Not really. This is only understandable if you subscribe to the idea that "not giving someone a platform" is a desirable and effective way to combat bad ideas.

I think Joe Rogan has said in the past that he just considers Alex Jones a friend and just enjoys having him on the podcast. Also, the guy has had literally thousands of guests on his podcast, including Bernie Sanders or whoever these woke people presumably agree with. And even then, sometimes him and his guests have been drunk or high. Do that to anyone and it's certain you'll find one or two clips among the tens of thousands of hours where someone says something that someone else doesn't like. Big deal. I honestly think one of the reason podcasts are so popular these days is that they're longform and authentic, unlike the media or even political debates, where it's more about soundbites and zingers.

I also totally agree that the best way to combat so-called bad ideas is to talk about them and debate them, not deplatform, as if you're so smart to know what's good or bad for people, and the people themselves are too stupid and will be easily manipulated and believe a bad idea.

Anyways, that's neither here or there when I'm literally sharing a podcast about Signal which has nothing to do with one guest he's had on way in the past. I think a lot of the comments i got were just poor control of emotions and some virtue signalling.

> I also totally agree that the best way to combat so-called bad ideas is to talk about them and debate them, not deplatform

I would like it to be that way. However, I've seen over the last 10 years (at least in Germany) that it just does not seem to work. Deplatforming at least limits the ability of extremists to reach more people, even though it seems to make the people already in that corner to become even more radical.

> as if you're so smart to know what's good or bad for people, and the people themselves are too stupid and will be easily manipulated and believe a bad idea.

Well we are stupid and we are easily manipulated, unfortunately. And that's why as a society could (and imo should) decide that we won't expose ourselves to certain kinds of propaganda. This is not a random process of censoring people we don't like - this has to do with legislation and courts enforcing those laws.

One could call it “diversity”. I thought that’s what we wanted? It probably doesn’t apply to thought :-)

Its not necessarily a good or effective way, but the only one we got, as it seems. It definitely works better than discussing those ideas. That only works with people who do not actively lie to win that discussion. If one side does not care about the truth, discussions are pointless. Brain are not computers. Giving such people a platform and allowing them to repeat their lies unfortunately does lead to more people subscribing to those lies, just because they get repeated often enough.

Note that I do not talk about "the government" doing this. I am just talking about some people choosing not to give other people a platform.

This is a fine argument for censorship in general. Sadly, we have centuries of evidence that such an approach is ultimately futile. If you concede that censorship "definitely works better than discussion", you're ultimately conceding the debate.

A far better approach is to draw a hard red line and not allow anyone to cross it - e.g. if you're advocating for ending democracy or free speech - no democracy or free speech for you. Otherwise, you gotta find a way to defeat bad ideas without trying to shut them out. If you attempt to censor (use whatever euphemisms you prefer, but that's all it is), you'll fail, and do irreparable damage to your own arguments in the process.

But who then decides if someone crossed that red line? And what if that decision is being done in bad faith?

Again, I am not talking about censorship by the government. I am talking about some people deciding its not worth to listen to some other people, and therefore not giving them a platform? Isn't that my free choice - you can talk freely, but I can just not listen to you?

Isn't what you propose - taking away the right to free speech - far worse than censorship? Would you jail people if they still speak freely after they crossed that red line?

Honestly if a bunch of people wanted to censor someone I would want to listen to that person even more.

I also think you’re kinda playing Devil’s advocate a bit much here. We have red lines in conversations already. E.g. advocating violence against another group of people is a red line for a lot of people. E.g. Advocating the superiority of one particular race is usually a red line for people.

> Honestly if a bunch of people wanted to censor someone I would want to listen to that person even more.

Sure, you can do that. For me, it would probably depend on who did the "censoring" (see below).

> I also think you’re kinda playing Devil’s advocate a bit much here.

Wait, who's the devil here? Seriously, I have no idea what you mean.

Again: it am not talking about censorship by the government, I am simply talking about not listening to certain people. For me, in Germany, I would for example categorically refuse to listen to and engage in discussions with voters of the "AfD" party (right-wing party, with one leader that you can officially call a fascist based on a court decision) or the so called "Querdenker" people.

You're basically arguing for what totalitarian regimes do when they censor any speech they deem undesirable.

I'm sure you will reply that the type of speech you want to censor is actually bad but who decides that? You?

Freedom of speech without significant negative consequences is one of the main principles of a democratic society. As long as the speech in question is not promoting violence it should be allowed.

The fact that so many liberals now think that it's desirable to have consequences for expressing a wrong opinion is mind boggling and scary. That is a completely illiberal stance. It's also stupid because it somehow misses the point of freedom of speech being a principle. What if these woke people faced significant negative consequences for expressing THEIR opinions?