• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    IDK, I think it can be an effective tool against trolls because it wastes the time they’d otherwise spend harassing people.

    But that’s not what RFK is, he’s a legitimate candidate for president and should be given the same consideration other candidates are, not shadowbanned because someone doesn’t like his message.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Effectiveness is irrelevant here. Breaking troll’s kneecaps would be very effective too.

      This mental manipulation and gaslighting has no place in our society. We’re literally suffering the consequences of this right now.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Like any tool, it’s bad when used improperly. Shadowbanning should be used to waste trolls’ time; it’s especially effective for cheaters in MMOs (lump the cheaters together so they don’t bother anyone). Shadowbanning shouldn’t be used to control the discussion, like silencing an unpopular or undesirable (to the platform) individual.

        I think we’re doing too much of the latter, but that doesn’t mean shadowbanning as a tool is morally bankrupt.

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s definitely morally bankrupt imo and we can agree to disagree here as I don’t think this topic can be expanded further.

          • Jestzer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            So, you’re suggesting that shadow banning has caused the rise of the alt-right and their conspiracy theories, which implies that they wouldn’t exist without shadow bans.

            Or they already exist and are in such a fragile state that even an explicit ban makes them upset (which it does.)

              • Jestzer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                Again, if you’re already that far down the rabbit hole, anything that tells you, “No, you’re wrong” is going to upset you. That includes a shadow ban, explicit ban, or somebody just telling you that you’re wrong.

                If you think I’m wrong and you think shadow bans especially push people towards being alt-right and believing conspiracy theories, then I’d love to see a study that says so because that’s what would likely convince me.

                • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Nah man it’s completely different when society regulates itself through transparent rules vs opaque ones. It’s more organized and self balancing.

              • kn98@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                It seems to me that’s it’s often the conspiracy-theorists that get shadowbanned.

                • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You have real stats to back that claim? Because leaving this up to benevolent dictators is kinda silly.

                  • kn98@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    No stats at all, I just got that impression. It’s silly, but it’s often argued that social media are private platforms, that can decide themselves what content they allow. Do you suggest laws against shadowbanning should be a thing? I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s fine. But he shouldn’t be silenced. If he gets some traction, debate him to show voters what’s wrong with his ideas, that really shouldn’t be hard.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        He’s legit in that his campaign went through the process to get on the ballot in certain states. That has nothing to do with his chances.