> Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without consideration for the long impact on the political discourse is foolish.
On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases. Others may disagree and consider it wise to assuage their immediate concerns. Your belief in its foolishness is valid, but cannot on its own be the guideline for wider social norms.
> Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing.
Of course.
> I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner.
Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed.
They reduce the ability of extremists to radicalize young people, for example. On a platform level, banning certain actors makes my life better because less fake news will show up in my feed.
ETA: It also denies people some amount of income in many cases, now that platforms are often monetized.
> One could say the same about the fetishism of "safety".
Yes, you could. But I believe that acting to protect one's safety is more justifiable than acting to protect "civility". Both are subjective, but the former is more personal.
> They reduce the ability of extremists to radicalize young people, for example.
Hm... I'm not going to say the problem of radicalization isn't real, it most certainly is, but I think we need to have a clear definition of what qualifies as radicalization.
> On a platform level, banning certain actors makes my life better because less fake news will show up in my feed.
That's a problem of filtering tools and suggestion algorithms.
> ETA: It also denies people some amount of income in many cases, now that platforms are often monetized.
I don't see that as a terminal goal.
> Yes, you could. But I believe that acting to protect one's safety is more justifiable than acting to protect "civility". Both are subjective, but the former is more personal.
Acting against legitimate threats to one's safety does absolutely override concerns of civility. But there are standards for determining whether an alleged threat is credible. Claiming that one's safety is threatened by a coworker merely because they voted for Trump (the initial example that waheoo provided) is absolutely ludicrous.
> Hm... I'm not going to say the problem of radicalization isn't real, it most certainly is, but I think we need to have a clear definition of what qualifies as radicalization.
Goodluck with that, the only side radicalizing anyone right now is the left.
On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases. Others may disagree and consider it wise to assuage their immediate concerns. Your belief in its foolishness is valid, but cannot on its own be the guideline for wider social norms.
> Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing.
Of course.
> I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner.
Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed.