I saw a post on Minds.com (yes, an alternative social media site similar to twitter) by its COO, Jack. He argues deplatforming does not work:
...there is an immense amount of evidence that suggests deplatforming is causing far more division, radicalization and violence than ever before.
I think he's both right and wrong. Deplatforming works, especially as big-tech colludes, cooperates, and coincidentally sing the same tune on all things to the right of Mao. It works remarkably well in removing people from the platform, reducing their influence on said platform, and generally erasing them from said platform. Especially when you remove the person, many similar personalities, and many of their followers--basically, just remove the weed and everything else within a 20-yard radius. Do that a few times and you won't have any more weeds!
The former Reddit CEO knows what she's talking about:
Her tweet was a reply to another tweet containing a link to a study that found out that “deplatforming is effective in minimizing the reach of far-right channels like Alex Jones & cannot be compensated on alternative platforms.”
Pao was Reddit’s CEO for a few months, between November 2014 and July 2015. During her brief tenure, she earned the nickname “Chairman Pao” for her strict pro-censorship policies that changed the culture of the platform.
Segregation, excommunication, & ostracism work well in removing people from groups. But it does not remove them from society. They are still out there. Only now they are far less moderated, far less policed, and far less observed than they used to be. It's a recipe for radicalization and fringe factionalism.
It's like prohibition. Lets ban alcohol because it causes bad things. Well now there are a lot worse bad things because all things alcohol are run by criminals. Prohibition drove the alcohol trade underground, and well, there's a lot to be said for sunlight.
Deplatforming just removes the sunlight. Not only is it wrong, it's dangerous.
