Thread by @tealou

There has to be a better way than censorship.

We are arguing this from the wrong angle - those who love censorship don't care about the civil liberties of their enemy. That is how outgrouping works.

It's like spanking of kids. You can't proselytize it.

It simply doesn't work.

The problem with the radicalisation funnels is that they already have this stuff built in.

You are the victim
You are under attack
THEY are powerful
THEY will censor you

So when you censor it, what happens?

You ENCOURAGE the double down.

The unique problem with radicalisation vs people being just dumb is that it is more like cult programming/thought reform than evidence and reason.

Reasonable actions are all reframed as some big conspiracy by an all-powerful out-group to persecute you.

That's why it is so hard to penetrate cults and their victims... because there is a strange objection-handling process that switches off all rational approaches.

Anyway, this is why someone like Trump or Taylor-Greene etc are tricky, because they are cult leaders.

Their supporters will double down and further radicalise, see the bannings as proof that they were right. Members of the opposing cult will see it as a victory and justification of their own insanity.

Meanwhile, both sides kid of have a point and nothing changes.

This is where it gets tricky though, because it is obviously very heavily weighted on one side. But that's because one side has vastly more aggression and fuckwittery than the other. Republicans = aggression. Democrats = more relational aggression. Generally.

But censorship vs safety vs further radicalisation is always a risky thing... and I see no attempts to deradicalise. All I see is tech acting unilaterally and causing all this doubling down with zero interest in people's wellbeing.

Thats why the censorship won't work, because nobody is intervening with people when they are doubling down and whipped into a paranoid frenzy over what they view as a genuine persecution from a powerful enemy. They're just left to descend into madness.

This is so unethical.

Censorship of cult leaders only works if you have some sort of plan for their followers. And they have no plan. And this is a huge problem. I am not absolutist with censorship. The internet is not a physical space and reach/velocity has to be a factor.

BUT IT DOESN'T WORK.

Time and time again it comes back to tech's under-resourcing and automation of what should be human-centred. We should be MAKING them hire more human, local support staff. Social workers, etc. There's other ways to deal with this but US Capitalism is so poisonous we're fucked.

Why Facebook, Twitter etc don't have an army of community outreach and support workers speaks heavily to the gross mindset of US capital - it would never even occur to them to do it. I think government should make 'em. Or, create those services and send them the bill.

The biggest swindle we ever fell victim to was thinking that they cared about us being Human-Centred as Designers and Product people. I'm still pissed off about it. They don't give a fuck. So we need to make them. Censorship is not the answer.

Tech should look at this differently - but they won't. Instead they will continue to offshore moderation to shitty subcontracting companies and expose workers to PTSD, rather than any kind of outreach or community development, eg like has been shown to be effective in policing.

Why the FUCK a user of this platform, who helped build it, can't access a human... is absolutely egregious, given how much power they have. Why aren't we making them have local support staff? That is something we can do. They do it for ad agencies. They can do it for users.

But this is a world run by corporate lawyers and engineers, not social workers and designers. So they're focused on automating and getting away with the bare minimum, rather than tech that makes a better world. That sucks. I got in it to make a better world.

Censorship & free speech, whilst handy distractions to ignore the real problem of US' beloved "free market" doing what it does best... is such a small part of the problem. I am and always have been concerned with the wellbeing of ordinary users. Tech don't care about that.

If I were in a position to change things, I would give tech platforms a choice:

1) Set up community outreach programs. If you ban people, you MUST reach out to them and provide aftercare. If influencers, you must also reach out to and provide that support for their followers.

2) You MUST operate a human customer service line, with a clear process for escalation/case management. Those staff MUST be local and in the community. I don't care how you do it. You do it.

3) If you don't we'll block you and fine the fuck out of you and do it ourselves.

Look forward to the idiotic US cries of authoritarianism... look at your own backyard. Look at the harm your death cult is doing to everyone. It doesn't work. Stop buying this bullshit that regulations are authoritarian. You should call that line we set up because you need it.

I'm tired of people dragging out documents that were written in the 1700s (and misinterpreting them) as solutions to complex problems of the 2020s. Your guns can fuck off. Free Speech is unworkable. And an unfettered unaccountable technocracy is an existential threat. Shut up.

I'm so tired of the US Bro pseudo-intellectual rabbit holes and pedantry with these issues. If you're worried about censorship, you should be concerned with actual workable policy solutions, not arguing about what a drunk in 1700 said about the nature of being. Thanks.

Things we do know:

Outreach programs are more effective than policing when it comes to radicalisation;

If we don't address it early, it becomes a bigger problem later;

Ignoring the problem and pedantry is not going to make it go away or get people the support they need.

This is the beef I have with the Psych schools etc too. They're heading down the pedantry path and so narrowly focused they have lost sight of the urgency of this problem.

And frankly we need creative solutions and fast.

Anyway, fuck censorship. It's lazy and doesn't work.

Also it is in the interest of tech companies to do this, because the first company to do it GENUINELY will fast be considered more trustworthy. Then if they need to moderate (difference between moderation & censorship), they have the trust and mandate of the community.

This is what a mandate really is, which is authority and trust to govern/make rules on behalf of people. There is no reason why this cannot be applied in tech. The US will fight it, naturally, because Muricans are nuts, but this is sensible for most of us.