|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
Of course, Tommy, Brittany and Martin will all have a significant increase in their Twitter followers too.
Not only does this expose the fucked up nature of our immigration policy (let ISIS killers in, turn away western journalists), but it's counterproductive in that it gives them so much more publicity than they otherwise would've got.
I had no idea who these people were until recently, and I'd imagine a lot of people who know who they are had no idea who Tommy Robinson was until recently.
Bravo, dickheads. What a fucking embarrasment for the UK.
I think you're right in that this sort of way authoritarians and propagandists go about shutting things down is counterproductive for their agenda. However, this effect probably doesn't manifest unless that way of shutting things down is used.
I say this because it's pretty common for people to say that trying to shut down opinions just makes those opinions more prominent. I don't agree with that. Those opinions do experience a boost often due to attempts to shut them down, but if compared to how those opinions would manifest if they weren't attempted to be shut down, I don't think there is comparison. If nobody was trying to shut down people like Robinson or Pettibone in the first place, I bet their opinions would be espoused by a remarkably higher number of people than the gain they get by the Streisand effect.
It's like how the media's unfair coverage of Trump got Trump some extra followers. Yeah, except if the media covered Trump fairly in the first place he'd have many multiples more followers than that.
|
Reply With Quote