The fact that so many people interpret platform moderation as "censorship" shows just how poorly the average person understands the fundamentals of free speech and the public sphere. So many people seem to have an 8th grader's understanding at best.
Forget the government vs private platform distinction; even with the legal right to free speech, "free" does not mean "absolute". Even in the US, free speech stops at a constitutionally drawn line, "imminent lawless action".
And that's a government. Platforms like Twitter are governed by another paradigm, that of the public sphere. A healthy public sphere is meritocratic, facts-based, inclusive, competitive, and representative. We don't have to be at 100% health but we can try for 51%.
Both of these points are valid but it still does not mean that the ban was "censorship", it only means the platforms need to be more consistent and more transparent.
Stream of consciousness thread. Excuse the typos coz I'm not reviewing and not editing, just tweeting as it comes
I think what's happening in the United States is that the country is correcting its identity. The United States for many of its people was already and since its founding a white supremacist country. The United States is adopting a new identity and those left behind are rebelling
Just check what happened last year. Monuments being torn down = old heroes being abandoned. Sports clubs and military bases being renamed. What it means to be an America is being renegotiated by a new generation who are appealing to the promise of equality under one nation
Some morning thoughts: Going from the power of large corporations to the power of large governments doesn't really solve the problem, just like going from the power of large governments to the power of large corporations doesn't solve the problem
It's true that governments can (and should) be far more democratic than corporations, but if we learned anything from the last 5 years it's that even well-established democracies can be taken over by extremists. The more powerful the government, the more damage they can do
Imagine if Twitter was "nationalized" in 2015 and then Trump elected in 2016. Like I said above, going from all-powerful corporations to all-power governments, or the reverse, doesn't solve the problem.
Here's the thing. Sunlight isn't always the best disinfectant, sometimes it just makes the weeds grow thicker and stronger by giving them legitimacy and a platform
Good ideas don't always drive out bad ideas, otherwise we wouldn't be here 70+ years after the fall of the Third Reich still arguing against literal Nazis. Some bad ideas live as zombies because people aren't always rational
And don't @ me, I lost my country and livelihood and nearly lost my life for the sake of my right to free speech, I won't be lectured by those who never as much skipped lunch for their right to free speech
Someone should do a PhD about people from minority backgrounds who joint white supremacist groups because they have such a deep complex of identity that they embrace and desire white privilege
Imagine feeling so fundamentally inferior to white people (and accepting that at normal and proper) that you seek the approval of white supremacists by becoming a literal white supremacist
And for the record, these specimens are fully embraced by (smart) white supremacists. Nothing like a member of the group you hate validating your worldview. You also get to say "hey we're not racists, coz this guy is with us"
Summary (of two decades): 1. We have more agency than some people think. Ultimately nobody can deradicalize you but yourself 2. We do not have as much agency as some others think. Lots of contextual factors beyond our control influence our choices, often without us noticing
Two failed paradigms that if not abandoned, will make this worse: 1. It's solely and singularly your choice and nobody and nothing influences that choice, so no point looking at contextual factors 2. It's entirely down to contextual factors, you have no agency and no choice
Human action is more complex than that, and radicalization is human behavior. If we try to understand it with a flawed model of what human beings are and what makes them tick, we'll be making this much worse. The stakes are very high.
I was radicalized 17 years ago, in the wake of the Iraq War. But I was never recruited and never became an active member of any group. The reason? The online forums which I frequented were taken offline. If they weren't, my life would have taken a very different path.
Radicalization thrives in communities of identity and grievance. You surround yourself with people who echo back to you what you already desperately want to believe. But you also adjust your own beliefs in order to "fit in". You compete in showing your allegiance and purity.
The actual truth doesn't matter, what matters is the group's truth, which serves as a marker of belonging. You join the group by believing its truths and disbelieving the truths of the out-group. The harder you do that the more you "belong".