I’m glad @lizzadwoskin on MSNBC cited the research showing “good speech” isn’t always effective at countering “bad speech.” Why is it so rare to see people demand evidence to support these narratives, given that they shape policies re: hate speech and fake news?
Claiming (with no evidence) that “good speech” is the only effective response to “bad speech” is reminiscent of those who claim a “good guy with a gun” is the answer to a “bad guy with a gun.” It’s irresponsible to make policy based on narratives that lack evidentiary support.
In some cases, good speech might work. Marketplace of ideas and whatever. But if we’re talking about racists and fascists, then de-platforming and cancelling them might be the better approach. Data should drive these decisions.
