This is important and many misread the danger.

Marginalizing/censoring/deplatforming dissenters from the establishment narrative will not just make everyone fall in line.

But it will still cement that narrative’s power by atomizing any opposition.

Thread on dissent:

1/12 https://twitter.com/docMJP/status/1332420363964145664

I doubt many mouthpieces actually think they can convince all Americans of the official narrative. On the contrary, they often barely hide their partisanship.

But fragmenting dissenters, and signaling the required position to anyone hoping not to be ostracized, is enough. 2/12

Thus even open censorship is effective.

Driving people to conspiracy theories may even strengthen an official ideological narrative by creating convenient straw men.

Any wonder the media obsessed over (and actively created social proof for) QAnon? 3/12 https://twitter.com/nateafischer/status/1331410276705587203?s=21

Prominent dissidents (eg Solzhenitsyn and Havel) make clear the goal of an ideological regime is not to force belief in this narrative, but to make people—especially with any power—submit to it, often visibly through rituals that reinforce this obligation to fellow subjects. 4/12

Thus the greatest threats are public acts of dissent that cannot be marginalized, say b/c of a dissenter’s status (JK Rowling on trans agenda) or the resonance of the message (Jordan Peterson’s themes).

True Christianity has been a particular threat to ideological regimes. 5/12

(In contrast, the right sort of disagreement can strengthen an official ideological narrative—eg, if it accepts key tenets of the official narrative and steers dissenters away from more dangerous ideas.) 7/12 https://twitter.com/nateafischer/status/1308080155605315584?s=21

Notably, the deplatforming/marginalizing required to suppress these risks and atomize dissent doesn't require limiting the 1st Amendment if key private actors like Big Tech align. Thus those w/ a stronger free speech bias (eg Facebook) face particular pressure to cooperate. 8/12

If we can be forced off mainstream media outlets, suppressed on social media platforms that would allow organic coordination, and silenced w/ career threats in other jobs, then dissenters will be pushed to the margins of society and isolated niches and conspiracy theories. 9/12

Thus it is imperative we create not just alternative technologies, but also networks and media platforms that cannot be shut down and that allow the necessary coordination to maintain effective opposition. 10/12

Likewise, those who don’t want to be coerced should avoid investing in jobs that can be easily threatened—and aim instead for antifragile businesses and careers. We must also build business/financial infrastructure and networks that support such antifragility. 11/12

Finally, no new technology can protect people who let themselves become isolated in hostile environments.

Those who can should consider moving to states likely to stand for rather than against them.

We must all build trust and relationships with true friends and allies. 12/12