Paul Moon is probably correct here, and later in the next tweet in this thread I'll give a good example, but I think this raises the question, what would we rather have, codified forms of hate that are harder to tackle, or open and obvious hate in mainstream discourse?
In an NYT opinion piece last year Paul Krugman wrote Well, the dog whistle days are over. Republicans are pretty much back to saying “N****r, n****r, n****r.” and called Trump a white supremacist https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/trump-twitter-racist.html
Racial oppression in the US didn't end after the civil rights movement, as Atwater put it, when the Republican Party stopped open racism "all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites"
Systemic racism though is to bigger topic for this Twitter thread. I want to look at what's happened when the codified racism ended and the US establishment turned back to open racism. Trump is only one side of the equation, the other is the growth of racism on social media
Until very recently, platforms like YouTube and Facebook allowed people who never would have been given a platform in traditional media to build an audience- folks like Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern etc. Trump benefited from this media environment and also fuelled it
A result of this environment of open bigotry, is that violent crime motivated by hated has increased.

"Hate crimes have been increasing in the US almost every year since 2014. Campaign groups warn this comes amid rising bigotry and racist rhetoric." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54968498
when hated is driven underground, systemic racism doesn't go away, and arguably this *is* harder to tackle than open bigotry (in large part because people in positions of power can claim the former doesn't exist)

But to be frank, open hatred has a much higher body count
My own opinion, is that free speech means the government shouldn't be able to arrest you for what you say. Free speech does not mean private publishers- and YouTube and Facebook are publishers- be required to give you a platform for said speech
We have standards that must be met by broadcasters and new media, one possibility is extending that to social media. This could have unintended and harmful consequences, so robust debate is needed on that idea as well
One thing I think we should be able to all agree on, is that free speech does not mean the right to have an algorithm expose your speech to a wider audience than it would get otherwise- something YouTube was doing until recently https://www.stitcher.com/show/behind-the-bastards/episode/how-youtube-became-a-perpetual-nazi-machine-62045942
You can follow @byroncclark.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.