only if the centrists and the broader public learn about the censoring taking place. and if done "right", most of them wont.



what a silly and naive stance on this issue. yes, if a person, like for example milo or alex jones, exceeds a certain level of fame, publicity or following, then him being censored wont work and only make him more famous in the short run.

but in the long run, deplatforming does limit the potential for growth. especially with moderates and centrists who might have started following the guy if they had stumbled across his content and liked it, but now wont ever get to see him because deplatforming has limited the reach of his content to the right-wing echo chamber where it will only reach people who support his arguments and point of view anyway.

and obviously, censorship does stop aspiring conservative influencers dead in their tracks and prevents them from ever reaching this threshold of fame. yes, censorship by the tech giants was not able to stop alex jones or milo entirely (although it slowed them down), but it was able to stop the next milo or alex jones from emerging, from ever gaining traction.

the real damage done by censorship lies not in the muting of famous voices, it lies in the less famous voices that we never get to hear at all.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 26 2019 04:50pm

After youtube banned the Project Veritas expose on Google and they in turn uploaded it to Bitchute, Reddit has today also banned Bitchute from links at an admin level

"m-m-muh free hate speech, propaganda, and science denial is being censored! muuuuum!!!"

I meant the absurd and unwarranted “quarantine” of trump reddit is just going to draw more attention to it

a subreddit filled with shitposts and memes is about as harmful as stepping on a lego - it may annoy a lot of people (privileged lefties) but thats it

This post was edited by excellence on Jun 26 2019 05:09pm

Indeed. The average content posted on T_D is NOT good advertising or a good look for Trump's campaign, not at all. I usually dont read there, but today I looked at some threads on T_D. Many people on there seriously seem to think that Trump only won in 2016 because of them, because they - quote - "won the internet for him".

David French is an in denial apologist, and I'll still suck it up enough to read his stuff.

Nothing in that article was out of line.

Winning is a hell of a drug

There's serious and thoughtful people who support Trump and serious and thoughtful people who oppose Trump. And, if you can imagine it, there's those who sometimes support him, and sometimes don't. I try to avoid the people who aren't serious or thoughtful. Severely biased people who like the smell of Trump's farts aren't worth reading. If you can't find anyone outside the cult writing in favor of the position you support, maybe you should try to understand why.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 26 2019 07:11pm

There are non-cultist, thoughtful people supporting Trump. For example, Rich Lowry, the editor of long-time conservative beacon National Review, recently wrote this piece about Trump:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/19/the-madcap-caution-of-donald-trump-227190

tldr: he makes the case that Trump might in fact be a pragmatic center-right incrementalist when it comes to actual policy and policy-making, not the super-radical far-right extremist as whom the liberal media tries to paint him.

If you'd like to read it from Vox and hear about how "meaningful" and "brave" it is to censor conservative thought, you're more than free to do so. They have a great article reaffirming that viewpoint on the same topic.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/449948-popular-knitting-website-bans-shows-of-support-for-trump%3famp