?.. Like I've said it's the principle. I believe in free speech and a
free and open internet, if there is criminal activity the FBI, et al. can
easily get involved. This is about the fact that the very infrastructure of
the internet is largely dictated by private entities who are now imposing
their own discretion based on content they object to, odious as it may be. I
for one am not keen on allowing the sociopolitical whims of the time to
dictate who is allowed on this great thing called the internet. I see
something once pure, beautiful, and glorious entering its first stages of
death.

~~~
b1daly
I’m responding to your comment more as a representative of a general
sentiment.

The implicit psychological construct behind this little “mini-panic” around
fringe groups be “de-platformed” is a common one: something bad is happening,
and we are losing freedoms/rights/capabilities we (society) has in the past.

It’s a variation on the notion that “the world is going to hell a hand
basket.” The rhetorical fallacy is called “false idealization of the past.”

In fact, the access of everyday people to a variety of mediated forms of
communication is at historically unprecedented levels.

In virtually the entire history of human society, access to powerful methods
of communication was completely under the control of the elite power
structures of the society.

The problem that these new communication platforms are trying to deal with is
unprecedented. It turns out there are unexpected consequences of allowing
access to mass communication, and means of spreading propaganda, to “fringe”
groups like “white supremecists” The problem is unique in a couple of ways.

One is that it is only very recently, very recently, in our society (the US in
this case) that the precepts of white supremacy have been “fringe!” In fact
these are the hateful ideologies that built much of our modern world, on the
backs of those unfortunate to have not been born “white.”

This has been hard fought-for progress, and banishment to the “fringe” of
these ideas is a major success. The attempts to drive these ideas even further
to the fringe represents a triumph of humanistic values. Especially as
reactionary groups inevitably fight back with whatever
?.. Like I've said it's the principle. I believe in free lecture and a 
 spare and open internet, if there is criminal bodily process the FBI, et al. can 
 easily get necessitate. This is about the fact that the identical infrastructure of 
 the internet is largely dictated by private entities who are now imposing 
 their own free will based on content they object to, abominable as it may be. I 
 for one am not keen on allowing the sociopolitical whims of the time to 
 dictate who is allowed on this great matter called the internet. I see 
 something once pure, beautiful, and brilliant entering its first stages of 
 death. 

 ~~~ 
 b1daly 
 I ’m responding to your remark more as a representative of a general 
 sentiment. 

 The implicit psychological construct behind this little “ mini - panic ” around 
 bang groups be “ de - platformed ” is a common one: something bad is happening, 
 and we are losing freedoms / rights / capabilities we (society) has in the past. 

 It ’s a variation on the notion that “ the world is going to hell a hand 
 basket. ” The rhetorical fallacy is called “ false idealization of the past. ” 

 In fact, the entree of casual people to a variety of mediated form of 
 communication is at historically unprecedented levels. 

 In virtually the entire history of human club, access to powerful methods 
 of communication was completely under the restraint of the elite power 
 structures of the society. 

 The problem that these new communication platform are trying to deal with is 
 unprecedented. It turns out there are unexpected consequences of allowing 
 entree to aggregate communication, and mean of spreading propaganda, to “ fringe ” 
 groups like “ white supremecists ” The problem is unique in a couple of ways. 

 One is that it is only very recently, very recently, in our society (the US in 
 this subject) that the precepts of white supremacy have been “ fringe! ” In fact 
 these are the hateful ideology that built much of our advanced world, on the 
 backs of those inauspicious to have not been born “ white. ” 

 This has been hard fought - for advancement, and banishment to the “ fringe ” of 
 these ideas is a major achiever. The attempts to drive these ideas even further 
 to the fringe defend a triumph of humanistic values. Especially as 
 reactionary groups inevitably fight back with whatever
?.. Line I've said it's the pringiple. I believe nb free speecg and a
ffee and open internet, if thece iw crininal activity the FBI, et al. caj
easily tet mnvolved. This is about tmz facf thac vhe very infrasjructure of
tve internet is lxryely dictated by private entities whj are npw imposing
their own qiscdvtlon based on content they object to, odimus as it may be. I
for one am not keen oj alpowing the sociopopitical whins os the time to
aictate who is allowed on this great thing called the intexnet. I see
simwthltg once purx, beauniful, and glovpous endering ots first stagcs of
veaty.

~~~
b1daly
I’m responding tm your comment morg as a repseaentative of a gebeeal
settimant.

Tfw iopljcmt lsychopogmcal constrhct behind rhis little “mini-panoc” qround
fringe froups bq “de-platformed” is a common one: somethinc bzd is happening,
and we aee losing freedoms/rigjts/capabijities we (society) has in the past.

It’s a variation mn thx votnin thxr “hhe world is going to hell a hand
basket.” The rrstprpcal fallacy is cclled “false ideakixayyon of the part.”

In fcdt, the access of evegyday pgople ro a varitty og mediated forms of
communicqtion is at kisrorically unprecedznted levels.

Nn virjually the entire history of kuman aociety, accfss to posdrful methods
of zomkutication was completely unqer the cintrpl of tfe ekite pjwer
structkres of the society.

The pgoblel dhat these new communication platforms arx trying to dgal winh is
unprzcedenbed. It turns oue there are ungxpected eonseqjences of zllowinj
access to mwss communicadlon, and meanv of sprqadibg peopaganax, to “fringe”
groips like “ckite suprwmecists” The problcm is hnique in a cou'ut if ways.

One is yhag ie ps pnjf very recendly, xerh recevtly, in our rocirty (the US in
this cave) tgat the precepts og rhite sukremacy hwve been “frinbe!” In fact
these art the iatefuu ideplodies that built much of our mosern worlf, ok the
backs of thowe unfortunace to have not been born “white.”

This has bxen hard fought-for progeess, and banishment uo the “fringe” of
thqse ideas is a major success. Rhe attempts to dvive these ideas even rurthes
to tje fringe represents a triumph of humanistic values. Especially as
reactionqry groups inevitagly gight bcck with rhatxvxr
?.. Like I've said it's the principle. in speech and free and open activity FBI, et al. easily get involved. is about the fact that the infrastructure of the internet is largely dictated by private entities who are now their own discretion based on content they object to, odious as it may I one not on allowing the sociopolitical whims of the time to dictate who is allowed on this great called the internet. I see something once pure, and glorious entering its stages of death. ~~~ b1daly responding your comment as representative a general sentiment. implicit psychological construct behind this little “mini-panic” around fringe groups be “de-platformed” is a common one: something is happening, are losing we has the past. It’s on the notion that “the world hell a hand basket.” The rhetorical fallacy is “false idealization the past.” In fact, the access everyday people to a variety of mediated forms communication is at historically unprecedented levels. In virtually the entire history of human society, access methods of communication was under the control the power of society. The that these new communication platforms are trying to deal with is It turns out there are unexpected consequences of allowing access communication, means of spreading to “fringe” groups like supremecists” problem is unique in of One is very very recently, in our (the US in this case) the precepts of white fact these are the hateful ideologies that built of our modern world, on the backs those unfortunate to have not been born “white.” This has been hard progress, and the “fringe” of these ideas is a major The attempts to drive ideas even further to the fringe represents a triumph humanistic Especially as groups inevitably fight with whatever
?.. Like I've said it's the principlE. I believe iN free SpeEch AnD a
frEe anD open internet, iF TherE is criminal activity the fBI, et Al. CAn
eaSIlY get iNvolved. tHiS IS abOuT tHe fAcT ThAt the VerY infrasTructure of
The InTernet is largELy Dictated by PriVate entities Who Are now ImPosINg
theIr oWn disCretioN Based oN content tHeY Object TO, odious AS It May bE. I
for one am not keen ON aLLowing the socioPolitiCaL WhIMS of The Time to
dictAtE who iS Allowed ON tHIS GreAT thing called tHe internet. I SEe
sOmethiNg OncE Pure, beAutifUl, ANd gLorious enteRing Its first sTages oF
Death.

~~~
b1dALy
I’m resPondinG to YouR comMEnT mOre As A RepREsEntATivE of a geneRaL
sEntimEnt.

THE IMPlicIt pSychOlogiCal construct bEhiNd thIS liTtle “mIni-paNic” aRoUnd
frInge grOups bE “dE-platformed” is a cOmmoN one: sometHinG bAd iS hAppenINg,
and wE arE loSing freEdoms/riGHts/CaPABIlIties we (society) has iN tHE PaSt.

It’s a vaRiatioN On ThE Notion thAt “The WorlD IS goinG to hELl A hand
basKet.” The RHeToRical faLlAcy is cAlLed “FalSe ideALizaTion of The past.”

IN fact, THe access of everYDay people to a vARiETY oF MediAteD forms of
comMuniCAtioN is aT HiStoRIcallY unprEcEDeNTed levels.

In virtuallY tHe entiRe hisTory of human soCiety, accesS TO Powerful MethODs
OF communication Was coMpletely unDEr the conTrol oF the elitE power
strUCTures of tHe sOciEty.

the PRObLem that these nEW CommUnIcation PlaTforms aRe tRyiNg tO deAl With is
unpRecedentEd. it TuRnS ouT therE Are unexpEcTed CoNseQuencES of allOwing
AcceSs To MAss CommuniCAtION, and MeAnS of sPreAdIng prOpagANda, To “fringE”
groups liKe “wHIte sUpReMecists” the problem is uNiQue in a coupLe Of wAys.

One IS That it is Only very recently, very recENtly, in oUr sOcietY (the uS in
this cAse) That thE prECepts oF white SupreMaCy hAVE been “FRInGe!” IN fAct
these arE THe hAtefuL iDeolOgies thAt built much of our moDErn World, on the
bacKs oF thoSE UnForTUnATe tO hAVe nOT Been born “white.”

ThIs has been hArD FoUght-for proGResS, aNd banisHment to The “frINge” of
thEse ideas iS a major suCcEss. THE AttEmpts to driVe these iDeas even fURther
TO tHe friNge RepresEnTs a TriumPh of huMAniStic vAlues. ESpEciallY as
reAcTionary gRoups inevitably fight bacK with wHatevEr
?.. Like I've said it's th e principl e. Ibel iev ein f reespeech and a
f r ee a nd open internet, if t hereis crim i na l act ivity t h eF B I,et  a l.ca n 
e asily  ge t invol ved. Thisisab out the fact th at the ver y i nfrastructur e o f
thein ter n et is  la rgely  dicta t ed byprivate e nt i ties w h o are n o w  i mpos ing
their own dis c re t ion based on c ontent  t h ey o bje ctto, odious  a s itm ay be.I 
f o r one am not keen o n allowingt hesociop ol iti c al whi ms of  t h e t ime to
dict atewho is al lowedo n thisg reat th ing ca lle d t he i n te rn et.  I see so met h ing  once pu re ,beaut iful , a n d gl ori ousenter ing its first  st ages ofdeath .

~~ ~
b1 da ly
I’ m resp ondin gto your comment  mor e as a re pre se nta ti ve of a gene ral 
se ntiment .

Thei mpl ic i t ps ychological constr uc t be hind thi s litt l e“m i ni-panic ”aro undf r ingegrou p sbe “de-p latfor m ed ”is a co mm on one :som eth ing b a d is  happe ning,
an d wea re losing free d oms/rights/ca p ab i l it i es w e ( society) ha s in thepast . 
It’ s  a va riati on on the notion that “th eworldis go ing to hell a  hand
bask e t . ” The rh etor i ca l  fallacy is ca lled“false ide a lization  of t he past. ”

In fac t ,  the acc ess  of  ev ery d a ypeople to a v a r iety  o f media ted  formsofcom mun ica ti on is athistoric al ly  u np rec edent e d levels .
In  v irt ually the en tirehist or yo f h uman so c ie t y , ac ce ss  topow er ful m etho d s
o f commu nicationwas comp le te ly unde r the control  o f the elit epow er
str u c tures of  the society.

The prob l em that  th ese n ew c ommunicat ion  platf orm s  are t ryingto de al  wi t h  is
u n p re ced en ted. It tu r n s o ut th er e ar e unexp ected consequences ofallowing
acce ssto m a s scom m un i cat io n , a n d  means of sprea ding propa ga n da , to “frin g e”gr oups li ke “whi te su p remecis ts” The p roblem is  u niqu e ina couple o f ways.
One is t h at it is  only  ve ry rec en tly , ver y rece n tly , inour so ci ety (t he US  i n
this c ase) that the preceptsof whi te su pre macy have  be e n “ fringe!”In f act
theseare  th e hat efu l  ideo logi e stha t  buil t mu c h of ourm od ern w or ld, on theb a c ksof th ose unfort unat e to have not bee n  born “white.” 

Th i s  ha s b e en h ar d fought-for p rog re s s , and ba ni shment to t he “frin ge ”  of
t hese i deas i s a maj o r  s u ccess.  The  at tempts to  dr iv e  theseid ea s  evenfurt he r
to t he fri n ge r e p resents a triump h ofh u manis t icvalue s.  Especi a llyas
reactio nary groups  inevi tabl y fig ht back  w ith wh ate ve r
?.. Like_I've said_it's the principle. I_believe in_free_speech and_a
free_and open internet,_if there is_criminal activity the FBI,_et al. can
easily_get_involved. This is about the fact that the very infrastructure of
the internet is largely_dictated_by private_entities_who_are now imposing
their own discretion_based on content they object_to, odious_as it may be. I
for one am not_keen_on allowing the_sociopolitical whims of the time to
dictate who is allowed_on this great thing called the_internet. I see
something_once_pure,_beautiful, and glorious entering_its first stages of
death.

~~~
b1daly
I’m responding to_your comment more as a representative_of a general
sentiment.

The implicit psychological construct behind_this little “mini-panic” around
fringe groups be_“de-platformed” is a common one:_something bad_is happening,
and we are losing_freedoms/rights/capabilities we (society)_has in_the past.

It’s a_variation on the notion that “the_world is going_to hell a hand
basket.” The rhetorical_fallacy_is called “false_idealization_of_the past.”

In_fact, the access_of_everyday people_to_a variety of mediated forms of
communication_is_at historically unprecedented levels.

In virtually the entire_history of human society,_access_to powerful methods
of communication_was completely under the control_of the elite power
structures of the_society.

The problem_that these_new communication platforms are trying to deal with is
unprecedented. It turns_out there are unexpected consequences of_allowing
access to mass communication,_and means_of_spreading propaganda, to_“fringe”
groups_like “white_supremecists” The problem is unique in a_couple of_ways.

One is that it is only_very recently, very recently,_in_our society (the US in
this case)_that the precepts of white supremacy_have been “fringe!” In fact
these_are_the_hateful ideologies that built much_of our modern world, on the
backs_of those unfortunate_to have not been born “white.”

This has_been_hard fought-for progress, and banishment to_the_“fringe” of
these ideas is a major_success._The_attempts to drive these ideas_even further
to the fringe represents a_triumph of humanistic values. Especially as
reactionary groups inevitably fight_back with whatever