Filiecs 
"[@Background Pony #6A71":](/forums/meta/topics/the-anti-censorship-dnp-pledge?post_id=4836600#post_4836600
")
[@Background Pony #6A71":](/forums/meta/topics/the-anti-censorship-dnp-pledge?post_id=4836634#post_4836634
)
As I was discussing in the"[other thread...":](/forums/meta/topics/for-what-it-s-worth-mods-admins-thank-you?post_id=4836478#post_4836478
)
According to the very"[research paper":](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0894439314555329) that people try to cite to defend the idea that this 'propaganda' has some sort of effect:
[bq]
> There is no yet proven relationship between consumption of extremist online content and adoption of extremist ideology (McCants, 2011; Rieger, Frischlich, & Bente, 2013), and some scholars and others remain sceptical of a significant role for the Internet in processes of online radicalization.[/bq]
Sources from this quote:
"
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264829254_Propaganda_20_Psychological_effects_of_right-wing_and_Islamic_extremist_internet_videos":](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264829254_Propaganda_20_Psychological_effects_of_right-wing_and_Islamic_extremist_internet_videos
")
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262583726_Why_the_Internet_Is_Not_Increasing_Terrorism":](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262583726_Why_the_Internet_Is_Not_Increasing_Terrorism
)
Furthermore, the paper goes on to state:
[bq]
> Many of these suggested interventions raise the specter of social media companies policing political thought, which is palatable to neither the companies nor many users, and is especially problematic in the absence of rigorous empirical research that analyzes the Internet’s role in processes of radicalization.[/bq]
There is *_**no empirical evidence_*** of an 'underground railroad' or 'pipeline' that is somehow turning people into nazis. In fact, in the face of propaganda, people tend to strongly _*reject_* it.
[bq]
> For the first time, based on a content analysis of actual right-wing and Islamic extremist
> Internet videos, our study used state-of-the-art methods from experimental media
> psychology for tracking the emotional and cognitive responses of a broad sample
> of 450 young male adults. As expected, we mostly found rejection and never
> strong acceptance for the extremist videos. Still, specific production styles and
> audience characteristics were able to cause at least neutral attitudes underpinning
> the strategic potential of internet propaganda. In the end, our studies might result
> in more questions than answers. However, we are confident that the conceptual as
> well as the methodological way chosen is most promising as to approach a deeper
> understanding of the first effects of extremist Internet propaganda.[/bq]
It does state that certain_*production styles_* paired with personality traits of the individual could lead to neutral attitudes, but this how the psychology of design and argument works and is _*apolitical_*. There is **no** evidence that exposure to memes such as Aryanne or Pepe the Frog, or even explicit propaganda in the above case, can cause any normal person's attitude to shift from 'normal' to 'violent extremist'.
Even over time.
If you have evidence you'd be willing to share, I'd gladly read it. However as far as I'm aware the justification behind this censorship is not based in scientific fact and is much more likely to lead to an echo chamber and further censorship than it is to lead to 'violent right wing extremists'.
"
[@Background Pony #6A71
As I was discussing in the
According to the very
[bq]
> There is no yet proven relationship between consumption of extremist online content and adoption of extremist ideology (McCants, 2011; Rieger, Frischlich, & Bente, 2013), and some scholars and others remain sceptical of a significant role for the Internet in processes of online radicalization.
Sources from this quote:
"
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264829254_Propaganda_20_Psychological_effects_of_right-wing_and_Islamic_extremist_internet_videos
"
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262583726_Why_the_Internet_Is_Not_Increasing_Terrorism
Furthermore, the paper goes on to state:
[bq]
> Many of these suggested interventions raise the specter of social media companies policing political thought, which is palatable to neither the companies nor many users, and is especially problematic in the absence of rigorous empirical research that analyzes the Internet’s role in processes of radicalization.
There is *
[bq]
> For the first time, based on a content analysis of actual right-wing and Islamic extremist
> Internet videos, our study used state-of-the-art methods from experimental media
> psychology for tracking the emotional and cognitive responses of a broad sample
> of 450 young male adults. As expected, we mostly found rejection and never
> strong acceptance for the extremist videos. Still, specific production styles and
> audience characteristics were able to cause at least neutral attitudes underpinning
> the strategic potential of internet propaganda. In the end, our studies might result
> in more questions than answers. However, we are confident that the conceptual as
> well as the methodological way chosen is most promising as to approach a deeper
> understanding of the first effects of extremist Internet propaganda.
It does state that certain
If you have evidence you'd be willing to share, I'd gladly read it. However as far as I'm aware the justification behind this censorship is not based in scientific fact and is much more likely to lead to an echo chamber and further censorship than it is to lead to 'violent right wing extremists'.