>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
I've read a screenshot of some anonymous post that goes like:
"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."
Which I think misreads the situation slightly. When sites censor people, it pushes those censored to other sites. Concentrates them. When all sites censoring have a left bias, both the censored and uncensored areas become echo chambers. Censorship then is segregation, but instead of having water fountains for blacks and whites, you have websites for lefts and rights. The only reason sites like gab and parler exist is because twitter censors.
If you really believe in equal rights and desegregation, you would not censor people based on their diversity of opinions. If you really believe diversity is our strength, then you tolerate diverse opinions, even if you find some of the opinions repugnant.
As the article points out, it's not a question of "should" you censor. It's a question of "can" you censor. Clearly censorship fails in the worst possible way. It further radicalizes both sides. If you read both /r/politics and patriots.win, it's like both groups live in two entirely separate worlds. When you isolate populations their evolutions take separate paths.
And that's how it is ultimately dangerous. Censorship leaves you with two groups of radicals with no common ground. At some point, those two groups meet and that's when bad things happen.
>"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."
I've noticed similar and I'm not entirely sure it's right wing but more of extremism of ideas in general. Essentially, the "loudest" people (or ideas) win the conversation without moderation.
I'd say this has more to do with group think and populism. If there is any moderation it's going to steer the ground in a specific direction of populism. The more aggressively shared an idea is, the more successful it tends to be. It's not a linear relationship, but ideas tend to pick up steam (the flat Earth phenomenon blows my mind to this day). Extremists seem to be the ones most willing to verbalize and share these ideas that make them "loud." There's probably some overlap here on how effective propoganda is through repetition. Just look at how ads tend to focus on spreading an idea through repetition and seem to work.
Sometimes modern "right wing" ideas are difficult to discern from other extremists because the spectrum has slid and much of the modern right wing is extremist. To be fair, we have a lot of left wing extremists verging on being bananas as well. I know plenty of conservatives who feel fairly disenfranchised by the current right wing we've been seeing. I don't agree with many of their ideas but they make good points and have civil discussions about their different opinions and perspectives.
> "There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."
I suspect that "right wing" here is euphemism for more of sexism and racism. Because I can tell you that moderate conservative, economic conservative and for that matter libertarian forums all have moderation too. They cant exist without moderation and censorship either.
What happens however is that without moderation people will use harassment, trolling, both including massive sexist and racist statements to push away people who disagree with them. And people who dont want to be subjects of those leave. So you end up with people who are fine with trolling, racism and sexism and the end result is biased toward right wing. You know who will be harassed the most? Anyone perceived as feminist or sjw.
The actual extreme left, which I guess would be defined more as a marxism or communists, is relatively small in numbers. They are also pretty often sexists and racists too, so I dunno how it crosses with that.
>They cant exist without moderation and censorship either.
Back when email arrived with a "You've got mail!" AOL chats were not moderated. I assure you they existed. All you needed was the ignore button. People are perfectly capable of deciding who to talk to on their own. Current UX seems designed to make you think you need moderators, but that is not a requirement.
I've read a screenshot of some anonymous post that goes like:
"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."
Which I think misreads the situation slightly. When sites censor people, it pushes those censored to other sites. Concentrates them. When all sites censoring have a left bias, both the censored and uncensored areas become echo chambers. Censorship then is segregation, but instead of having water fountains for blacks and whites, you have websites for lefts and rights. The only reason sites like gab and parler exist is because twitter censors.
If you really believe in equal rights and desegregation, you would not censor people based on their diversity of opinions. If you really believe diversity is our strength, then you tolerate diverse opinions, even if you find some of the opinions repugnant.
As the article points out, it's not a question of "should" you censor. It's a question of "can" you censor. Clearly censorship fails in the worst possible way. It further radicalizes both sides. If you read both /r/politics and patriots.win, it's like both groups live in two entirely separate worlds. When you isolate populations their evolutions take separate paths.
And that's how it is ultimately dangerous. Censorship leaves you with two groups of radicals with no common ground. At some point, those two groups meet and that's when bad things happen.