Here’s how it works: any controversial event on a social platform also involves a 10-100x increase in general activity and user “passion” levels. It’s a very interesting and popular event, regardless of political/social alignment (right, left, whatever).
https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1354354508176920576
At ALL times on social platforms, there’s a low ambient incidence of rule-breaking behavior (e.g. 0.1% of users). These users or subreddits get banned when it is detected; nobody gives it a second thought - it’s fairly routine.
Because controversial events have orders of magnitudes more activity, it is nearly guaranteed that SOMEONE is going to do something bad. It usually doesn’t have anything to do with the “issue,” people just get wild/angry and out of control.
The social platform, acting completely fairly and enforcing rules it has always been enforcing, bans the user (or the subreddit, depending on specifics of the offense).
Result: everyone assumes the platform banned them due to Being On Some Side Of The Issue.
Result: everyone assumes the platform banned them due to Being On Some Side Of The Issue.
Everyone who has ever run a social platform (or moderated a very large forum) is familiar with this dynamic.
Conversely, almost no one who has never done so isn’t, and without fail tends to assume ill intent.
Conversely, almost no one who has never done so isn’t, and without fail tends to assume ill intent.
Ironically, police tend to understand this:
In any energetic and popular protest, there are a small number of bad actors who use it as cover to engage in mayhem.
The problem is how to deter and prevent these actors from making both the protesters AND police look like villains.
In any energetic and popular protest, there are a small number of bad actors who use it as cover to engage in mayhem.
The problem is how to deter and prevent these actors from making both the protesters AND police look like villains.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
