> There's some academic research to the contrary; banning /r/fatpeoplehate and /r/coontown on Reddit reduced incidents of hateful speech across the platform.
That does not imply it reduced hateful speech overall, maybe the censorship just increased antipathy and drove that speech underground or to other platforms where it couldn't be seen.
Not necessarily. If it drives the content off Reddit but onto another platform that's friendly to only these extremists and their views then you may just end up radicalizing the members of the original banned subs even more.
I don't know if that's what happened and there's probably a lot more research to do here but I'm not convinced that deplatforming is actually a good outcome societally without more data.
That's still just a conjecture of a meaningful effect. Recruiters are able to change tactics in response you know. You're just naively assuming that those old tactics worked better just because reddit itself changed, but it could very well be the case that the more extreme rhetoric only attracted people who were already extremist and turned off moderates, but a more moderate approach that's now required could funnel more moderate people into an extremist pipeline.
"Off reddit" is just a win for reddit's PR, and that's why they did it, and no other reason and no other effects can be inferred.
The claim you are addressing is a separate one from the fatpeople hate story.
And that claim is evidenced, It’s not conjecture. I dont have it handy on me, but we have mapped out the ways people are recruited, and things like fatpeoplehate, coontown, are the funnels for groups to find new recruits.
There’s several others on things from ISIS to hacktivists. The mechanism is the same, heck - “red pill” is the term for this, it’s actually quite known.
That does not imply it reduced hateful speech overall, maybe the censorship just increased antipathy and drove that speech underground or to other platforms where it couldn't be seen.