
Why Twitter's Alt-Right Banning Campaign Is Alt-Right's Best Recruitment Tool - generic_user
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161117/09343936070/why-twitters-alt-right-banning-campaign-will-become-alt-rights-best-recruitment-tool.shtml
======
alexc05
Alternatively by not amplifying their voices Twitter is not morally culpable
in supporting them. That is a fair position to take. Additionally, it is a
clear signal that the speech "type" has social repercussions in terms of loss
of privilege.

Some countries do have laws against hate speech
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada)

I generally agree that by driving them underground, you lose the ability to
challenge them, but that has to be weighed against the degree to which they
are permitted to spread their ideas by being allowed to spew their rhetoric
with impunity.

I don't know that being kicked off twitter will necessarily mean that they
_grow_ \- but - it will mean that twitter no longer holds a moral
responsibility for enabling them.

I think that's a fair choice to make.

~~~
subway
Underground?

We've driven them straight into the Whitehouse.

------
eridius
This article makes the assumption that

> the solution to bad speech is _more_ good speech

But this isn't true. Sure, in many cases it is, but once we enter the realm of
hate speech and ideologies that pose a threat to the survival of people, good
speech is no longer sufficient if you're still allowing the bad speech to
continue. If a white supremacist is spouting off their nonsense, you cannot
counter that with "good speech", because the people who buy into that ideology
aren't going to be swayed by anything you can say. But allowing them to
continue espousing their ideology threatens people of other races, because
this creates an atmosphere where people think that kind of speech is
acceptable, which leads to other worse problems.

~~~
generic_user
The counter argument is that there is 'hate speech' on twitter directed at
many types of people and many ideologies that 'threaten the survival of
people'. But twitter is only removing certain groups and ideology while
sanctioning others that are just as hateful and threatening.

So twitter loses the moral argument that they are trying to prevent these
activities. They expose an ideological bias. And by hosting only certain types
of 'hate speech' and radical ideologies they are promoting it.

