Telling 150 million people to sit down and shut up because their party happened to lose an election is a really, really bad idea that has no possible good ending for those doing it.
What country have we shifted to talking about, because no US party has 150 million people, and the one that recently lost a national election—if you apply the percentages from Party ID surveys to the whole US adult population–has about half that many who identify with it.
No, its not. Its not even the 21% of voters who actively support the storming of the Capitol [0]. Its just the even smaller group actively advocating new and further political violence.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
46.8% of the people who care about this stuff are being told that they no longer have the right to speak on platforms where it would matter. That's a very serious problem.
Yes, as I said we are talking about a much smaller group than even that. Nor are we actually talking about silencing them, we're talking about certain forums not serving as megaphones for them.
> We are talking about silencing an entire party of people.
No, we aren’t. I mean, not with any connection to reality, we aren’t.
> Donald Trump received approximately 46.8% of the popular vote.
Yes, but no major platform is adopting a rule that would cutoff access to people who voted for Donald Trump, so that’s not relevant.
> Is that not slightly less than half of the voting public?
Yes, but no one is talking about silencing people based on membership in that group.
> You’re talking about silencing slightly less than 1/2 of the the people who care about this stuff.
No, literally no one is talking about doing that.
I really hope you're right, but I am also very skeptical. For every centralized platform that a community is cut off from, another centralized platform opens to accept them.
And then you have decentralized platforms that specifically build in censorship in the stupidest places [0] in an effort to stave off "rightoids." It seems most of the people building the decentralized platforms aren't actually interested in the merits of open communication or free thought, but rather pushing their inconsistent, amorphous identity politics bullshit down everyone's throats (and I'm saying this as a communist). They bring their ruling-class-approved "us vs them" mentality into the platforms they are building and try to force participants to "bend the knee" or be banished. Sure, you can run your own instance, but why would you on a platform where you're not sure where you stand? Decentralized social media platforms will need to exercise a bit more tolerance before they see mass adoption.
I'm excited for things like Holochain though, which might help to turn everything on its head.
i do think you mean 74M? anyways i agree with you, it's a recipe for disaster. (and i'm not sure why you're being down-voted here.)
it'd be much more healthy to actively engage this cohort of people; allow them to present "facts" as they see fit and offer evidence to either support or refute their views.