RE: https://hachyderm.io/@mekkaokereke/116103661147175039

Mekka's take on the methodological implications on the (lack of) cross-tabs on this study are on point, but there's another thing to look at here: our definition of "platforming". So much discussion of "platforming" is conducted from the perspective of "are these ideas dangerous, is it OK to let people hear these dangerous ideas". That's not what is happening. The speech acts involved are not "conveying ideas" and letting people analyze them.

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*.

To put a fine point on it, I think that we can do this without changing much about 1A law. While I don't think that 1A precedent is holy scripture that we can never modify, if we *can* preserve that status quo it is both less effort and also less dangerous.

What is necessary is an understanding of causality for Brandenburg that is more sophisticated than that of a 5-year-old's. You can incite violence without pointing at a specific person and saying "hey, you, do violence right now".

@glyph openly advocating for fascism is a criminal conspiracy to murder and worse.

On a smaller scale, some slurs should be defined as "fighting words" by court precedent, punching people would be sanctioned.