De-platforming is a controversial topic that has sparked a lot of debate in recent years. Some argue that it is an effective way to prevent the spread of harmful or hateful messages, while others claim that it is a form of censorship that violates free speech and pushes people to more radical platforms.
One of the main arguments in favor of de-platforming is that it reduces the exposure and influence of controversial figures, such as Tommy Robinson, who was banned from Twitter in 2018 for violating its rules on hateful conduct. Robinson had a large following and a lot of engagement on Twitter, so losing his platform must have been a significant setback for him. But now he is back on X the rebrand of Twitter, the call to De platform him again has begun.
However, does de-platforming really work? Or does it simply shift the problem from one platform to another, and create more isolated and extreme echo chambers, where there is no challenge or diversity of opinion, and where it is harder to leave or change one’s views?
A possible counterargument to de-platforming is that it does not stop the supporters of banned figures from sharing their content or following them elsewhere. For example, Robinson has still been trending on Twitter several times since his ban, and he has also moved to other platforms, such as Telegram, where he has over 130,000 subscribers. Moreover, some studies have suggested that de-platforming can actually increase the popularity and sympathy for banned figures, as they can portray themselves as victims of oppression or persecution.
Therefore, de-platforming may not be the best solution to deal with harmful or hateful messages. Instead, some alternatives could be to engage with them in a civil and rational way, to expose their flaws and inconsistencies, to provide accurate and reliable information, and to promote positive and constructive messages that counteract their narratives. These strategies may be more effective in changing minds and hearts, rather than silencing voices and creating resentment.
I think de-platforming is a superficial and ineffective way of dealing with the problem of online radicalisation. It only shifts the problem from one platform to another, without addressing the root causes of why people are drawn from the Pre- ideology mindset to the more extremist ideologies. In the meantime, some of the most vulnerable people in our society are exposed to hateful and violent propaganda in online spaces where there is no diversity of opinion or critical thinking.
I speak from personal experience, I know how easy it is to get trapped in an echo chamber of hate, where you only hear what you want to hear and you are constantly fed with misinformation and conspiracy theories. I also know how powerful it is to have your views challenged by someone who can offer a different perspective and a more nuanced understanding of the issues. That was the turning point for me, when I started to question what I was taught and what I believed, and I began my journey out of hate.
