I don't think the metric being used by the shutdown-ers is "Democrats' ability to win elections". The problem that my leftie friends talk about (all the time) is the growth of the various strands of the alt-right. They are estimating/predicting that unless extraordinary tactics are used to hinder the ability of these movements to 1) coordinate their activities, and 2) persuade newcomers to join them, then these movements will grow to a significant extent. Shutting down Parler would be an example of 1), since this makes it difficult for the members to communicate among themselves. Banning alt-right leaders leaders from social media would be 2).
They also predict that if those movements grow too much, they will start being a constant problem that causes significant harm to society (I suppose the Capitol Riot would be one example - Donald Trump's many weird attempts to influence the election appear to be another).
If we think of the strategy as an attempt to "take one for the team" and take a hit in the polls in order to suppress a future (or contemporary?) problem, then it's a little bit easier to argue.
First, can banning extremist users make it more difficult for them to coordinate? I'd say it's reasonable to believe so, although with modern technology it's probably impossible to completely stop it. They can pay each other with bitcoins, or use any of the hundreds of strongly encrypted messengers/social media apps. But banning them on mainstream services still inconveniences them since it can make it more difficult for them to reach out to new people, and if any of them are less than decently tech-savvy it's goodbye for them.
Second, will it stop recruitment? It's difficult to say, but arguably yes since on the mainstream platforms they can benefit from exposure through the content recommendation algorithms used by Youtube et. al. An obvious counter-point would be to just adjust the algorithm to artificially punish them instead. This can even be done in secret, so avoids the negative PR of holding a censorship campaign, or a hypothetical Streisand effect.
This could be done more carefully and in more depth, but I'll stop here. I'll add that I agree that these politicians seem to be weirdly unaware of how bad it looks, and strangely unaware of how much of a trade-off the strategy really is: we are sacrificing our liberalism in order to (maybe) slow the growth of an illiberal, dangerous movement. This is not supposed to feel like a no-brainer; it's actually a dilemma!
I can see where you're coming from, but I think the problem is that these methods could simply continue driving these groups into more and more extremist bubbles that are less visible to anyone not in the bubble, but perfectly effective in terms of coordination and spreading of hateful messages, lies and propaganda. In Germany, despite all that anti-Nazi censorship, the far right has a troubling presence.
That's an interesting point about less visible content moderation, using algorithms and so forth. I can't really say I like the idea since it could be (and likely is being) used in more pernicious ways, but it certainly makes better strategic sense. As you say in the last paragraph, the whole thing is a terrible dilemma.
Sure, I didn't think of that counter-argument. Being a part of a smaller bubble could even energize the groups in the short term; persecution breeds solidarity, and so on. I was kind of arguing something that I don't even fully believe myself, but my lefty friends have insisted that the effect of recruitment through social media has been instrumental. I tried looking for quotes from far-right personalities to see whether they themselves believe that it's important, but no luck...
And it's at least well-known that Google searches punish some kinds of content, although I believe said content is mostly websites dedicated to piracy (Google have had to suffer many lawsuits just because movie downloads could be found through their search engine). If Google ever decided to manipulate elections, it would be terrifying!
Erik. I love your work. But have a fundamental disagreement with the way you are coming at this issue. I think you’d agree that every other statement from just about any right wing pol or media member is a lie. Perhaps you’d also agree that fascism is on the march in the USA. Fox News and right wing radio are enormously popular here so the idea that conservatives have no outlet just isn’t true. So here’s where you and I disagree. I think your conclusion is basically - fascist propaganda isn’t nearly the problem that the way the liberals are trying to deal with it is.
Deplatforming trump has worked out pretty damn well.
I didn't say conservatives didn't have an outlet. They very much do. Conservative media is big business. I think that trying to deplatform / cancel / litigate everything to death is a mistake. I think Trump is an exception as he was a political leader whose tweets were basically calls for violence. Calling for violent uprising is crossing the line. But then he also had enormous power and influence compared to almost anybody else.
When fascism is just code word for "things I don't like" and a fascist is "person I disagree with", then yeah, fascism is certainly on the rise.
Also, it's pretty bold to say "every other statement from just about any right wing pol or media member is a lie". I'd love to see your Youtube channel where you easily debunk things said by, say, Tucker Carlson.
Like Erik said, it used to be that dumb right view points where displayed and laughed at. D&D satanic panic. WWF being too "risqué". The left would point at it and say, "that's dumb. Here's why". Now it's just dumb infighting inspired by white suburbanites who have never had a struggle and could easily feature one of those "here's how I bought a house as a millenial: I stopped buying avocado toast and got a 100k inheritance" pieces, instead of the 99% vs. 1% (that control every company and outlet pushing the "you're oppressed, the other race/gender is evil" narratives) struggle that should be happening. And you keep alienating people that, by all rights, are on your same side. Or try to convince the historically right wing rural white population that they're evil by birth and oppressing others, as they lay in their rickety beds losing everything they have, instead of showing them that, yeah, republicans don't actually have their best interests at heart and just use their religion as a tool for personal gain.
Enjoy giving tech companies more power, so they'll get rid of you too when you're no longer useful or profitable.
Very well said, Gary. I think Pepe misunderstood my take, honestly. I think that the woke movement's focus on identity politics is pretty much exactly how the right has operated, using identity politics instead of actual policy or action to create what I believe is a pretty awful movement. I despair at the left doing the same thing, ignoring actual issues in favor of really pointless identity-based causes, cancelling etc. that is of little real-world value but is easy to carry out on Twitter and whatnot.
You pose the question "tell me how this is a winning strategy?" as a challenge. So, here is my attempt.
Just to clarify, I have a lot of sympathy for the position that you, Greenwald, Frank, and others are arguing. I love the spirit of it, even. I have both conservative and progressive friends and I just want everyone to feel content that they have been treated fairly, whoever takes home the elections.
Whether or not a strategy is winning, depends on what metric is used to evaluate it. I don't think the metric being used by the shutdown-ers is "Democrats' ability to win elections". The problem that my leftie friends talk about (all the time) is the growth of the various strands of the alt-right. They are estimating/predicting that unless extraordinary tactics are used to hinder the ability of these movements to 1) coordinate their activities, and 2) persuade newcomers to join them, then these movements will grow to a significant extent. Shutting down Parler would be an example of 1), since this makes it difficult for the members to communicate among themselves. Banning alt-right leaders leaders from social media would be 2).
They also predict that if those movements grow too much, they will start being a constant problem that causes significant harm to society (I suppose the Capitol Riot would be one example - Donald Trump's many weird attempts to influence the election appear to be another).
If we think of the strategy as an attempt to "take one for the team" and take a hit in the polls in order to suppress a future (or contemporary?) problem, then it's a little bit easier to argue.
First, can banning extremist users make it more difficult for them to coordinate? I'd say it's reasonable to believe so, although with modern technology it's probably impossible to completely stop it. They can pay each other with bitcoins, or use any of the hundreds of strongly encrypted messengers/social media apps. But banning them on mainstream services still inconveniences them since it can make it more difficult for them to reach out to new people, and if any of them are less than decently tech-savvy it's goodbye for them.
Second, will it stop recruitment? It's difficult to say, but arguably yes since on the mainstream platforms they can benefit from exposure through the content recommendation algorithms used by Youtube et. al. An obvious counter-point would be to just adjust the algorithm to artificially punish them instead. This can even be done in secret, so avoids the negative PR of holding a censorship campaign, or a hypothetical Streisand effect.
This could be done more carefully and in more depth, but I'll stop here. I'll add that I agree that these politicians seem to be weirdly unaware of how bad it looks, and strangely unaware of how much of a trade-off the strategy really is: we are sacrificing our liberalism in order to (maybe) slow the growth of an illiberal, dangerous movement. This is not supposed to feel like a no-brainer; it's actually a dilemma!
I can see where you're coming from, but I think the problem is that these methods could simply continue driving these groups into more and more extremist bubbles that are less visible to anyone not in the bubble, but perfectly effective in terms of coordination and spreading of hateful messages, lies and propaganda. In Germany, despite all that anti-Nazi censorship, the far right has a troubling presence.
That's an interesting point about less visible content moderation, using algorithms and so forth. I can't really say I like the idea since it could be (and likely is being) used in more pernicious ways, but it certainly makes better strategic sense. As you say in the last paragraph, the whole thing is a terrible dilemma.
Sure, I didn't think of that counter-argument. Being a part of a smaller bubble could even energize the groups in the short term; persecution breeds solidarity, and so on. I was kind of arguing something that I don't even fully believe myself, but my lefty friends have insisted that the effect of recruitment through social media has been instrumental. I tried looking for quotes from far-right personalities to see whether they themselves believe that it's important, but no luck...
And it's at least well-known that Google searches punish some kinds of content, although I believe said content is mostly websites dedicated to piracy (Google have had to suffer many lawsuits just because movie downloads could be found through their search engine). If Google ever decided to manipulate elections, it would be terrifying!
Erik. I love your work. But have a fundamental disagreement with the way you are coming at this issue. I think you’d agree that every other statement from just about any right wing pol or media member is a lie. Perhaps you’d also agree that fascism is on the march in the USA. Fox News and right wing radio are enormously popular here so the idea that conservatives have no outlet just isn’t true. So here’s where you and I disagree. I think your conclusion is basically - fascist propaganda isn’t nearly the problem that the way the liberals are trying to deal with it is.
Deplatforming trump has worked out pretty damn well.
I didn't say conservatives didn't have an outlet. They very much do. Conservative media is big business. I think that trying to deplatform / cancel / litigate everything to death is a mistake. I think Trump is an exception as he was a political leader whose tweets were basically calls for violence. Calling for violent uprising is crossing the line. But then he also had enormous power and influence compared to almost anybody else.
When fascism is just code word for "things I don't like" and a fascist is "person I disagree with", then yeah, fascism is certainly on the rise.
Also, it's pretty bold to say "every other statement from just about any right wing pol or media member is a lie". I'd love to see your Youtube channel where you easily debunk things said by, say, Tucker Carlson.
Like Erik said, it used to be that dumb right view points where displayed and laughed at. D&D satanic panic. WWF being too "risqué". The left would point at it and say, "that's dumb. Here's why". Now it's just dumb infighting inspired by white suburbanites who have never had a struggle and could easily feature one of those "here's how I bought a house as a millenial: I stopped buying avocado toast and got a 100k inheritance" pieces, instead of the 99% vs. 1% (that control every company and outlet pushing the "you're oppressed, the other race/gender is evil" narratives) struggle that should be happening. And you keep alienating people that, by all rights, are on your same side. Or try to convince the historically right wing rural white population that they're evil by birth and oppressing others, as they lay in their rickety beds losing everything they have, instead of showing them that, yeah, republicans don't actually have their best interests at heart and just use their religion as a tool for personal gain.
Enjoy giving tech companies more power, so they'll get rid of you too when you're no longer useful or profitable.
Very well said, Gary. I think Pepe misunderstood my take, honestly. I think that the woke movement's focus on identity politics is pretty much exactly how the right has operated, using identity politics instead of actual policy or action to create what I believe is a pretty awful movement. I despair at the left doing the same thing, ignoring actual issues in favor of really pointless identity-based causes, cancelling etc. that is of little real-world value but is easy to carry out on Twitter and whatnot.