https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/06/133861/cloudflar...
Sure, the likes of Gab, Odysee and BitChute see some traffic, but they will never ever have the same mainstream appeal again that they did before.
As a thought experiment I'd encourage you to think about how causes you agree with might be deplatformed, and which groups would jump at the chance to do so.
Bonus case study: censorship by various middle eastern governments
This isn't a real trade. Platforming bigots won't actually prevent bigots from deplatforming subaltern groups when they have the power to do so.
Well if you had legal protections for speech on online public spaces (twitter, youtube, FB, IG and so on) and a strong court system, that would actually protect subaltern groups from being deplatformed, yes.
It's a lot easier for the "bigots" (though I would have chosen the word zealots myself) to deplatform subaltern groups when that's an accepted method of dealing with dissent, as opposed to being something that's just not done.
The (quite common) view you're espousing of "We should censor and deplatform exactly the set of people *I* find morally abhorrent" stinks of "This is classic "I'm right, so political systems should cater to me."" type thinking.
For what it's worth I think Tate is an absolute piece of shit.
But even if we ignore the point about the middle east and focus entirely on one nation, legal defenses for majority groups have observably failed to protect subaltern groups for the entire history of the country. I do not have confidence that a strong court system protecting white male misogynists will actually consistently protect black gay women, for example. I believe that your statement about the ease of oppression is not actually supported by historical or modern evidence.
Really? You don't think the main reason the US is as desegregated as it is today is because of a strong supreme court that issued rulings such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia?
Clearly these are all examples of the supreme court failing to protect subaltern groups, which is why all white primaries are still the norm, schools and buses are still segregated, and interracial marriage is still illegal.
Is any court system perfect? Of course not, but the American court system is infinitely better than the court of public opinion when it comes to protecting individual rights for all individuals, regardless of identity.
What planet's history were you even referring to, again?
I'm not even American and I'm still aware of these civil rights victories. But oh no "white (well mixed-race in Tate's case) male misogynists" will also have their speech protected, so I guess these rights have got to go.
Your rights are not predicated on your identity or your beliefs, no matter how abhorrent.
And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media.
Virulent bigotry alone is not, and should never be, a crime. You are literally advocating for thoughtcrimes to be punished by the courts.
> And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media.
Well I was suggesting that governments regulate the tech monopolies to protect speech on their platforms, given that they are the de facto public square of modern political discourse. I recognize that Tate's freedom of speech was not violated by private platforms censoring him, I'm asserting that those platforms should either be regulated as public squares with the same duty to uphold freedom of (legal) speech, or have their monopolies broken up (i.e. Open APIs and interchange format, with social media monopolies ideally switching to a federated model where nobody has the power to "deplatform" someone else unilaterally).
The state has happily abandoned its own stated principles used to protect white men so that it can crush women, gay people, and racial minorities countless times throughout our history.
Well ...
> Dred Scott v. Sandford,[a] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[3][4] The Supreme Court's decision has been widely denounced, both for how overtly racist the decision was and for its crucial role in the start of the American Civil War four years later.[5] Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".[6] Historian Junius P. Rodriguez said that it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision."[7] Historian David Thomas Konig said that it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever."[8]
So if you mean, it's desegregated because a really racist Supreme Court decision helped precipitate a civil war that killed a lot of people, because a few rich and powerful people benefitted from enslaving other human beings and refused to give that up, despite it's obvious clash with basic legal principles, then yeah, you might be right.
TikTok and YouTube both have a policy of limiting the spread of anything they can identify as LGBT. If I choose not to censor myself on these platforms my reach will be null. So I'm directly affected.
I just don't think it's somehow impossible to draw a line of acceptable behavior on that platform. A policy of no intervention just leaves you with whatever capitalism feels like that day - and while capitalism really loves to pretend to care about diversity, it really is more of a marketing gag than a anywhere close to a true belief. But Andrew Tate can be the embodiment of toxic masculinity / incel culture / misogyny as long as it pays and nobody complains?