> Let's look at the things the jan 6 rioters took grievances with: [...] hunter biden, the crack he smoked, his penis, [...]

His laptop.

Meh. You still seem like you're so fixed on making your point that you're entirely missing mine.

My point is that the way that they were censored made it easier for them to find a likeminded echo chamber that helped them become radicalized extremists. And now rather than dealing with obnoxious idiots with a few bad ideas, we've got an armed rabble. Which is far worse.

Whether or not this dynamic happened is completely independent of the specific extremist rhetoric that they absorbed. But having been on the receiving end of a liberal conspiracy to censor information which might be supportive of Trump, it was easier for them to take everything that Trump said to its illogical extremes. And it was easy to discount all information coming from any source which denied the existence of the conspiracy that they experienced.

The result is that they were convinced that powerful liberal forces had subverted democracy and were trying to shut down the truth that Trump presented. This made Trump's lies about a stolen election very believable to them. And they got fired up enough about such conspiracy theories that it came to seem reasonable to them to ensure that the TRUE will of the American people prevail, even if that required undoing electoral fraud by tying down representatives with zipties and making them recognize Trump as President. And executing those at the heart of enabling this fraud to destroy democracy.

If we don't like this outcome then it is on us to decide how to handle such extremists. My position is that it is best to undo the conditions that encourage the creation of extremism. An alternative position is to fight fire with fire, to become as extreme in opposing the extremists as they are in fighting for what they believe.

However I fear that the alternative position, as emotionally satisfying as it might be, is a recipe to turn political polarization into political unrest and potentially into a civil war down the road. Enough other countries have gone down that road to project what it would be likely to happen then. And it isn't pretty.

Everything that I've said is part of an argument about how to best respond to the potential for extremism. None of it legitimizes extremism or extremist positions.

"But having been on the receiving end of a liberal conspiracy to censor information which might be supportive of Trump, it was easier for them to take everything that Trump said to its illogical extremes."

Yeah... this is what I'm talking about when I say legitimizing. And hiding it in everything else you wrote doesn't make me not see your point. Clearly the opposite is going on.

You seem to be assuming bad faith. And then seize on anything you object to as a gotcha to disregard everything else.

That's a dishonest and unproductive approach to conversation. So I'm not going to bother with you for much longer.

But I'll address the point you objected to. In 2020, a whole infrastructure was created across multiple organizations to fight misinformation. Their method was to pick topics, create fact checks, and then proactively hunt down and block misinformation and those who posted it. The existence of this infrastructure and its intended goals can be confirmed from a variety of sources, across the political spectrum.

As soon as it was created, it became a natural target for anyone who wished to manipulate things for political purposes. And it was quickly so used. For example see https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-... for how Peter Damask managed to use it to suppress the lab leak story for about a year.

Now, as you'll undoubtably agree, Trump is a propaganda machine for whom lying is as natural as breathing. As a result the fact checking machine developed a knee-jerk response of fighting back against anything Trump had to say. But a stopped clock is still right 2x a day. And when Trump was actually right (eg kids don't spread COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop), the fact checking engine still classified his claims as misinformation, and still worked to suppress it.

But the problem is that when you tell people something that they can verify to be a lie, they will see EVERYTHING you see as a potential lie. And now it doesn't matter how often you tell them that X is a lie - they won't believe you. Which becomes a real problem when X actually is a lie.

Which brings us to our current situation. Somewhere around 40% of the USA currently believes that the 2020 election was stolen, and also have learned to distrust all of the news sources that could properly inform them. Obviously primary responsibility for this situation rests with Trump. But he wouldn't have succeeded so well without actions taken by groups including social media and mainstream media organizations that made his lies seem more plausible to his target audience. And it is those actions that I object to - exactly because they have helped fuel a politics-over-truth narrative on BOTH sides that I fear will lead to a really bad outcome in the end.

"You seem to be assuming bad faith. And then seize on anything you object to as a gotcha to disregard everything else."

How can you take me to assume bad faith, when I quite clearly assume you in good faith meant exactly what you wrote? What about my post indicates I think you are in bad faith? This is literally the exact opposite of what bad faith means.

>In 2020, a whole infrastructure was created across multiple organizations to fight misinformation. Their method was to pick topics, create fact checks, and then proactively hunt down and block misinformation and those who posted it. The existence of this infrastructure and its intended goals can be confirmed from a variety of sources, across the political spectrum.

Weird, I don't see the words "censorship" or "right wing" here... yet it's how you describe it later. This part I agree with, I don't agree with the rest of your characterization and I think it legitimizes what is an otherwise completely made-up grievance phenomenon of not liking it when people disagree with you. The irony of course being, this is exactly what you accused me of doing.

You don't seem to get the point that I'm making, which is that we don't make policy around boogymen. So you can describe the boogeyman phenomena any way you want. It fundamentally does not change the fact that its a boogeyman and we shouldn't be shaping society around feelings of boogeymen. But of course you didn't just disagree with that, you were rude and presumptive and pejorative to me.

I just looked back at this thread and realized I never responded.

The reason why I say you are assuming bad faith is that you continually cherrypicked items to assert that I'm legitimizing extremists that I oppose. And therefore disregard anything that I have to say about strategies to reduce extremism.

To the contrary not only do you continue to assert that I'm "legitimizing" them, you dismiss my concerns as "boogeymen". Which is one of many ways that your complaining that I've been rude and presumptive and pejorative to you looks to me like the pot calling the kettle black.

Now to the facts. You agree with the fact that there was an infrastructure created across multiple organizations to fight misinformation. But here are key points that I think you are not considering.

First, those organizations overwhelmingly lean left. For example look at https://www.vox.com/2015/9/29/9411117/silicon-valley-politic.... They do not fit perfectly within the Democratic party, but they generally have an overwhelming preference for Democrats over Republicans.

Second, the infrastructure created to fight misinformation WAS a method of censorship. Whether it is reducing reach (eg by shadowbanning), blocking links, or deplatforming people, all of the available tools are tools of censorship. Just intended for a good purpose.

Third, its actions were not politically neutral. Obviously, if mostly left-wing people censor mostly right wing misinformation, this puts a thumb on the ideological scale. Likewise most of the mistakes will show the same bias. We more easily notice what is wrong with what we politically oppose than what we politically support.

Fourth, not all involved acted in good faith. This is clearly seen in the Twitter Files. Political activists on the left and right immediately recognized that there was a useful tool to manipulate here. Given existing ideological biases, political activists on the left were more successful in doing so. The whole Hamilton 68 debacle demonstrates how easily a left-wing disinformation narrative was able to get widely reported and had tremendous influence despite the fact that Twitter internally knew it to be disinformation.

And now we get to the most important point to me. Media like the NY Times like to think of themselves as a neutral arbiter of truth. By their own actions, they aren't. And to the extent that they have an obvious and demonstrable bias, they SHOULD be distrusted by those that they are biased against.

It is true that the main alternatives are objectively less trustworthy. But NOBODY can be trusted here. And that is a problem.