Deplatforming

A basic pillar of contemporary social justice campaigning is deplatforming, which entails collectively piling complaints, economic pressure, or threats of non-violent reprisal against a venue that is hosting a speaker whom an interest group opposes. It’s effective, because venues depend upon punters for their livelihood.

Each deplatforming cyborg is a network of concerned individuals brought together to engage in a power struggle against another cyborg - the venue (it’s staff, building, and technology) and an individual, who is being deplatformed. In this match up, the deplatforming cyborg network has the insurmountable advantage on the political battlefield. A brave university official might just stand up for free speech and resist the pressure being mounted; a commercial venue will almost always fold. Deplatforming is thus a powerful tool for silencing individuals we disagree with. Perhaps the question ought to be: should we be silencing those we disagree with?

I have called ‘cybervirtue’ those positive qualities we possess when we become part of a technological network. Alas, the deplatforming cyborg is not and cannot be cybervirtuous (which is not the same as claiming that this course of action is not permitted). The behaviour deplatforming encourages is ‘not listening’ i.e. censorship, and the only reason this even appears just to proponents of deplatforming is that the people being censored are those whose ideas are deemed so offensive that censoring them is judged the only acceptable course of action. The argument in favour of deplatforming is therefore the necessity of halting evil, not that doing it will make us good people. In other words, the ends justify the means - and we ought to be very careful about anything that relies upon this principle, since the goodness of ends cannot justify the immorality of means.

The term ‘fascist’ is bandied about far too liberally these days - pun intended - but few regimes today are as brutal and oppressive as Mussolini’s fascists. A key part of the fascist ideology, however, was the forcible suppression of opposing ideas. It should cause us at least some pause when we realise that deplatforming is in no way guaranteed to be used for causes we deem just, and indeed is tailor-made for the kind of fascism-light that is popular today in the nations that once stood for liberty. I have already witnessed from afar figures from all corners of the political spectrum being deplatformed by those on both the left and the right. If tolerance is a virtue we value, we cannot foster it by deplatforming. We must allow those we disagree with to speak, else how can we challenge those ideas we wish to overcome, such as the ideologies of the bigot in myriad forms, both liberal and conservative? I fear deplatforming has empowered bigotry far more than it has done good in the world, and even if you do not cherish freedom of speech as much as I do, I encourage you to reflect upon whether a world where no outrageous suggestions may be voiced is a good world.

A Hundred Cyborgs, #92

Comments

[Chris McNeil]

I'm a free speech absolutist, but this isn't a very persuasive take, if I may be blunt.

No take on deplatforming/cancel culture/etc. is compelling unless it acknowledges points inconvenient to its argument. Any post against it which ignores (as you do) the lived reality of the people targeted by transphobes, serial harassers, sexual predators and such is ivory-tower theorycrafting and will be rightly rejected by the people who actually suffer the most from the people being deplatformed. Any post for it which ignores the reality that the mob is inevitably insufficiently selective in who it punishes and how much it punishes them, and the corrosive long-term effects of the revolution devouring its children, is likewise ignoring reality.

Opposing deplatforming without offering an alternative to deal with the very real harm done by public and private figures using the internet/media is simply not useful or persuasive.

Aside from that, you offer no particular reasons to distinguish the current state of deplatforming from the past (even though it has always been a common thing, in every society), or any compelling reasons to believe that the current state of affairs inevitably leads to "a world where no outrageous suggestions may be voiced". Many "outrageous" things continue to be voiced every day in a multitude of venues. In fact, this is far more true than it was twenty or thirty years ago - an obvious counterpoint to your argument that you do not address.

The internet is overrun with hot takes on this issue that amount to preaching to the choir. I'm part of your choir, and I still am not buying this. That is a problem, and IMO you should go back to basics and try to examine the situation from viewpoints that are different from your own, as well as examining your own assumptions that led you to the unconvincing slippery slope argument you offered.

On an unrelated note, I bought Silk for the Switch and would like to give some feedback on it, but there's no obvious place to do this. Is your email all right? (The short form is that there's a lot of things I liked, some things I would suggest, and some serious save game bugs that destroyed both the games I'd spent the most time on.)

[Chris]

Hi Chris,
Some good challenges here! I'll try to address your points one by one.

"Any post against it which ignores (as you do) the lived reality of the people targeted by transphobes, serial harassers, sexual predators and such is ivory-tower theorycrafting and will be rightly rejected by the people who actually suffer the most from the people being deplatformed. Any post for it which ignores the reality that the mob is inevitably insufficiently selective in who it punishes and how much it punishes them, and the corrosive long-term effects of the revolution devouring its children, is likewise ignoring reality."

I dare say this remark is largely correct. This #100Cyborgs project has a specific method and a specific process to it, and key to that is that (1) I am looking at the virtue effects of technology (very broadly construed) and (2) I am working in 500 words. I could not hope to address the salient points you raise here within this latter restriction! Sorry. However, I think your first point is stronger than your second point, in terms of effectively challenging deplatforming.

One issue with your opening remarks, though... the examples you give seem to be regarding the illegal use of social media to harass, and the withdrawal of that service in response to that harassment. This is not deplatforming as I understand it, and certainly not what is defined in this piece.

"Opposing deplatforming without offering an alternative to deal with the very real harm done by public and private figures using the internet/media is simply not useful or persuasive."

However, I'm not discussing deplatforming on social media at all in this piece. I'm discussing deplatforming from venues. Perhaps that is not sufficiently clear. However, the argument I make here strikes me as relevant to both - subject to your "ivory-tower theorycrafting" objection, of course! :)

"Aside from that, you offer no particular reasons to distinguish the current state of deplatforming from the past (even though it has always been a common thing, in every society)"

Completely disagree here. Censorship certainly has a long history, though. If you're sat on a deep dive history of "deplatforming before deplatforming" do share. But I am often resistant to attempts to backproject contemporary concepts into history. Deplatforming as defined here is not, as far as I can ascertain, a longstanding practice - I'm open to new evidence, though.

"The internet is overrun with hot takes on this issue that amount to preaching to the choir. I'm part of your choir, and I still am not buying this. That is a problem, and IMO you should go back to basics and try to examine the situation from viewpoints that are different from your own, as well as examining your own assumptions that led you to the unconvincing slippery slope argument you offered."

Sorry, but I doubt there are any more viewpoints for me to look at. I've been following this issue for five years now, and I've had ringside seats to the fight between Trans activists and Lesbian Feminists (and their related allies), which I've found hugely distressing - more so than my British trans friends, apparently. I've read everything I can find written in support of deplatforming, and a great deal of what's been written against it. If there's a gap in my reading here, I don't know what it might be.

You might be mistaking the brevity of the piece for ignorance. I do accept your criticism, above, though, that because this piece subtracts the emotional baggage it cannot 'go through' to supporters of deplatformers. I don't think I thought this piece could do this, though. I'm not sure what can.

Furthermore, this isn't a hot take. I wrote this one long before the furore over the "Cancel culture" letter broke - it was coincidence this piece landed when it did (my #100Cyborgs pieces are written weeks to months ahead of running). And as I say, I've been following the issues for five years now (since Germaine Greer was deplatformed). But I dare say you are correct that the internet is full of hot takes. This one, however, is being served cold. :)

Finally, I'm disappointed that you think this reads as a slippery slope argument. It's not intended to be. I try to avoid these. What I view as the key point here is the deployment of good ends to excuse unjust means. Alas, this argument does not appear to have 'landed'... perhaps the 'hot takes' are part of the problem, perhaps arguing from allegedly shared principles is simply hopeless at this point.

As for Silk, you have two options for bringing up issues, the devblog:
https://onlyagame.typepad.com/silk/
Or the ihobo Games Discord server:
https://discord.gg/AQh8PrE
Regarding the Switch version (which was ported by Huey Games), we know there are fatal save game bugs but we have been unable to get a reproduction report for any of these bugs which has made them impossible to address. Although it is probably small consolation, I can offer you a free Steam key as compensation, as the Steam version does not have these problems.

Many thanks for commenting - engagement is always appreciated, even when its negative.

Chris.

[Chris McNeil]

Thanks for the response. I'll address a few of the points:

- Truthfully, I found the post because I was looking for where to send Silk feedback, which led me to your twitter, which led me to your tweet noting there was no controversy for this post, which I then read, went "Well, I didn't like it, let's give him what he wants." :)

- You're right, I should have stuck precisely to specifically deplatforming of public speakers, though I've seen the term applied more broadly than that. Still my bad, though, since you did specify in your original argument.

- I completely disagree that deplatforming is "new", whichever way the word is used. Allowing people to speak or not as a method of enforcing social control or enforcing power on the would-be speaker is probably as old as speech itself, and I would argue what you are describing falls within the same traditions as shunning and classical ostracism. Moreover, keeping people from speaking is simply not a new phenomenon - the only novelty is in who is doing it and their precise mechanism for doing so. The social context differentiates it from censorship (which is imposed by a government or other authority), although the end result is comparable.

- I don't think there's any political or ethical issue that you or anyone else can fairly say "there are no more viewpoints for me to look at".

- To be clear, I'm not saying that writing a take on something is intrinsically wrong regardless of what merits I would give to it. But, if by your own admission it is written in such a way that you yourself don't think it will convince those who disagree with you, then... isn't that a problem? Shouldn't a good-faith argument be made in the hope, if not expectation, that it will persuade?

- The reason I stated your argument is a slippery slope is that "a world where no outrageous suggestions may be voiced" doesn't follow from your premises. As I said, the world is absolutely full of voices making outrageous suggestions with no real sign of slowing down. Beyond that, the total set of "outrageous suggestions" doesn't fit at all within the politically-oriented deplatforming that you are referring to, and while it might be conceivable for a censorious mob mentality to reach that point, you offer no real reasons to believe it is inevitable or even likely. This is particularly true because deplatforming as you are referring to it is, by and large, a weapon used by the powerless against the powerful.

There are also other quibbles I have with the argument, perhaps the biggest one being that depriving someone of a public platform is not the same as "silencing them". I'd also argue that taking action to "take down" someone spreading vile speech is in fact often considered virtuous by many, and that this is not a new phenomenon either (although of course the definition of "vile speech" is not objective) - ergo, they would not agree that this is an "ends justify the means" measure, but rather a collective effort to strike back at people doing harm in the world.

- I'll post the notes I made to the blog link you gave, but I will note that one of the save bugs is the issue of "when you have finished a Traveller game and then continue, your saves will become unloadable", which I saw was formerly an issue in the Steam version on the comment boards there. Don't know if that helps any, of course!

- I appreciate your generous offer! I am a little reluctant to accept, not out of ingratitude, but because I purchased Silk due to the fact physical infirmities make it difficult for me to sit at my computer for extended periods of time and I thus spend a lot of time on handheld devices. Hence, I'm not sure if I'll really be able to enjoy playing it much on that platform. Still, I suppose things could improve in the future.

[Chris]

Thanks for returning to continue the discussion, Chris.

Regarding whether deplatforming is 'new', you're equating older forms of censorship with deplatforming. I can see why you would do that, but the fact that speech has been regulated and controlled in the past doesn't make it equivalent to deplatforming. For instance, the Royal Societies were permitted to publish their papers under royal license, but that permission could be withdrawn if the crown objected. That's social control of speech, but it's not deplatforming except by an extremely tenuous backprojection of the concept. Your position is 'regulation of speech is as old as society'. I agree! My position is 'networks of people empowered by contemporary technology to rapidly (and with low effort) block free speech as a mob is a new phenomena'. I don't think we disagree here, we're just taking different perspectives on the history of censorship in this specific context. 'Sameness' is a difficult beast to mount, and an even harder one to remain atop!

"I don't think there's any political or ethical issue that you or anyone else can fairly say 'there are no more viewpoints for me to look at'"

Ha, a wise remark to be sure! Perhaps I should have said 'I have run out of avenues to uncover new viewpoints, and the last three years or so I have only managed to uncover the same viewpoints again, and again, to the point that I have lost faith that I have anything more to learn by reading on this topic, even though I stubbornly refuse to stop searching.' Your accusation was, effectively, I hadn't looked at various people's viewpoints that intersect with the issue of deplatforming. That's not the case, although I might have disproportionately looked at the viewpoints in the trans vs lesbian feminists non-debate over other motivations to deplatform. I continue to read... I am not finding anything new any more. If you think you have something I may have missed, I always welcome new avenues of investigation. And I certainly concede that something new could crop up at any time... that much is always the case!

Regarding the 'slippery slope', the final sentence is for dramatic effect more than it is a part of my argument, per se. It's a thought experiment, to be sure, and I can see how you would read it as a slippery slope taken in isolation. But I assure you is not my argument, and merely a concluding remark framed as a thought experiment.

As for your additional complaints...

"...perhaps the biggest one being that depriving someone of a public platform is not the same as 'silencing them'."

Why not? At the least, it is silencing them metaphorically, which is the only way anyone is silenced (even killing someone is only metaphorically silencing them). I take it your point is that they are only silenced in one context? If so, then you agree, it is (metaphorically) silencing them. Alternatively, your point might be that preventing public speech isn't silencing, per se, since they maintain other avenues to speak. That would merely be to refuse to recognise the metaphor. I don't think this metaphor is out of line, personally, but if you do I'll accept that criticism, but I doubt I'll change the way I speak about this.

"I'd also argue that taking action to 'take down' someone spreading vile speech is in fact often considered virtuous by many..."

Only by extending 'virtuous' by metaphor to different ethical systems that do not as such recognise virtue at all. Alasdair MacIntyre's arguments in After Virtue apply very much to this objection I'm making to you here... Virtues require a tradition, a practice to give them meaning. People don't "take action to block vile speech" because they are virtuous, they do so because they judge the speech vile ergo 'wrong' and view the 'right' thing to do to fight against it. Virtue doesn't enter into this at all, except via analogy whereby those who 'do the right thing' are 'virtuous' i.e. both right and doing the right thing.

On this point, though, I am kind of asking you to follow me into the argument of the book, The Virtuous Cyborg, that these #100Cyborg pieces are a companion for. If you are interested in the details of my argument, I encourage you to try the book. But if you're not, the question of what constitutes virtue doesn't really have any role in our discussion because we'll not be talking about the same thing when we talk about 'virtue'. I can certainly concede that the term 'virtuous' is deployed casually in ways that would contradict my argument if they had any validity. But I don't recognise any validity here except that of the thesaurus, so this objection can't ever quite go through to me on its own. I hope that makes sense...

More specifically, the fact that people in such a situation would deny that means-end justification applies here relies upon redefining deplatforming so that the supposedly good ends are entailed in its deployment - I've seen this argument from others in response to this. But to make that assessment here risks a denial of the relationship between ends and means that would be logically incoherent. Either the attempt is to say 'it's only [legitimate, authentic etc.] deplatforming if its preventing harm', and therefore deplatforming that we disagree with is not deplatforming at all. I'd call that nonsense, personally, as it entails judging means solely by their ends, which is precisely the accusation that it supposedly defends against! Alternatively, the claim would be 'deplatforming is not inherently injust' - which is a stronger, but still unconvincing argument for anyone who values free speech.

Either way, I concede that I will not convince such a person. Which brings me to your final argument (well, the final one I'm going to pick out of the above, at least!):

"But, if by your own admission it is written in such a way that you yourself don't think it will convince those who disagree with you, then... isn't that a problem? Shouldn't a good-faith argument be made in the hope, if not expectation, that it will persuade?"

I do hope the argument is persuasive, and I certainly think it's an argument in good faith. Your assumption is that the people I am trying to persuade are those actively engaging in deplatforming, presumably because those opposed to it don't need persuading? But that's not my specific goal here; I am only seeking to persuade those who are engaging with #100Cyborgs that deplatforming cannot be cybervirtuous (i.e. it cannot encourage any kind of virtue). I argue this in good faith. Of course, I know that the piece will also be ready by people who are not engaging with #100Cyborgs. In such a case, I don't see how I could hope to be persuasive, but either way, it is not my purpose in writing this piece to have that effect. For that, I would probably wade in on a specific issue, as I have done in other pieces. I hope that clarifies.

Right, I've written enough for one day! Many thanks for continuing the discussion, and I hope that these remarks clarify where I am coming from.

All the best,

Chris.