• jasory@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    “A deradicalising effect”

    I’m sorry what? The idea that smaller communities are somehow less radical is absurd.

    I think you are unaware (or much more likely willfully ignoring) that communities are primarily dominated by a few active users, and simply viewed with a varying degree of support by non-engaging users.

    If they never valued communities enough to stay with them, then they never really cared about the cause to begin with. These aren’t the radicals you need to be concerned about.

    “And those people diffuse back into the general population”

    Because that doesn’t happen to a greater degree when exposed to the “general population” on the same website?

    • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m sorry what? The idea that smaller communities are somehow less radical is absurd.

      i’d like you to quote where i said this–and i’m just going to ignore everything else you say here until you do, because it’s not useful to have a discussion in which you completely misunderstand what i’m saying from the first sentence.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The deradicalizing effect occurs in the people who do not follow the fringe group to a new platform. Many people lurk on Reddit who will see extremist content there and be influenced by it, but who do not align with the group posting it directly, and will not seek them out after their subreddit is banned.

      • jasory@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure but what degree of influence is actually “radicalising” or a point of concern?

        We like to pretend that by banning extreme communities we are saving civilisation from them. But the fact is that extreme groups are already rejected by society. If your ideas are not actually somewhat adjacent to already held beliefs, you can’t just force people to accept them.

        I think a good example of this was the “fall” of Richard Spencer. All the leftist communities (of which I was semi-active in at the time) credited his decline with the punch he received and apparently assumed that it was the act of punching that resulted in his decline, and used it to justify more violent actions. The reality is that Spencer just had a clique of friends that the left (and Spencer himself) interpreted as wide support and when he was punched the greater public didn’t care because they never cared about him.