In the Fight Against Far-Right Extremism, De-platforming Can Be an Effective Tactic
De-platforming, the practice of banning individuals or organisations that preach extremist or hateful views from digital or real-life spaces, has become a topic of polarising debate in recent years. It received heightened exposure when, in 2018, leading social media platforms banned a series of high profile far-right figures. For many, having witnessed these tech giants perpetually facilitate the spreading of dangerous misinformation and extremist ideas, this was welcomed, albeit long overdue. There was, however, significant opposition broadly falling into two camps. For some, this was ideological; a gross impingement on their liberty, the product of PC culture, and the left’s war on free speech. For others, concerns are more practical, arguing de-platforming is not an effective way of tackling extremism.
In response to the de-platforming of alt(far)-right conspiracy site Infowars, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, labelled host Alex Jones a “prominent casualty in the crusade against free expression”. This isn’t however about “free-expression” and attempts to label it so are disingenuous. Even when analysing the debate from a perspective of negative liberty (freedom to exist without interference from others) the banning of individuals or groups who express hate speech is justified. There is a fundamental difference between free speech and hate speech. Philosopher and proponent of negative liberty John Stuart Mill acknowledged this:
“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
The alt-right protest that those de-platformed cause no harm and this restriction of liberty is unnecessary. This is, to put it mildly, a massive fucking lie. Take the case of Richard Poplawski who murdered three policemen in 2009. Analysis of Poplawski’s online activity revealed Poplawski was a white supremacist, radicalised by conspiracies peddled by Inforwars amongst others. This was not an isolated incident, Dylan Roof’s manifesto featured passages on genetics that were nearly identical to those propagated by Jared Taylor, an alt-right “intellect”.
The alt-right can stake no claim to genuinely be concerned with liberty. They may masquerade as its protector, yet this is inherently hypocritical. Take Milo Yiannopoulus for example, he claims to be a “free speech fundamentalist” yet he denies that right to those who follow Islam. The alt-right do not care about liberty. They are the magician elaborately distracting their audience whilst concealing the real trick. Their objections only seek to preserve and proliferate their dangerous and hateful ideology.
Despite opposition to de-platforming being predominantly from the alt-right, a liberal argument has also developed. Whilst vehemently opposing the opinions of those de-platformed, some claim the best way to tackle their ideas is not to take away their social media megaphone but to engage them in debate. Take Nick Cohen, in a piece for the Guardian he stated,
“If you can’t beat a bigot in argument, you shouldn’t ban them but step aside and make way for people who can. It’s not as if they have impressive cases that stand up to scrutiny.”
In an ideal world, of course, this would be the most effective way to tackle far-right extremism. I would enjoy nothing more than to see these alt-right figures squirming when faced with a genuine expert. This argument, however, is idealistic and shows a lack of understanding of how social media has fundamentally changed the landscape upon which the alt-right operates. There’s no need for the alt-right to engage in mainstream debates when these unregulated social media platforms provide the exposure needed to proliferate their extremist ideology entirely unchallenged. This “liberal” argument only aides those whose views they claim are abhorrent.
Although research is limited, the evidence suggests de-platforming works. When analysing the de-platforming of Britain First and leader Paul Golding (best described as the product of splicing Oswald Mosely and Homer Simpson) in 2018, researchers from the University of Swansea found it, “clearly effective”.
Before their de-platforming, Britain First had 1.8 million followers on Facebook, giving it a global reach. But, when Facebook and Twitter removed its accounts, it ostracised the group, removing their “platform to provide a gateway to a larger pool of potential recruits”. Now operating on Gab, the group has just over 11 000 followers. Gab’s traffic remains low and with Britain First not able to signpost on leading social media sites it’s highly unlikely they will ever generate close to the support they had previously. Doh!!!
De-platforming isn’t perfect, it isn’t an effective tactic in changing the minds of those already succumb to extremist ideology. However, as far-right terrorism continues to take the lives of countless people, it is currently the only justified and practical way to halt the radicalisation of potential far-right extremists.
