I think this is an exaggeration, though, no offense.
De-platforming extremists is not the same as limiting dialogue or public debate.
I think of it like this - the crazy person on the street corner yelling at everyone that the world is going to end for years on end is not taken seriously be anyone. They could be right, sure, but that's not really a conversation worth engaging in.
These sites are full of users who are shouting crazy conspiracy theories and promoting them like crazy. The worst of them are grifting, and lots of them are victims of human psychology and circumstance.
I haven't seen any reasonable take from one of these communities be discarded or ignored. A lot of the issue comes down to how the reasonable ideas are mixed with the toxic ones.
At some point it's just toxic, though. How many lawsuits are required to show the election was legitimate? There have been so many already. How many claims of voter fraud have to be investigated, when each new claim isn't real? How many times does congress need to investigate Hillary's emails?
For the people in these communities it seems as though the only outcome they will except is the one they have predetermined. Along the way they will kill people, commit acts of sedition and treason, send bombs to democratically elected officials, and more.
There is no reason to continue debating with them. The debates on those issues are over. When a petulant child argues with you about the color of the sky, how long do you entertain their claim that it's red, not blue?
Furthermore, there are plenty of outlets for civil discourse all over the internet and other mediums. Why should we be upset when these private companies remove these toxic groups from their platforms? It's not like the platforms want less users. They want a stable country of laws, which the groups on these platforms are trying (intentionally or otherwise) to undermine.
At some point the adults in the room need to say "enough." That's what is happening now.
De-platforming extremists is not the same as limiting dialogue or public debate.
I think of it like this - the crazy person on the street corner yelling at everyone that the world is going to end for years on end is not taken seriously be anyone. They could be right, sure, but that's not really a conversation worth engaging in.
These sites are full of users who are shouting crazy conspiracy theories and promoting them like crazy. The worst of them are grifting, and lots of them are victims of human psychology and circumstance.
I haven't seen any reasonable take from one of these communities be discarded or ignored. A lot of the issue comes down to how the reasonable ideas are mixed with the toxic ones.
At some point it's just toxic, though. How many lawsuits are required to show the election was legitimate? There have been so many already. How many claims of voter fraud have to be investigated, when each new claim isn't real? How many times does congress need to investigate Hillary's emails?
For the people in these communities it seems as though the only outcome they will except is the one they have predetermined. Along the way they will kill people, commit acts of sedition and treason, send bombs to democratically elected officials, and more.
There is no reason to continue debating with them. The debates on those issues are over. When a petulant child argues with you about the color of the sky, how long do you entertain their claim that it's red, not blue?
Furthermore, there are plenty of outlets for civil discourse all over the internet and other mediums. Why should we be upset when these private companies remove these toxic groups from their platforms? It's not like the platforms want less users. They want a stable country of laws, which the groups on these platforms are trying (intentionally or otherwise) to undermine.
At some point the adults in the room need to say "enough." That's what is happening now.