One way to look at this is to say "oh, algorithmic feeds make people more racist" but the way that attitudes are being measured, the entire way that attitudes *work*, is actually showing something different here: what algorithmic feeds do is *allow racists to efficiently find each other*. "platforming" in this context is not allowing people to hear racist ideas, it is allowing people to *build a command and control network for white supremacist violence*.

If nazis are dropping bombs on you by flying planes that communicate by radio, blowing up their ground control radio towers or jamming their radio signals is not "censorship". Similarly, deplatforming is not about preventing their "dangerous ideas" from winning in the "marketplace of ideas", it is about disrupting their communications so they cannot organize and build power to kill people.

Freedom of speech is important and I do believe that we need to be careful when we punish people for speaking. But the american left needs to contend with the cold hard fact that Fox News needs to be made illegal *somehow*. We have seen the results, the violence and death which is the result of this "speech". The right has been dancing on the line of the Brandenburg test for decades now: causing violence with speech, then pretending they couldn't have known the violence would be caused by it

Coming up with a standard that properly disrupts what "X, The Everything App™", or Fox News, or innumerable "influencers" have been doing for the last 20 years, without creating a tool that allows police violence against the left for advocating for UBI or something, is going to be a risky legal challenge, but if we get through this presidency with a country that still has some semblance of the rule of law intact, there is no way around the fact that that project is *necessary*.

@glyph I think your analysis makes sense if, as you say, we have "the rule of law intact". I'm curious if you have thoughts on how to deal with this in a different future—say, one where police and prison abolition succeeds, for example. Generally, if we as a society decide that law, as it has been practiced and enforced, doesn't serve humanity's needs, do you have ideas for what might address this problem instead? I only ask because it seems like you've thought about the scope here more than I have, but it's understandable if you don't happen to have an answer in this direction