What you are discounting are the bad faith actors that use networks provided by YouTube, FB, Twitter etc to disseminate their message. I think a lot of us believe in marketplace of ideas where bad ideas are disproven and people update their beliefs and move on. But we overlook those who are so driven by ideology/emotions that they spread false data willingly to push their agenda.

They can recruit like minded and impressionable (often young) people and build nation wide movements if left unchecked. Most of us don't have the time to go and verify every piece of information for ourselves. We are relying instead on our notion of the normalized opinions. This is informed by our cultural norms and media narratives etc. The bad faith actors want to push this moving window of opinion to their end through a constant barrage of gas lighting, straw manning and general FUD. I think rational discourse does not work in such situations.

2 + 2 = 5 does not cleanly translate into our political situation because I think a lot of is driven by more basic emotions (for instance hating a particular group of people intrinsically) rather than something objective like this particular equation. There might be ways of having dialogue even in such situations. But I believe it is not through algorithmically boosted viral videos on YouTube.

All very true. Take new papers and some headline story that turns out to be false and a retraction later on is always hidden away. Same with likes and thumbs up on viral stories/videos - even a few hours later that it's proven to be fake without any doubts - the likes and thumbs up on that disprove will always fall short of the attention the original fake did. That in is human nature at play more than technology as the old word "rumours" as well as many others plays testament too. So to find a technological solution is not clear cut.

Sure, there are upsides to banning and deplatforming, maybe they outway the negative aspects.

Really, gets down to constructive debate and critical thinking being installed into our education systems more than what we have today. Which alas seems lacking in many avenues of education still.

> is not only a bad solution, but only fuels those extremes

Where is the proof for this? This is an often repeated talking point when it comes to "censorship" or what not, but if anything we've seen that not doing anything leads to very predictable, very preventable, bad outcomes. We're just on the shore of unrestricted self-publishing and yet we're seeing the effects that these channels of information have had on our society.

I think this is often a case of people assuming that everyone is a good-faith, rational actor. And that's simply not the case in any sizable society or community.

Whilst no studies in these instances, early to tell. But blocking and deplatforming don't stop them being themselves instantly. Human nature is about fairness, people who feel they are unfairly treated, as they would by being blocked and deplatformed - will become more driven. Also banning anything has been proven not to work as well as intended. Look at music as one example of human nature and songs that wouldn't even chart, get banned by radio stations and boom, they suddenly chart without any radio or TV play. That was the case before the internet and such mentalities in humans still exist. Something that nobody is interested in - gets banned and suddenly people get curious about it and even if they didn't want it, will show more interest that they did prior to the ban. It's those people who are on the fence that will seek out those banned items and if that happens in isolated bubbles without balanced input. Then you see how it can be counterproductive.

But alas proof in these instances will only become apparent down the line and will go unchecked and unbalanced until then. That may well be a problem, maybe not. But it all gets down to wait and see, and that most often - never works out well at all. More so when the ban hammer has been played.

But you are totally correct and is a case of no simple solution, though I do feel banning is an extreme solution.

Yes the whole good-faith aspect is key, we presume the best and any bad-actor has a field day stamping all over that good-faith default, which sadly can change that good-faith default into a cynical pessimistic mentality and that is just depressing. But then we know that one bad apple can spoil the bunch. Just as true with humans.

And yet I've barely heard a peep about Alex Jones since he was deplatformed. It seems to have worked pretty well there.

Hasn't stopped him, just because you don't see him on your timeline, or the mainstream platforms don't mean he's gone away or changed. Just shifted into a conformation bubble with others and with that, less likely to encounter any debate of their mentalities and ideas and as such, enforcing them in their own minds.

This in a way prevents opposing minded people challenging them in debate and sweeping problems under a carpet don't solve the problems. It just shifts it until it grows large enough that the carpet is just not big enough anymore.

However, being exposed to such opposing views can become distressing and whilst sometimes you may be in the mood to debate them, other times you are not. So IMHO putting better controls in the hands of the users, sure can default to settings suitable for children. But banning is not the way in the end. Like films, you have ratings, today we can and should have a more granular rating system akin to dating app choices and give the users the power to do there own censoring above and beyond the laws of the land.

But for many a default of not having to see the ugly sides of life and dealing with those issues, does seem to be a choice many make, albeit for various reasons.

Maybe one day we will all walk around with augmented reality goggles and filter out everything we don't like. But then, just because you can't see a problem - don't mean it's still not a problem. Which is kinda the crux of many problems in the World today.

Yes, that may be the case that they are not totally wrong about all aspects of issues they raise, problem is how they present them and with debate those issues can be looked at and what is the root cause. Many issues are often the effect of some overlooked issue and sadly by dismissing the first layer for whatever reasons and not listening and disseminating what they say so it can be broken down and addressed fairly. Well alas that only fuels them into an extreme direction even more, isolating groups in society into political tribalism that ignores the issues thru dismissal of any message other political tribes may gravitate towards.

This sadly only widens the gap between the political tribes and fuels the extremist aspects on both sides.

But putting the right message across to encapsulate and ring true with both sides without biasing it towards one side or another is a very nuanced skill. Take climate change - people can argue one side or another all day long. But ask them - do you like clean water and air and you will find both sides agreeing. From their you can push thru what is needed on the back of that point over saying we are doing this to tackle climate change. Same result, just politicaly more easily absorbed and equally shifts away from the whole - well their not doing anything so why should we mentalities. If anything you shift that self serving mentality onto your side as they will then think about their air and water quality that they breath and drink as well as their families. You also moot the whole historical data when people will argue that during the dinosaur period it was warmer and other counter arguments to climate change as it is the here and nows air and water they breath. Also easy to point out that if you run a car engine in a closed garage that the air quality is not good for you - something anybody in denial will comprehend and have to accept.

But without listening and debating what they said, pulling it apart and getting to the root cause and addressing real issues in a way that all sides can accept. You just see the extremes growing wider and further apart and that is not healthy for either side.

Perhaps we should worry about "Social Change" more as the current approach is akin to sweeping under the carpet and pretending there's no dirt and how everything is rosey, even though the distorted landscape hints that it is not and that carpet over time will bulge and bulge if this direction is left unchecked.