I just checked out http://thedonald.win/ and it has gotten a lot more extreme since it was moved off Reddit. I think it would have not gotten as extreme if it were in the Reddit ecosystem still.
Groups becoming more extreme when they exodus is fine and part of the calculus. The reason to take it off of Reddit is to prevent more followers from joining up with them.
Stormfront is extreme and everyone knows about them. (Literally a white-nationalist website). But without a foothold on Reddit, they lack the ability to gain followers.
When LUE was banned from GameFAQs decades ago, they just formed up their own group (G00Ns, Something Awful, etc. etc.). They were no longer GameFAQ's problem, and GameFAQs no longer had to deal with its members slowly becoming indoctrinated by an group bent on posting pornography on video game forums where children were active. The rest of GameFAQs got better.
Ditto with 4Chan when they kicked the Gamergate people off to 8Chan. 4Chan got better, though the Gamergate dudes grew more extreme.
It's the Amiga effect. The smaller a group is the more radical the membership.
Having thedonald.win be a cesspool isn't all bad. If someone is on the fence and goes to check it out their first reaction is likely to be of disgust, especially if the userbase is hostile to "noobs" because they're paranoid about infiltration.
It is most visible in communities that are shrinking, especially if they were originally very large. Moderate members slowly filter out for one reason or another until only the die hards are left.
In the early 00s, the LUEsers were a subforum of GameFAQs. Their official name was "Life, the Universe, and Everything".
They got their notoriety by posting pornographic images all over the site, notably on Pokemon forums where children often came to discuss the game. It was a silly meme ("Mods are asleep, post Tub-girl" or whatever). But their memes were beginning to harm the site.
The LUEsers cried "free speech" and bemoaned the moderators for attacking their memes. Eventually, the admins shut down the LUE-subforum entirely (though with a "Grandfather clause", so that old LUEsers can still talk with each other, but newbies couldn't join their forum anymore).
> Groups becoming more extreme when they exodus is fine and part of the calculus. The reason to take it off of Reddit is to prevent more followers from joining up with them.
Is this really any better than religious idealogues burning books that aren't its Bibles, lest people get tempted to reject their faith or question their ideologies?
Or North Korea blocking any information about capitalist successes, lest that cause their citizens to question the communist / fascist ideologies they've been exposed to and cause more followers to switch?
Pretending that there aren't other opinions because you're worried that people can't properly evaluate and weigh the evidence / ideas is a weak excuse for censorship.
Of course, I should mention that I do not support many of the prevailing sentiments in r/DonaldTrump - but we should be better arming individuals with better critical thinking and believability weighting abilities, rather than resort to censorship.
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain.
"Censorship" seems to work pretty well around here in HackerNews.
When someone's opinion becomes violent or unhelpful, the mods around here will delete their post, curtailing discussion and making this area more reasonable for overall discourse to move forward.
There are unreasonable opinions and unreasonable people out there. The only possible weapon online groups have to combat unreasonable people in a discussion forum, is censorship.
-------
But sure, feel free to use the decades old arguments of "unmoderated speech" from the days of USENET. Some of us have been around long enough to see this argument style play out over-and-over again.
Again-and-again, the only USEFUL discussion forums are those who are run by good moderators. "Censoring" Spam, pornography, doxxing and yes, censoring calls to overt violence in the real world, is incredibly important to keep online discussions safe.
Cutting out hateful groups is _effective_. Its the weapon of last resort, but given what we've seen this past week, it is a well warranted move. It is no different than a moderator coming around here to delete spam.
Given the deontologists and consequentialists have not quite reached a definitive answer, I'm not sure how everyone would agree with this definition of "more ethical".
I'm willing to bet it'll go the same way as Voat. Except Voat actually had a diversity of topics to discuss when it founded (although it turned to garbage in a few weeks), this website is laser focused on one demagogue.
They had access to a much larger community on Reddit. This way you have to try to find the site, and you won’t just have it appear on your /r/all or front page
Less right-wing extreme, yes, but it is not filled with left-wing extremists. As someone that has literally never been in the US and consider himself very left-leaning, the leftist echo chamber that reddit has become disgusts me. Posts that just say "Trump should be impeached" gets literally 50k+ upvotes. Any attempt to show any wrongdoing by a Dem gets downvoted and banned.
You're not wrong. Fortunately, left-leaning circle jerks rarely kill people or incite violence so I think society tolerates them much more. It's not like the USA has a real violent left-wing like there would be in the communist revolutions of yore.
Put your finger on the Median Republican line and it either moves left or stays put. The political divide has not been the republicans.
In the last year that changed for many reasons. The republicans have now moved. That political divide is now much larger. That 'more extreme' that you've noticed is because the political divide has shifted.
I dispute this assessment, it’s a drastic simplification and the comparison only starts in 1994, which is after a heavy swing in America to the right throughout the 80s and 90s. If anything, what the article shows is a regression to the long-term political mean, not a move left.
A great example I happen to have favorited on YouTube, check out the healthcare debate in 1971 [0]. It’s essentially Medicare for all (D) vs practically Obamacare (but from an R).
>I dispute this assessment, it’s a drastic simplification and the comparison only starts in 1994, which is after a heavy swing in America to the right throughout the 80s and 90s. If anything, what the article shows is a regression to the long-term political mean, not a move left.
It shows the political swing over 25+ years capturing clinton, bush, and obama presidencies. We see that during bush and clinton the democrats were quite stable. Only at around 2011 did the graph start seeing a shift where 2017 has the democrats having moved far left on average.
This data is available from other sources. The other reality is that I can personally see it. The democrats used to have a strong moderate base, they are gone.
There are many many people writing on how the political divide is so bad that it feels like never before.
The reality is that Obama(first black president) was doomed to identity politics. Which has created this much division.
>A great example I happen to have favorited on YouTube, check out the healthcare debate in 1971 [0]. It’s essentially Medicare for all (D) vs practically Obamacare (but from an R).
Not available in my country. 1971 is much to old to properly compare to today's political climate.