Talk:Deplatforming

Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, is a form of Internet censorship in which social media and other technology companies suspend, ban, or otherwise shut down controversial speakers or speech.^[1]

There are several problems with this:

• reliable sources
  show that deplatforming is broader than just an internet phenomenon
• the citation in the
  neutral descriptions
  and examples are needed to support a proper definining sentence
• no part of the opinion cited claims that this word defines an internet phenomenon
• while some claim that it is internet censorship (or, non-internet censorship), this is an opinion not held by everyone; if included, it needs
  Wikipedia's voice
• the body starts out with the social media section and gives it a lot of coverage,
  out of proportion
  to the actual meaning and usage of the term.

In fact, deplatforming has been used to refer to shutting down invited speakers, and afaict that was the original use, it was extended to online activity later; however, earliest use is still t.b.d. Either way, the word is broader than online-only activity. Since the definition in the

Fixing the definition sentence is the most urgent requirement, because due to Wikipedia's ranking on the Web, the incorrect definition appears directly in search engine results when searching for the term. Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have started in on fixes to the defining sentence and

Rewrite lead

}} tag can be removed. However, this is just the first sentence, not the whole lead, and there's still a lot more work needed. Some concomitant changes were made to the article body as well, notably moving up the section on university speakers, since online deplatforming is relatively recent and should go after, and adding some new content.

Also, one thing that the article doesn't make clear yet, is the "us-vs-them" or perhaps, "bottom-up vs. top-down" dichotomy. One example: in the 1950s and 60s, university deplatforming in American universities came down from the top, from the university administration (this supposedly was based on official regulations, but in reality was fairly arbitrary based on the whims or prejudices of the adinistration), whereas in the 2000s, it came from the students, attempting to deplatform speakers invited on behalf of the administration. Another top-down version is actions by top executives at social media companies in the last few years. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rewrite|article}} tag and worried by the sheer number of edits you had already made when I first looked. I'm glad that I walked away for a few hours before checking back. As it now stands, your edits have clearly improved the article substantially. I was also embarrassed to discover that you were perfectly right about the {{failed verification}} tag. Thank you. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Lwarrenwiki:, thanks, I appreciate the encouragement. There's still much work to be done, so have another look when you feel like, and let's see how to carry on.

I confess that I used one tactic here that I almost never do with any article: namely, I readjusted the lead first, and only afterward turned my attention to the body. That's a backwards approach: the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and editors make altogether too many edits to the lead of articles without considering the primary purpose of the lead. Normally, the lead should only be adjusted to better summarize the article itself. In this case, I thought it was urgent to adjust the lead and especially the defining sentence, because of Wikipedia's prominence on Google, and the mirror sites, and other web sites that start quoting this article for their own papers (which they shouldn't, but they do).

I still don't think the lead is as good as it could be, but it's well within the bounds of normalcy now, and the urgency is gone. So I think we can turn to the body, now, add content or otherwise improve it as needed (I started to do that with the Speaker Ban stuff at the U. of California). When that settles down, then we should have another look at the lead, and readjust it as necessary to be a better summary of the improved article. That's the approach I was considering, anyway; would love to get your feedback and collaboration. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I almost hesitate to raise this subject, because it's such a bottomless cesspit and a major honeypot for trolls, but the truth is that

• @
  undue weight by taking the minimalist approach that you suggested. You'd probably want to include a citation to a reliable source that reported on Gamergate, and that describes the harassment in a way that clearly brings it within this article's scope. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Lwarrenwiki: Thanks. I'm actually hoping to avoid Gamergate at all costs, but it might be inevitable. Taking the most narrow view possible, we might be able to escape it, but this article is already on a topic that has its own level of controversy, without dragging the controversy supernova that is Gamergate into it. A mostly depleted supernova, but still. Mathglot (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another element which I think could be much improved in the article, is better content about the

Whether and whom to invite to speak, has been politicized for a long time. In the 1950s (even before) and 1960s, American universities, some at least, were under paternalistic or authoritarian guidance by eminences grises of the Establishment, so conservative by nature. They were comfortable with mainstream (read: white, capitalist, Christian, non-leftist, male) opinion of the day. The flowering of the 1964 Free Speech Movement which was a spontaneous, grass-roots, student-led protest against this authoritarian squelching of free opinion was partly in reaction to the attitude of the university administration of the day. The term "culture wars" came much later, but this was perhaps an early battle of that war, but in those days, university administrations were conservative and authoritarian, and they were the ones disinviting, or rather, not inviting speakers they disagreed with from their positions of power at the top of the academic heirarchy, that their students would have liked to have heard. It's interesting how the situation today is pretty much the reverse, with the disinviting and deplatforming that is going on, coming from the bottom of the hierarchy, namely, the students. Also, the target of disinvitation/deplatforming has reversed: now, it largely targets speakers with opinions on the right of the political spectrum, whereas in the 1950s and 60s, it targeted those with opinions on the left.

A common feature, whether targeting those on the left or the right, is the issue of censorship that arose in both cases. The WSJ article raises the issue of censorship by the left of those with conservative opinion; I'm sure other sources can be found for the reverse situation that was the case in the 50s and 60s. Censhorship in academia is another hot button issue of the culture wars, and it would be interesting to trace the parallels, and the contrasts, in accusations of censorship then and now, and the arguments that were/are used to defend their actions (who of course reject any notion of "censorship") by those who were/are accused of it. An asymmetry in comparing the two epochs, is that although academia and corporations existed both then and now, the internet is a more recent phenomenon, so there's no "1950s internet" with which we could contrast the current social media atmosphere.

There are some references here and there in the article about these aspects of deplatforming, but I think the article would benefit by a section on this subject, and there seems to be sufficient sources to write one. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a terminology section, discussing where the term came from. The British group, No Platform, prefigures it, as does, perhaps, the university regulations at University of California that sought to avoid giving controversial figures a "platform for propaganda". Where the term came from, when it was first used in its current form and by whom, and related terms, derived terms, and synonyms could all go in this section. Imho, the section sequence should be: Lead, Terminology, Introduction, History (doesn't exist yet). The History section could have some of the other sections that currently appear at top level (H2 headrers) moved down as H3 subsections of a new History section. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a terminology section could be created without indulging in

WP:SYNTH. It would certainly be an appropriate section to include, if the sources existed. But I doubt that there's a reliable source to support any statement about "where the term came from". I haven't seen one that so much as speculates about the term's origin. The closest thing I've found to an authoritative source discussing the terminology is dated Aug. 2018, consisting of a couple of paragraphs in a Merriam-Webster "Words of the Week" blog post here. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, you're probably right at this point. Doesn't hurt to look, though. If the term sticks around, eventually sources will start to write about its origin and development, but maybe this is premature. Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree. Its likely origin seems obvious, as a morphological derivation from "platform" that adds the de- prefix to mean "removing someone's X [against their will]", with the same mildly amusing effect as depants or deball. I see it showing up as jargon in 2015, and entering popular usage in 2018. That's my educated guesswork – which is entirely unsupported OR/SYNTH. I hope that when the word gets added to a major dictionary, some lexicographer will reach similar conclusions and spell them out in print for us. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't prove it, but based on the earliest uses I've seen, I'm convinced that the term was originally coined by the aggressors, and was only later taken up by the victims of deplatforming. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uk: the statutory obligation upon universities to consider denying particular “extremist” speakers a platform because of the risk that others might be drawn into terrorism

https://theconversation.com/counter-terrorism-prevent-strategy-receives-a-boost-from-the-courts-and-statistical-evidence-113949 Etc. Zezen (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Possibly a better fit at No Platform, since it is primarily about universities and UK law. If there's an article that covers British counter-terrorism strategies or Prevent, that would be an even better fit. It seems to me that the subject is still speculative, and pretty tangential to the scope of an article about deplatforming. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m surprised to see UK antifascism written out of this history, as both middle class student politics of No Platform and working class militant action (43 Group against the British Union of Fascists in the 40s, Anti-Fascist Action against the National Front/BNP in the 80s/90s, right back to the Battle of Cable Street) are generally seen as the folks who originated both the tactic and the term “De-platforming”.

Especially since there is an different article in the same topic under No Platform (which itself, writes out non-student based deplatforming)!

Might I suggest a merge of these topics?

Until that time, I’m marking this article with the “Globalize” warning, and adding the British versions of this article to the “See Also” section. 69.86.18.8 (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a first couple of references for the origin of the term itself, traced back to the British opposition to Moseley, but coming to province in the 70s as a term. [1 https://books.google.com/books?id=3wVDDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=“no+platform”+%2243+group%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmjL_tzMTkAhUSy1kKHUJyAhYQ6AEIWDAH#v=onepage&q=No%20platform&f=false] [2 https://books.google.com/books?id=cYCsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT222&dq=“no+platform”+fascism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjD_P7uzsTkAhV8ITQIHZYqBpc4ChDoATAAegQIARAD#v=onepage&q=“no%20platform”%20fascism&f=false] [3 https://books.google.com/books?id=OZ5EAQAAIAAJ&q=“no+platform”+tactic&dq=“no+platform”+tactic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT-KWZz8TkAhUN11kKHQgOBGgQ6AEIZDAJ] [5 https://books.google.com/books?id=dD5dDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&dq=“no+platform”+fascists&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb44GH0MTkAhWHjFkKHf7sDWgQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=“no%20platform”%20fascists&f=false] 69.86.18.8 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that No Platform should be merged with deplatforming. The No Platform movement, and its uniquely British history, are notable enough for its own detailed article to continue to exist. It would probably be a worthwhile project to expand the No Platform article, using the references you cited. But any sort of merge would be counterproductive – it would only minimize the importance of No Platform, reducing it to a mere subsection of the deplatforming article.

In this article, I have no problem with the "see also" link that was added. There's also an existing hatnote prominently placed at the top of this article, as well as the existing mention (duly wikilinked) under Deplatforming#Invited speakers. That is likely to be sufficient to direct anyone who wants details about No Platform to the article on that specific subject. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that No Platform should not be merged. It is more specific and has enough content to stand as a standalone article. However, Deplatforming should be the general article that covers the topic beyond the US, including a summary of British No Platform. --MarioGom (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think a merge is appropriate, "no platform" is a specific policy of a group and this is an article about the concept, "no platform" is of a length that it should probably have its own article- but I see no reason it can't be referenced as an example on this page --Willthewanderer (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is his opinion worth the

Why not mention the contrary and probably more prevailing opinion, such as expresseed in https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/facebook-restricts-free-speech-popular-demand/598462/ "Treating platforms like governments—encouraging their control, but constraining them with flimsy versions of democratic input or due process—is not part of democracies’ usual playbook when companies gain too much power, or when their businesses cause harm. Market forces and competition are supposed to keep private commercial power in check. When those fail to do so, the next line of defense is to enforce competition law, not to establish new quasi-governmental rules for companies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.8.212 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some description regarding the above subject matter, but if it's more appropriate to be added to another article on Wikipedia, please let me know "to the talk page of my user page". I will edit it myself. Thanks.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banning a user from the platform is deplatforming a user. Flagging a post is not deplatforming the user. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "deplatforming", despite what nazis (so called alt-rights) would say. All contributors to this article should be banned from Wikipedia forever to learn them a lesson, because Wikipedia must be not used for rightist propaganda. 185.17.127.237 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the right article:

I found a list of the Political powers which POTUS 45 instantly lost by his deplatforming in this citation: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-legacy-obliterated-norms-chipped-institutions-end/story?id=75275806&cid=clicksource_4380645_8_three_posts_card_hed --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Cornish is insufficiently notable nor a notable expert in the particular subject matter at hand. Further, the position isn't defensive: it is specifically misleading, and has the character of a

Is this a normal section to write in an article marked controversial? There is no such entry on the page for censorship, for instance, perhaps this should merely be a subarticle of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.208.252 (talk) 11:52, May 23, 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the entire section should probably be moved up (below history?) and renamed to something like "arguments" or "argumentation" or something. Not sure if there's a standard way that sections like these get treated. --CupOfTea696 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CupOfTea696: I agree that it should be moved up. I'm going to do that now. Together, the paired sections on Criticism and Defense help the reader understand the history of how deplatforming came to exist as a controversial issue in itself. It's useful to have it placed before the examples, because it clarifies why the incidents that follow were viewed as notable examples of deplatforming. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lwarrenwiki: I still find the "defence" section a bit odd. It's this weird "here is the thing" → "here is what people who oppose the thing are saying" → "this is why people say the thing is there" order that just doesn't seem very logical to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to place the defence section above the criticism section and rename it to something like "arguments" as I suggested above? That would change the flow to "here is the thing" → "this is why people do the thing" → "this is why people oppose the thing". It just feels kind of odd to me to explain why people use deplatforming only after the criticism of it. Sorry if this is a bit of a long explanation, I couldn't really find a better way to word it. Hope it's clear enough what I mean. CupOfTea696 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

neutral overarching title, which covers both the pro and con subsections. As a pro-deplatforming section title to replace "Defense", I think "Justifications" works better than "Arguments", because "Justifications" conveys pro-. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Lwarrenwiki: Works for me. Thanks for all the work, flow is much better now. CupOfTea696 (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein would be due somewhere, though the latter doesn't really fit in "invited speakers" or "social media". Ideas welcome.
• This article lacks scholarly views on deplatforming; there are papers that attest to its effectivenes, and papers that present arguments against (oligarchic or democratic) attempts to control speech; so there's lots to work with. This might(?) be a good starting point.
• Would there be good sourcing to add a section on debates surrounding the term "censorship"? That seems relevant; there's again arguments for both and against, and it would give good context to the article.

DFlhb (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]