Hubbry Logo
DeplatformingDeplatformingMain
Open search
Deplatforming
Community hub
Deplatforming
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Deplatforming
Deplatforming
Deplatforming
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Censorship
Media regulation
Methods
Contexts
By country
A bust of MIT president Francis Amasa Walker separated from its pedestal at the MIT Museum

Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, is a boycott on an individual or group by removing the platforms used to share their information or ideas.[1] The term is commonly associated with social media.

History

[edit]

Deplatforming of invited speakers

[edit]

In the United States, the banning of speakers on university campuses dates back to the 1940s. This was carried out by the policies of the universities themselves. The University of California had a policy known as the Speaker Ban, codified in university regulations under President Robert Gordon Sproul, that mostly, but not exclusively, targeted communists. One rule stated that "the University assumed the right to prevent exploitation of its prestige by unqualified persons or by those who would use it as a platform for propaganda." This rule was used in 1951 to block Max Shachtman, a socialist, from speaking at the University of California at Berkeley. In 1947, former U.S. Vice President Henry A. Wallace was banned from speaking at UCLA because of his views on U.S. Cold War policy,[2] and in 1961, Malcolm X was prohibited from speaking at Berkeley as a religious leader.

Controversial speakers invited to appear on college campuses have faced deplatforming attempts to disinvite them or to otherwise prevent them from speaking.[3] The British National Union of Students established its No Platform policy as early as 1973.[4] In the mid-1980s, visits by South African ambassador Glenn Babb to Canadian college campuses faced opposition from students opposed to apartheid.[5]

In the United States, recent examples include the March 2017 disruption by protestors of a public speech at Middlebury College by political scientist Charles Murray.[3] In February 2018, students at the University of Central Oklahoma rescinded a speaking invitation to creationist Ken Ham, after pressure from an LGBT student group.[6][7] In March 2018, a "small group of protesters" at Lewis & Clark Law School attempted to stop a speech by visiting lecturer Christina Hoff Sommers.[3] In the 2019 film No Safe Spaces, Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager documented their own disinvitation along with others.[8]

As of February 2020, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a speech advocacy group, documented 469 disinvitation or disruption attempts at American campuses since 2000,[9] including both "unsuccessful disinvitation attempts" and "successful disinvitations"; the group defines the latter category as including three subcategories: formal disinvitation by the sponsor of the speaking engagement; the speaker's withdrawal "in the face of disinvitation demands"; and "heckler's vetoes" (situations when "students or faculty persistently disrupt or entirely prevent the speakers' ability to speak").[10]

Deplatforming in social media

[edit]

Beginning in 2015, Reddit banned several communities on the site ("subreddits") for violating the site's anti-harassment policy.[11] A 2017 study published in the journal Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, examining "the causal effects of the ban on both participating users and affected communities," found that "the ban served a number of useful purposes for Reddit" and that "Users participating in the banned subreddits either left the site or (for those who remained) dramatically reduced their hate speech usage. Communities that inherited the displaced activity of these users did not suffer from an increase in hate speech."[11] In June 2020 and January 2021, Reddit also issued bans to two prominent online pro-Trump communities over violations of the website's content and harassment policies.

On May 2, 2019, Facebook and the Facebook-owned platform Instagram announced a ban of "dangerous individuals and organizations" including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and his organization InfoWars, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Paul Nehlen.[12][13] In the wake of the 2021 storming of the US Capitol, Twitter banned then-president Donald Trump, as well as 70,000 other accounts linked to the event and the far-right movement QAnon.

Some studies have found that the deplatforming of extremists reduced their audience, although other research has found that some content creators became more toxic following deplatforming and migration to alt-tech platform.[14]

Twitter

[edit]

On November 18, 2022, Elon Musk, as newly appointed CEO of Twitter, reopened previously banned Twitter accounts of high-profile users, including Kathy Griffin, Jordan Peterson, and The Babylon Bee as part of the new Twitter policy.[15][16] As Musk exclaimed, "New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach".

Alex Jones

[edit]

On August 6, 2018, Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify removed all content by Jones and InfoWars for policy violations. YouTube removed channels associated with InfoWars, including The Alex Jones Channel.[17] On Facebook, four pages associated with InfoWars and Alex Jones were removed over repeated policy violations. Apple removed all podcasts associated with Jones from iTunes.[18] On August 13, 2018, Vimeo removed all of Jones's videos because of "prohibitions on discriminatory and hateful content".[19] Facebook cited instances of dehumanizing immigrants, Muslims and transgender people, as well as glorification of violence, as examples of hate speech.[20][21] After InfoWars was banned from Facebook, Jones used another of his websites, NewsWars, to circumvent the ban.[22][23]

Jones's accounts were also removed from Pinterest,[24] Mailchimp[25] and LinkedIn.[26] As of early August 2018, Jones retained active accounts on Instagram,[27] Google+[28] and Twitter.[29][30]

In September, Jones was permanently banned from Twitter and Periscope after berating CNN reporter Oliver Darcy.[31][32] On September 7, 2018, the InfoWars app was removed from the Apple App Store for "objectionable content".[33] He was banned from using PayPal for business transactions, having violated the company's policies by expressing "hate or discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions."[34] After Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter several previously banned accounts were reinstated including Donald Trump, Andrew Tate and Ye resulting in questioning if Alex Jones will be unbanned as well. However Musk denied that Alex Jones will be unbanned criticizing Jones as a person that "would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame".[35]

InfoWars remained available on Roku devices in January 2019, a year after the channel's removal from multiple streaming services. Roku indicated that they do not "curate or censor based on viewpoint," and that it had policies against content that is "unlawful, incited illegal activities, or violates third-party rights," but that InfoWars was not in violation of these policies. Following a social media backlash, Roku removed InfoWars and stated "After the InfoWars channel became available, we heard from concerned parties and have determined that the channel should be removed from our platform."[36][37]

In March 2019, YouTube terminated the Resistance News channel due to its reuploading of live streams from InfoWars.[38] On May 1, 2019, Jones was barred from using both Facebook and Instagram.[39][40][41] Jones briefly moved to Dlive, but was suspended in April 2019 for violating community guidelines.[42]

In March 2020, the InfoWars app was removed from the Google Play store due to claims of Jones disseminating COVID-19 misinformation. A Google spokesperson stated that "combating misinformation on the Play Store is a top priority for the team" and apps that violate Play policy by "distributing misleading or harmful information" are removed from the store.[43]

Donald Trump

[edit]
Main article: Donald Trump on social media

On January 6, 2021, in a joint session of the United States Congress, the counting of the votes of the Electoral College was interrupted by a breach of the United States Capitol chambers. The rioters were supporters of President Donald Trump who hoped to delay and overturn the President's loss in the 2020 election. The event resulted in five deaths and at least 400 people being charged with crimes.[44] The certification of the electoral votes was only completed in the early morning hours of January 7, 2021. In the wake of several Tweets by President Trump on January 7, 2021 Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, and Twitter all deplatformed Trump to some extent.[45][46][47][48] Twitter deactivated his personal account, which the company said could possibly be used to promote further violence. Trump subsequently tweeted similar messages from the President's official US Government account @POTUS, which resulted in him being permanently banned on January 8.[49] Twitter then announced that Trump's ban from their platform would be permanent.

Trump planned to rejoin on social media through the use of a new platform by May or June 2021, according to Jason Miller on a Fox News broadcast.[50][51]

The same week Musk announced Twitter's new freedom of speech policy, he tweeted a poll to ask whether to bring back Trump into the platform.[52] The poll ended with 51.8% in favor of unbanning Trump's account.[52] Twitter has since reinstated Trump's Twitter account @realDonaldTrump (as of 19 Nov 2022 — but by then Trump's platform was Truth Social).[52][53]

Andrew Tate

[edit]

In 2017, Andrew Tate was banned from Twitter for tweeting that women should "bare some responsibility" in response to the #MeToo movement.[54] Similarly, in August 2022, Tate was banned on four more major social media platforms: Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube.[54] These platforms indicated that Tate's misogynistic comments violated their hate speech policies.[55]

Tate has since been unbanned from Twitter as part of the new freedom of speech policy on Twitter.[55]

Demonetization

[edit]

Social media platforms such as YouTube and Instagram allow their content producers or influencers to earn money based on the content (videos, images, etc.), most typically based around some sort of payment per a set number of new "likes" or clicks etc. When the content is deemed inappropriate for compensation, but still left on the platform, this is called "demonetization" because the content producer is left with no compensation for their content that they created, while at the same time the content is still left up and available for viewing or listening by the general public.[56] In September 2016, Vox reported that demonetization—as it pertained to YouTube specifically—involved the following key points:

  • "Since 2012, YouTube has been automatically 'demonetizing' some videos because its software thought the content was unfriendly for advertisers."[56]
  • "Many YouTube video makers didn't realize this until last week, when YouTube began actively telling them about it."[56]
  • "This has freaked YouTubers out, even though YouTube has been behaving rationally by trying to connect advertisers to advertiser-friendly content. It's not censorship, since YouTube video makers can still post (just about) anything they want."[56]
  • "YouTube's software will screw things up, which means videos that should have ads don't, which means YouTube video makers have been missing out on ad revenue."[56]

Other examples

[edit]

Deplatforming tactics have also included attempts to silence controversial speakers through various forms of personal harassment, such as doxing,[57] the making of false emergency reports for purposes of swatting,[58] and complaints or petitions to third parties. In some cases, protesters have attempted to have speakers blacklisted from projects or fired from their jobs.[59]

In 2019, students at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia circulated an online petition demanding that Camille Paglia "should be removed from UArts faculty and replaced by a queer person of color." According to The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf, "It is rare for student activists to argue that a tenured faculty member at their own institution should be denied a platform." Paglia, a tenured professor for over 30 years who identifies as transgender, had long been unapologetically outspoken on controversial "matters of sex, gender identity, and sexual assault".[60]

In December 2017, after learning that a French artist it had previously reviewed was a neo-Nazi, the San Francisco punk magazine Maximum Rocknroll apologized and announced that it has "a strict no-platform policy towards any bands and artists with a Nazi ideology".[61]

Legislative responses

[edit]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In May 2021, the UK government under Boris Johnson announced a Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill that would allow speakers at universities to seek compensation for no-platforming, impose fines on universities and student unions that promote the practice, and establish a new ombudsman charged with monitoring cases of no-platforming and academic dismissals.[62] In addition, the government published an Online Safety Bill that would prohibit social media networks from discriminating against particular political views or removing "democratically important" content, such as comments opposing or supporting political parties and policies.[63]

United States

[edit]

Some critics of deplatforming have proposed that governments should treat social media as a public utility to ensure that constitutional rights of the users are protected, citing their belief that an Internet presence using social media websites is imperative in order to adequately take part in the 21st century as an individual.[64] Republican politicians have sought to weaken the protections established by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—which provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users—under allegations that the moderation policies of major social networks are not politically neutral.[65][66][67][68]

Reactions

[edit]

Support for deplatforming

[edit]

See also: Paradox of tolerance and Defensive democracy

According to its defenders, deplatforming has been used as a tactic to prevent the spread of hate speech and disinformation.[11] Social media has evolved into a significant source of news reporting for its users, and support for content moderation and banning of inflammatory posters has been defended as an editorial responsibility required by news outlets.[69]

Supporters of deplatforming have justified the action on the grounds that it produces the desired effect of reducing what they characterize as hate speech.[11][70][71] Angelo Carusone, president of the progressive organization Media Matters for America and who had run deplatforming campaigns against conservative talk hosts Rush Limbaugh in 2012 and Glenn Beck in 2010, pointed to Twitter's 2016 ban of Milo Yiannopoulos, stating that "the result was that he lost a lot.... He lost his ability to be influential or at least to project a veneer of influence."[70]

In the United States, the argument that deplatforming violates rights protected by the First Amendment is sometimes raised as a criticism. Proponents say that deplatforming is a legal way of dealing with controversial users online or in other digital spaces, so long as the government is not involved with causing the deplatforming. According to Audie Cornish, host of the NPR show Consider This, "the government can't silence your ability to say almost anything you want on a public street corner. But a private company can silence your ability to say whatever you want on a platform they created."[72]

Critical responses

[edit]

In the words of technology journalist Declan McCullagh, "Silicon Valley's efforts to pull the plug on dissenting opinions" began around 2018 with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube denying service to selected users of their platforms; he said they devised "excuses to suspend ideologically disfavored accounts".[73] In 2019, McCullagh predicted that paying customers would become targets for deplatforming as well, citing protests and open letters by employees of Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce, and Google who opposed policies of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and who reportedly sought to influence their employers to deplatform the agency and its contractors.[73]

Law professor Glenn Reynolds dubbed 2018 the "Year of Deplatforming" in an August 2018 article in The Wall Street Journal. Reynolds criticized the decision of "internet giants" to "slam the gates on a number of people and ideas they don't like", naming Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes.[74] Reynolds cited further restrictions on "even mainstream conservative figures" such as Dennis Prager, as well as Facebook's blocking of a campaign advertisement by a Republican candidate "ostensibly because her video mentioned the Cambodian genocide, which her family survived."[74]

In a 2019 The Atlantic article, Conor Friedersdorf described what he called "standard practice" among student activists. He wrote: "Activists begin with social-media callouts; they urge authority figures to impose outcomes that they favor, without regard for overall student opinion; they try to marshal antidiscrimination law to limit freedom of expression."[60] Friedersdorf pointed to evidence of a chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom. Of the faculty members he had contacted for interviews, he said a large majority "on both sides of the controversy insisted that their comments be kept off the record or anonymous. They feared openly participating in a debate about a major event at their institution—even after their university president put out an uncompromising statement in support of free speech."[60]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Deplatforming

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Deplatforming refers to the exclusion or removal of individuals, groups, content, or behaviors from digital platforms, particularly networks, typically justified by platform operators as necessary to mitigate harms such as , , or violations of service terms. This moderation tactic has proliferated since the mid-2010s amid the growth of user-generated online ecosystems, serving as a primary mechanism for platforms to enforce community guidelines against perceived malicious actors. Empirical analyses reveal deplatforming's causal effects are often limited and context-dependent: bans can temporarily disrupt targeted networks, reducing coordinated harmful activity on the originating site by up to 30-50% in some cases, yet they frequently drive displaced users to fringe alternatives, where engagement and revenue from content rebound or exceed prior levels, as observed in shifts from mainstream video hosts to decentralized ones. For instance, large-scale removals of norm-violating influencers diminish immediate attention to them but fail to eradicate broader , with studies documenting near-complete offsets via increased activity on successor platforms. The practice's defining controversies stem from its inherent trade-offs between harm reduction and speech curtailment, including risks of inconsistent enforcement that may reflect operator biases rather than neutral standards, and systemic questions about whether siloed bans adequately address harms in an interconnected web where content migrates rather than dissipates. Proponents view it as essential for curbing real-world linked to online , while critics highlight of inefficacy and potential for amplifying echo chambers, underscoring unresolved debates on platform accountability absent robust, transparent metrics for long-term impact.

Definition and Conceptual Framework

Core Definition and Mechanisms

Deplatforming refers to the systematic exclusion of individuals, groups, or content from digital platforms by revoking access to communication tools, thereby limiting their ability to disseminate information publicly. This process typically involves permanent or temporary bans enforced by platform operators, often predicated on alleged breaches of (TOS) prohibiting content deemed harmful, such as incitement to violence, dissemination of , or promotion of . Unlike mere content removal, deplatforming targets the entity's overall presence, ejecting users or entities from the to prevent further engagement. Operational mechanisms encompass direct platform-level actions like account suspensions or terminations, which sever user and posting privileges on social networks or hosting services. Broader enforcement extends to ancillary infrastructure, including domain registrars denying renewal or transfer (e.g., withholding DNS services), web hosts deactivating sites, and payment processors like Stripe or halting under risk policies. Advertiser boycotts can indirectly amplify these by pressuring platforms to act, as coordinated withdrawals reduce revenue tied to controversial content. These steps cascade across interconnected services, as platforms often coordinate with upstream providers to enforce compliance without requiring judicial oversight. Causal dynamics stem from platforms' structural dominance via network effects, where value accrues exponentially with user scale, fostering winner-take-most markets that concentrate gatekeeping authority in few hands. This monopoly-like leverage enables unilateral enforcement, as users and creators depend on these hubs for reach, lacking viable alternatives due to switching costs and audience lock-in. Absent regulations, private operators wield discretionary power akin to common carriers historically, implementing bans rapidly through automated and human review without adversarial .

Distinctions from Shadowbanning and Content Moderation

Deplatforming entails the outright termination of a user's account on a platform, resulting in complete exclusion from core functions such as posting, interacting, or accessing the service, whereas shadowbanning involves algorithmic downranking or reduced visibility of content without user notification or apparent changes to account status. This distinction manifests in intent and detectability: shadowbanning operates covertly to limit reach while preserving user illusion of normalcy, often as a subtler tool to evade backlash, in contrast to deplatforming's explicit of bans that signal violations publicly. Content moderation, by comparison, comprises a spectrum of interventions including the deletion or labeling of individual posts, temporary suspensions, or notations, targeting specific infractions rather than eradicating an entire user presence. Deplatforming escalates beyond these by holistically revoking platform access, which causally severs all affiliated content dissemination from the banned , amplifying disruptions to audience engagement compared to piecemeal removals that permit residual activity. For instance, pre-2022 policies on platforms like authorized permanent suspensions for repeated "hate speech" breaches, effecting full deplatforming distinct from isolated tweet deletions under the same rules. Demonetization further delineates from deplatforming, as it restricts revenue generation—such as ad eligibility or features—while allowing continued content publication and user interaction, serving as a financial penalty rather than existential exclusion. This graduated approach preserves partial platform utility, underscoring deplatforming's more absolute curtailment of expressive capabilities.

Historical Development

Pre-Internet and Early Online Instances

In the pre-internet era, deplatforming primarily involved physical efforts to deny speakers access to venues, often through protests, disinvitations, or disruptions at public events, particularly on university campuses where private institutions exercised control over their facilities. A prominent example occurred in the 1960s with , founder of the in 1959, whose planned appearances elicited organized opposition aimed at preventing his speeches. At the in February 1966, student groups and faculty debated and protested his invitation by a conservative organization, framing the event as a test of institutional authority to exclude controversial figures, though the speech ultimately proceeded amid heightened security. Similarly, Rockwell's 1966 lecture at , his , faced vocal protests but was not canceled, highlighting early tensions between exclusionary pressures and procedural allowances for speech. These incidents reflected a reliance on to limit dissemination of views deemed objectionable, leveraging the platform owner's discretion over physical spaces without the scalability of digital networks. The transition to early online environments extended these dynamics into virtual exclusion, where operators of dial-up Systems (BBS), operational from the late 1970s through the 1990s, routinely banned users for rule violations, effectively revoking their access to community discussions and . BBS, which peaked with tens of thousands active by the early 1990s, operated as private servers where sysops enforced to preserve limited bandwidth and user harmony, often ejecting participants for off-topic posts, , or illegal content distribution like pirated software. This practice mirrored pre-digital property rights to curate spaces but introduced permanence via account termination, as banned users could not easily relocate without new hardware or phone lines. A landmark commercial instance unfolded in December 1995, when , a major online service provider with millions of subscribers, preemptively blocked global access to about 200 sex-oriented forums following a German prosecutor's investigation into and violations under local laws. The decision stemmed from a raid on CompuServe's German partner, prompting the company to restrict content to avoid extraterritorial legal risks, despite operating under U.S. . This event underscored the causal amplification of deplatforming through centralized digital infrastructure, where a single policy shift could exclude thousands from niche communities, prioritizing compliance over unfettered access in an era before widespread alternatives.

Rise During Social Media Expansion (2000s-2015)

As social media platforms proliferated in the mid-2000s— in 2004, in 2005, in 2005, and in 2006—moderation practices evolved from basic spam and illegal content removal to address scaling challenges, including advertiser sensitivities and user complaints about . Early efforts emphasized compliance with laws, such as suspending terrorist-linked accounts; removed Al-Shabaab's @HSM_Press on September 21, 2013, and Al-Qaeda's @shomokhalislam on September 29, 2013, amid U.S. government pressure. Platforms began issuing transparency reports to document these actions, with 's inaugural 2012 report revealing over 1,000 account suspensions for policy violations, rising in subsequent periods as user numbers grew from millions to hundreds of millions. The 2014 Gamergate controversy accelerated this shift, exposing platforms to coordinated campaigns against gaming industry figures, primarily via and , where anonymous users amplified threats and doxxing. In response, revised its rules on December 2, 2014, to explicitly target "trolls" and abuse, enabling reports of targeted or threats of violence, which resulted in suspensions like that of @chatterwhiteman for attacks on developer . This policy update marked a move toward proactive enforcement of for subjective harms like "abusive behavior," with reporting an 84% increase in global government content removal requests by early 2015, alongside rising user-flagged violations. Reddit followed suit in 2015, formalizing an anti-harassment policy that banned subreddits promoting targeted abuse. On June 10, 2015, it quarantined or removed communities such as r/fatpeoplehate, r/hamplanethatred, r/transfags, and r/neofag, citing repeated personal attacks outside site norms. By August 2015, further updates led to bans of additional offensive groups, including racist ones, as CEO emphasized curbing content that intimidated users from participation. These changes reflected infrastructural adaptations to platform growth, prioritizing "safe spaces" through TOS invocations for harassment, though critics noted inconsistent application favoring certain viewpoints.

Peak and Polarization (2016-2022)

The period from 2016 to 2022 marked a surge in deplatforming on major platforms, coinciding with intensified U.S. following the 2016 presidential election. Platforms like and responded to widespread concerns over "fake news" influencing the election outcome by expanding content removal and flagging mechanisms. In December 2016, announced plans to flag disputed stories using user reports and partnerships with independent fact-checkers, including ABC News, the , , , and , to demote or remove misleading content. These measures represented an escalation from prior ad-based or algorithmic approaches, prioritizing proactive interventions amid accusations that false narratives had swayed voter behavior, though empirical studies later questioned the scale of ' electoral impact. Polarization deepened through subsequent election cycles, with platforms facing pressure from governments, advertisers, and advocacy groups to curb perceived , often targeting right-leaning accounts and narratives. By 2020, amid the and presidential contest, removal rates for violating content rose significantly; for instance, reported quarterly takedowns in the tens of millions for hate speech and false information, reflecting policy expansions beyond election-specific issues. This trend linked causally to real-time events, as platforms adjusted rules reactively—such as Twitter's introduction of labels on world leaders' misleading posts in May 2020—rather than through predefined, transparent criteria. The apex occurred in early 2021 following the Capitol riot, triggering unprecedented mass deplatformings across platforms. Twitter suspended tens of thousands of accounts associated with the events, including high-profile figures, citing violations of policies against and ; this included the permanent ban of then-President on January 8, 2021, after internal deliberations deemed his posts posed ongoing risks. Similar actions by and others involved temporary suspensions of posting privileges for political figures and the effective shutdown of alternative platforms like via app store removals, framed as emergency measures to prevent violence. These decisions often bypassed standard review processes, with platforms invoking exceptions to long-standing norms against banning elected officials. Subsequent disclosures from the in late exposed the ad hoc nature of many such interventions, drawing from internal emails and Slack messages spanning prior years. Employees described key bans as "one-off ad hoc decisions" deviating from published rules, influenced by a predominantly progressive internal culture that prioritized suppressing content deemed harmful to democratic norms over consistent . This revealed causal drivers rooted in executive pressures and ideological priors rather than scalable policies, exacerbating perceptions of viewpoint amid polarization; for example, teams debated interventions based on potential real-world fallout rather than violations per se, leading to inconsistent application across ideological lines. Such practices peaked during election-adjacent crises, underscoring how platforms' reactive scaling of deplatforming amplified divides without robust empirical validation of uniform threat levels.

Notable Examples

High-Profile Political Deplatformings

Following the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, former President faced widespread deplatforming across major social media platforms. permanently suspended his @realDonaldTrump account on January 8, 2021, citing the risk of further incitement of violence based on his posts praising participants in the events. and indefinitely suspended his accounts the prior day, January 7, 2021, after he posted content interpreted as endorsing the violence, with the suspension upheld by the company's Oversight Board in May 2021. restricted his channel uploads for at least seven days initially, later extending limitations, while platforms like and also removed his presence or content. In , deplatforming targeted allies of then-President amid investigations into dissemination. On July 24, 2020, and complied with a order to suspend 16 accounts and related profiles belonging to high-profile Bolsonaro supporters, including lawmakers and influencers, as part of a probe into networks. Bolsonaro's personal accounts remained active, but platforms enforced content-specific removals, such as a video posted on October 25, 2021, falsely claiming vaccines increased AIDS risk, which was deleted from both and for violating policies. Left-leaning political deplatformings have been less frequent among high-profile figures but include actions against accounts linked to Antifa activism. In 2017 and subsequent years, suspended multiple prominent Antifa-associated accounts for policy violations including doxxing, threats of violence, and harassment, prompting claims from activists of targeted suppression of leftist organizing. During the , platforms suspended accounts promoting anti-lockdown protests if content was flagged as , though such cases often involved cross-ideological skeptics rather than strictly left-leaning politicians; for instance, isolated suspensions targeted organizers inciting unrest without permits, but verifiable high-profile examples remain sparse compared to right-leaning instances. Further examples of moderation targeting conservative voices include Twitter's October 2020 suppression of links to the New York Post's story on Hunter Biden's laptop under its hacked materials policy and instances of reduced visibility (shadowbanning) applied to figures such as Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk, as revealed in the 2022 Twitter Files. Empirical analyses of suspension patterns reveal geopolitical and ideological asymmetries, with accounts sharing pro-Trump or conservative hashtags suspended at significantly higher rates than those aligned with progressive or pro-Biden content during the 2020 U.S. period, based on audits of over 100,000 actions. This disparity extends internationally, where platforms' enforcement has disproportionately impacted right-leaning political expressions in studies of global account takedowns.

Influencers and Media Figures

In August 2018, and his platform Infowars were banned from Apple, , , and , with following in September, for alleged violations of policies against , harassment, and abusive behavior; these actions occurred amid defamation lawsuits filed by families of victims, whom Jones had repeatedly claimed staged a . The coordinated removals significantly reduced Jones' online reach, though he migrated to alternative platforms. In August 2022, self-described influencer faced bans from ( and ), , , and , cited for promoting misogynistic views and associating with "dangerous organizations and individuals" under platform rules, as Romanian authorities investigated him for , , and organized exploitation. Tate's account was reinstated in November 2022 after Elon Musk's acquisition of the platform, leading to a surge in followers exceeding six million by early 2023. Deplatformings of left-leaning influencers remain infrequent by comparison; one instance involved Facebook's May 2019 ban of leader for longstanding antisemitic rhetoric, including references to as "termites." Data from platform enforcement analyses reveal an empirical asymmetry, with accounts using pro-Trump or conservative hashtags suspended at significantly higher rates than those with pro-Biden or liberal equivalents, potentially reflecting differences in content patterns or enforcement priorities amid institutional biases toward left-leaning norms.

Organizational and Group Cases

The neo-Nazi website , operated by the white supremacist group of the same name, was deplatformed in August 2017 after it published content celebrating the death of Heather Heyer during the . Domain registrar terminated its .com registration on August 14, 2017, citing violation of terms prohibiting content that promotes violence; when the site transferred to , also refused registration the same day, stating it violated policies against offensive content. followed on August 16, 2017, by ceasing DDoS protection and traffic proxying, with CEO explaining the decision stemmed from the site's role in inciting harm, though he acknowledged it set a beyond automated enforcement. This coordinated withdrawal from domain, hosting infrastructure, and security services forced offline from the clear web, relocating to Russian domains and the . The alternative social media platform , positioned as a free-speech haven for conservative users, underwent extensive deplatforming in January 2021 following the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6. Apple removed Parler from the on January 9, 2021, for failing to implement adequate to prevent of , as evidenced by posts related to the riot; Google had suspended it from the Play Store the prior day on similar grounds. then suspended Parler's hosting on January 10, 2021, after reviewing 98 posts that allegedly encouraged in violation of its terms, rendering the site inaccessible and halting operations until it secured alternative hosting. Parler's reliance on these third-party app distribution and cloud infrastructure amplified the deplatforming's effects, temporarily eliminating its mobile access for millions of users and underscoring vulnerabilities for group-affiliated platforms dependent on major tech providers. Such cases highlight the networked nature of organizational deplatforming, where refusals by intermediary services like content delivery networks, domain registrars, and payment processors create cascading disruptions beyond primary hosting. For instance, the , a pro-Western chauvinist group, saw its official and accounts banned in late 2018 after repeated violations of community standards on and violence, with the platform designating it a hate ; similar restrictions applied across other services post-2020, limiting coordinated group communications. While predominantly affecting right-leaning entities in high-profile instances, platforms have enforced policies against left-leaning groups for specific violations, such as suspending accounts tied to doxxing or during 2020 unrest, though these often targeted individual actors rather than formalized organizations.

Empirical Evidence on Impacts

Effects on Deplatformed Individuals and Reach

Deplatforming typically results in a substantial reduction in the reach and directed toward the affected individual, as evidenced by quasi-experimental analyses of norm-violating influencers. A of 101 deplatformed influencers across platforms found that bans, whether temporary or permanent, led to decreased overall metrics, including search and mentions, with effects persisting beyond the initial ban period. Similarly, evaluations of deplatforming as a strategy indicate it minimizes the dissemination of associated content by limiting access to mainstream audiences, though banned users may exhibit heightened activity on alternative venues. In the case of , deplatforming from , , and other major platforms following the , 2021, U.S. Capitol events correlated with an immediate and sharp decline in his visible online footprint. Analyses reported a 73% plunge in election-related volume linked to Trump and allies post-ban, reflecting diminished amplification through algorithmic feeds and user networks previously sustaining his 88 million followers. Trump subsequently migrated to , launched in 2022, which attracted over 2 million sign-ups within days but achieved engagement levels orders of magnitude below his prior mainstream presence, with active user metrics stabilizing below 5 million by mid-2022. Alex Jones, banned from YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify in August 2018, experienced an initial disruption in video distribution and ad revenue streams tied to those platforms, prompting a shift to proprietary sites like Infowars.com and alternative hosts such as band.video. Despite claims of financial harm during subsequent legal proceedings, financial disclosures revealed Jones' net worth rose from approximately $5 million pre-bans to $50-100 million by 2022, driven by direct e-commerce sales of supplements and merchandise to a loyal subscriber base exceeding 100,000 paid members. Empirical matching of banned creators' channels to alt-platform equivalents, using donation data as a revenue proxy, further shows that while mainstream reach fragments, monetization can recover or exceed prior levels for those with established off-platform infrastructure. Across influencers, migration to alternatives like , Rumble, or Telegram often yields temporary surges in niche engagement—termed attention spikes—due to media coverage of the bans, but long-term reveal sustained fragmentation of audiences and reduced cross-platform visibility. Banned users demonstrate higher retention on fringe sites yet lower overall propagation, as alternative ecosystems lack the scale and algorithmic push of incumbents, leading to 20-50% effective audience attrition in traceable metrics. This pattern underscores deplatforming's causal role in constraining individual influence to ideologically aligned , with success varying by pre-existing direct channels.

Broader Platform and Ecosystem Dynamics

Deplatforming on mainstream platforms typically reduces the volume and visibility of targeted content within those ecosystems, as suspended users lose access to large audiences and algorithmic amplification. However, this localized suppression is frequently counterbalanced by cross-platform migrations, where deplatformed individuals and communities redistribute their activity to alternative sites, increasing content density and engagement intensity on those venues. A 2023 analysis of 's deplatforming following the , , U.S. Capitol events found that while user activity on Parler itself plummeted, overall participation in fringe did not decline; instead, displaced users surged onto platforms like Gab and Telegram, maintaining or elevating their posting frequency and interaction rates. This pattern of migration aligns with network-theoretic principles, wherein deplatforming disrupts mainstream ties but strengthens connections within homophilous subgroups, concentrating users into denser, more insular clusters on alternatives. Empirical data from Twitter bans, examined in a 2023 study, show that prohibited accounts often relocate to ideologically congruent platforms such as Gab, where they exhibit sustained productivity and follower growth, albeit with reduced exposure to diverse viewpoints. Such consolidations amplify effects, as network effects— including to similar users—foster rapid reinforcement of shared narratives without the moderating influence of broader discourse. Cross-site dynamics further illustrate how deplatforming reshapes the broader : while mainstream platforms experience a net decrease in controversial content volume, alternative venues absorb the influx, leading to heightened partisan polarization and diminished inter-group bridging. For example, post-2021 deplatforming waves, banned users from demonstrated resilience by aggregating on sites with laxer moderation, resulting in more cohesive communities but lower cross-ideological reach compared to pre-ban patterns. This redistribution underscores a causal mechanism where platform interventions inadvertently bolster alternative networks' , prioritizing internal over systemic suppression.

Assessments of Harm Reduction Effectiveness

Empirical studies on deplatforming's role in reducing harm, primarily through metrics like content dissemination, user engagement, and toxicity, yield mixed findings, with evidence of short-term platform-specific declines but limited proof of sustained ecosystem-wide or offline benefits. A 2023 analysis of six disruptions targeting hate-based organizations on found that removing key members decreased hateful content production by an average of 69%, consumption by 62%, and intra-group engagement by 55%, suggesting localized containment of coordinated . Similarly, deplatforming high-profile accounts following the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol events on (now X) reduced the circulation of URLs by those users by over 70% and by their followers by approximately 40%, as measured through difference-in-differences models comparing pre- and post-ban periods. These effects persisted for months, indicating that targeted removals can curb amplification on the affected platform. However, such interventions often fail to eliminate harm across the broader online , as users migrate to alternative venues with laxer . Deplatforming of the in January 2021, following its association with post-election unrest, did not diminish overall activity among its users on other fringe platforms like Gab or Telegram; instead, migration sustained or redirected engagement without net reduction in fringe participation. Conspiracy-oriented communities exhibit particular resilience, with a 2023 study showing that while deplatforming initially shrinks group size and connectivity, these networks reconstitute faster than non-conspiracy counterparts, maintaining cross-group ties and content volume over time. A large-scale ban of nearly 2,000 subreddits in 2020 led to 15.6% of affected users departing the site and a 6.6% average drop in among remaining users, but it also prompted shifts to less regulated spaces, complicating claims of overall harm . Deplatforming norm-violating influencers further demonstrates attention reduction but underscores proxy limitations for true harm abatement. Longitudinal tracking of 101 influencers across platforms like and revealed that permanent bans decreased attention by 64% and Wikipedia views by 43% after 12 months, with temporary suspensions yielding smaller but positive effects; misinformation-focused deplatformings amplified these drops. Yet, these metrics capture visibility rather than causal impacts on real-world harms like or , where long-term data is scarce and confounded by migration dynamics. Systemic reviews note the absence of robust causal evidence linking deplatforming to decreased offline incidents, as displaced actors often intensify in unregulated environments, potentially heightening fringe echo chambers without verifiable societal gains. Overall, while deplatforming achieves tactical online suppressions, empirical gaps persist in demonstrating net beyond immediate platform boundaries.

Arguments in Favor of Deplatforming

Platform Liability and Safety Imperatives

Platforms operate as private entities with the discretion to moderate content, yet face potential liability for facilitating harm through user-generated material, prompting proactive deplatforming to mitigate legal risks. Under of the of 1996, interactive computer services enjoy immunity from liability for third-party content, but subsection (c)(2) explicitly shields platforms engaging in "good faith" efforts to restrict offensive or harmful material, such as content promoting violence. This framework incentivizes moderation, as failure to act could expose platforms to claims under other statutes, including aiding and abetting liability or in distributing dangerous content. Proponents argue that such imperatives align with platforms' roles as curators, compelling them to prioritize user safety over unrestricted hosting to avoid lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny. Safety considerations extend to averting real-world violence incited by amplified extremist rhetoric, with deplatforming positioned as a necessary tool for containment. The 2019 , where attacker Brenton Tarrant livestreamed the assault on and disseminated a across platforms, exemplified how rapid online propagation can inspire copycat acts, galvanizing industry-wide removals of similar content. Platforms responded by enhancing algorithms and policies to detect and excise terrorist manifestos and live violence, arguing that unchecked spread constitutes a direct pathway to physical harm. Advocates cite post-deplatforming patterns as evidence of efficacy in curbing extremism's momentum, though these observations rely on correlations rather than definitive causation. indicates that removing hate-oriented accounts diminishes overall platform toxicity, with one study finding that excising hundreds of such entities causally improved network health by reducing toxic interactions. Similarly, deplatforming norm-violating influencers has been linked to a 63% drop in their online attention after 12 months, limiting exposure to audiences prone to . These measures, per supporters, safeguard communities by disrupting pathways from digital incitement to offline , fulfilling platforms' duty to foster environments free from foreseeable perils.

Purported Benefits for Public Discourse

Proponents of deplatforming contend that it ameliorates public discourse by diminishing the proliferation of and divisive content, thereby enabling more rational and evidence-based exchanges among users. By excising accounts deemed to propagate falsehoods or , platforms purportedly shield audiences from manipulative narratives that could otherwise polarize communities or incite unrest. This perspective posits that sustained exposure to unchecked harmful erodes trust in institutions and facts, whereas targeted removals restore a baseline of verifiable . Empirical claims supporting this include analyses of post-January 6, 2021, deplatformings on , where the intervention reportedly curtailed circulation not only from the banned accounts but also from their followers, reducing overall reach by measurable margins. Similarly, on deplatforming "bad actors" has found it effective in policing and curtailing spread, with platforms experiencing lower incidences of coordinated false narratives after such actions. In the context of health-related discourse, initiatives like Facebook's removal of anti-vaccine content during the were advanced as mechanisms to limit the viral transmission of dangerous health falsehoods, preserving space for authoritative messaging. Regarding norm enforcement, advocates assert that deplatforming reinforces civil standards by deterring escalatory behaviors, such as or calls to , which proponents link to degraded quality. Expert assessments indicate that banning extremists can diminish aggregate volumes on platforms, fostering environments where moderate voices predominate and constructive debate thrives over antagonism. Platform analyses of hate organization removals further claim causal improvements in site-wide health metrics, including reduced toxicity and enhanced user retention among non-extremist demographics. These benefits are often highlighted in academic and circles, though originating from entities with incentives to justify practices.

Criticisms and Opposing Views

Free Speech Implications and Censorship Risks

Deplatforming by private technology platforms raises profound concerns regarding free speech, as these entities have evolved into the primary venues for public discourse, effectively serving as contemporary equivalents to traditional town squares. Unlike government actors bound by the First Amendment, platforms wield unilateral power to remove users or content, enabling what amounts to viewpoint discrimination without legal oversight or appeal mechanisms. This dynamic allows private gatekeepers to shape narratives by silencing dissenting perspectives, potentially stifling the open exchange of ideas essential to democratic deliberation. Furthermore, external advocacy groups and content flagging organizations, such as trusted flaggers under frameworks like the EU's Digital Services Act, pressure platforms to remove flagged content without requiring judicial oversight. Critics argue that this mechanism facilitates the suppression of dissenting or provocative views, contributing to risks for open discourse by incentivizing platforms to err on the side of removal to avoid penalties or reputational harm. A key risk is the from targeted restrictions on imminent violence or threats to broader suppression of . Initially framed as necessary to prevent harm, such as to physical violence, deplatforming policies have expanded to encompass challenges to prevailing orthodoxies, including queries about . For instance, following the 2020 U.S. presidential election, platforms like systematically suspended or restricted accounts questioning vote counts or procedural irregularities, reclassifying such speech from permissible debate to "" warranting removal. This illustrates how vague standards can erode protections for non-violent expression, transforming platforms into arbiters of truth rather than neutral conduits. Empirical analyses further highlight enforcement asymmetries that exacerbate risks, with conservative-leaning users disproportionately affected. A 2024 Yale School of Management study examining hashtag usage found that accounts promoting pro-Trump or conservative content faced suspension rates significantly higher than those with pro-Biden or liberal equivalents, even when controlling for policy violations. Such disparities suggest selective application of rules, potentially driven by internal biases or external pressures, which undermines claims of neutral and concentrates power in unelected hands. Critics contend this not only discriminates against specific ideologies but also chills across the spectrum, as users anticipate uneven scrutiny.

Evidence of Ineffectiveness and Unintended Consequences

Deplatforming efforts have frequently failed to achieve net reductions in harmful online activity due to user migration to alternative platforms, where engagement often persists or intensifies. A 2023 study analyzing the January 2021 deplatforming of following the U.S. Capitol riot found that while Parler's user base declined sharply, affected users increased their posting volumes on other fringe platforms such as Gab and Telegram by comparable margins, resulting in no overall decrease in fringe social media activity. Similarly, examinations of deplatformed users from mainstream sites like reveal heightened toxicity and activity on clones, suggesting that isolated bans displace rather than diminish norm-violating behavior across the ecosystem. Unintended backfire effects have also emerged, where deplatforming correlates with reinforced commitment among fringe audiences. Research on the removal of hate organization leaders from in multiple disruptions between 2018 and 2021 showed short-term reductions in platform-specific , but target audiences exhibited sustained or redirected engagement on successor groups or external channels, potentially entrenching ideologies through perceived martyrdom narratives. Observational data from deplatforming events indicate resilience in extremist communities, with bans sometimes amplifying internal cohesion and as users frame exclusions as evidence of systemic opposition, though causal links remain challenging to isolate without experimental controls. Empirical assessments of deplatforming's efficacy are limited by the absence of randomized controlled trials, relying instead on quasi-experimental designs prone to factors like concurrent events or self-selection in platform migrations. Long-term studies are scarce, with most drawn from short windows post-intervention, obscuring whether displaced activity eventually dissipates or evolves into offline harms. This methodological gap underscores a normalized overconfidence in deplatforming's harm reduction potential, as cross-platform tracking reveals persistent aggregate exposure rather than elimination of targeted content.

Asymmetry, Bias, and Power Concentration

Deplatforming practices demonstrate a notable empirical asymmetry, with right-leaning accounts and figures facing suspensions and bans at higher rates than their left-leaning counterparts. A 2024 analysis of Twitter data revealed that accounts using pro-Trump or conservative hashtags were suspended at significantly higher rates than those using pro-Biden or liberal hashtags, even after accounting for activity levels. This pattern aligns with broader observations from platform data, where conservative users experienced elevated enforcement actions during politically charged periods, such as post-2020 election moderation waves targeting election-related claims predominantly from the right. Comparable left-leaning rhetoric, including calls associated with 2020 urban unrest, rarely triggered equivalent high-profile deplatforming, highlighting selective application despite similar potential for incitement. Critics have alleged systemic anti-conservative bias, often tied to government coordination, such as FBI pressure on platforms revealed in House Oversight Committee hearings. While some studies attribute higher conservative suspension rates to elevated sharing of or rule-violating content by those users, a 2021 NYU Stern study found that disparities stemmed from greater sharing of misinformation and low-quality sources by conservative-linked accounts, rather than ideological targeting; algorithms often amplified right-leaning content via higher engagement metrics. This does not fully explain inconsistencies in thresholds or the rarity of symmetric actions against left-leaning violations. Internal platform cultures contribute causally, as evidenced by employee political donations skewing overwhelmingly Democratic—often exceeding 95% at firms like and —fostering norms that prioritize suppression of dissenting views over neutral rule application. Releases from the exposed internal deliberations where moderation teams hesitated on left-leaning content while accelerating actions against conservative accounts, reflecting a toward protecting prevailing institutional narratives rather than uniform standards. Following Elon Musk's 2022 acquisition of the platform (rebranded as X), moderation practices shifted toward reduced enforcement, reinstating many previously deplatformed conservative accounts and diminishing prior asymmetries. The concentration of power in a handful of tech monopolies amplifies these biases, enabling opaque, unaccountable decisions without democratic oversight or appeal mechanisms. Platforms like Meta and pre-acquisition commanded over 70% of U.S. traffic as of 2023, allowing executives to wield censorship authority akin to state powers amid pressures from advertisers boycotting right-leaning content and governments requesting removals disproportionately affecting conservative speech. This structural dynamic incentivizes enforcement aligned with elite consensus—often left-leaning due to Silicon Valley demographics—over impartiality, as competitive alternatives remain marginal and reliant on mainstream gateways for reach.

United States Framework and Challenges

Section 230 of the , enacted on February 8, 1996, immunizes providers and users of interactive computer services from civil liability for content created by third parties, while also protecting platforms from liability for good-faith efforts to block or restrict access to material deemed obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. This dual protection—under subsections (c)(1) treating platforms as non-publishers of user content and (c)(2) safeguarding moderation decisions—allows companies to deplatform users or remove posts without incurring distributor or publisher liability that might otherwise apply under . Absent Section 230, platforms might face heightened legal risks for moderation, potentially constraining aggressive deplatforming practices. In response to concerns over viewpoint-based deplatforming, particularly of conservative figures, Florida and Texas enacted laws in 2021 to limit platforms' ability to ban or restrict users on political grounds. Florida's Social Media Protection Act (SB 7072), signed May 25, 2021, prohibited deplatforming of political candidates and required explanations for certain bans, while Texas's HB 20 barred viewpoint discrimination in content moderation and visibility filtering. Both laws faced immediate federal court injunctions, with rulings citing platforms' First Amendment rights to editorial control, and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024 declined to fully resolve the conflicts, leaving Section 230's framework intact but highlighting tensions between state regulation and platform autonomy. The statute does not impose common carrier obligations on platforms, such as mandatory neutrality in hosting speech, distinguishing them from providers regulated under Title II of the Communications Act. This enables unilateral content curation as private editorial choices, free from federal mandates to carry all lawful speech. However, challenges emerge from the interplay with the First Amendment, which prohibits government abridgment of speech but does not compel private entities to host content, allowing platforms to enforce reflecting their own expressive interests. A key challenge involves allegations of government "jawboning"—persuasive or coercive pressure on platforms to moderate content—which courts scrutinize as potential state action violating the First Amendment when it crosses into compulsion rather than mere advocacy. In Missouri v. Biden, filed on May 5, 2022, by attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana alongside individual plaintiffs, the suit claimed Biden administration officials, including from the White House, FBI, and CDC, pressured platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to censor disfavored views on COVID-19 origins, vaccines, and election integrity through repeated demands, threats of antitrust scrutiny, and public shaming. On July 4, 2023, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty granted a preliminary injunction, finding the government likely engaged in a "far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign" via coercion exceeding protected persuasion. The Fifth Circuit, in a September 8, 2023, en banc decision, largely affirmed, ruling that officials' actions constituted viewpoint discrimination and exceeded First Amendment bounds by jawboning platforms into suppressing conservative-leaning speech. These rulings highlight enforcement challenges: while empowers private moderation, government involvement risks invalidation if proven coercive, yet proving such causation amid platforms' independent policies remains evidentiary hurdles, as platforms retain discretion to align with or ignore official entreaties. Pre-2023 frameworks thus preserve platform autonomy but expose systemic vulnerabilities where official pressure amplifies deplatforming of non-mainstream views without direct statutory redress for private biases.

International and EU Approaches

In the , the (DSA), which entered into force on November 16, 2022, and began phased application from February 17, 2024, regulates intermediary services including social platforms to address illegal content and systemic risks such as and harm to civic discourse. For very large online platforms (VLOPs) with over 45 million users, the DSA mandates risk assessments and mitigation measures, which may include user deplatforming to prevent the amplification of harmful content; non-compliance can result in fines up to 6% of global annual turnover imposed by the . Platforms must provide transparency reports detailing actions, including suspensions, with statements of reasons and appeal mechanisms to affected users, aiming to balance enforcement with accountability. The DSA distinguishes between general obligations for all platforms—such as expeditious removal of notified illegal content—and enhanced duties for VLOPs, where deplatforming decisions target "systemic risks" like election interference, without granting platforms immunity from liability for user-generated harms. Critics, including legal scholars, argue this framework empowers unelected regulators to influence moderation practices extraterritorially, potentially pressuring platforms to err toward over-removal to avoid penalties, though data as of 2025 shows initial focus on compliance audits rather than mass deplatformings. In the , the , receiving on October 26, 2023, imposes proactive duties on user-to-user services to prevent exposure to priority illegal harms, including and child exploitation material, requiring platforms to assess risks and implement removal systems with fines up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million enforced by . Duties for illegal content became enforceable on March 17, 2025, compelling platforms to use tools like hashing and URL detection for swift deplatforming of offending accounts, while smaller services face lighter tailored obligations. The Act's emphasis on "safety by design" has led to concerns over chilled speech, as platforms may preemptively suspend users to meet vague harm thresholds, diverging from U.S. immunity models by holding companies directly accountable for systemic failures. Outside Europe, Brazil exemplifies judicial-driven deplatforming, where the (STF) has ordered platforms to suspend accounts disseminating electoral misinformation, as in 2022 rulings by Justice targeting networks linked to former President Jair Bolsonaro's election challenges, resulting in blocks of Telegram channels and accounts for non-compliance with content removal directives. These monocratic decisions, upheld under Brazil's 1988 Constitution's provisions, fined platforms up to 10% of local revenue and threatened nationwide bans, culminating in the 2024 X (formerly ) suspension after repeated defiance of orders to block specific users. Such approaches highlight risks of executive-judicial overreach, as individual justices wield broad discretion without legislative checks, contrasting regulatory models like the DSA by prioritizing rapid enforcement over transparency and potentially enabling politicized targeting of opposition figures.

Recent Developments (2023-2025)

In February 2025, the U.S. (FTC) initiated a into technology platform practices, examining how platforms deny or degrade user access to services through mechanisms such as and demonetization, amid broader concerns over moderation biases. The inquiry, launched on February 20, seeks public comments to assess potential anticompetitive effects and consumer harms from such moderation, signaling increased regulatory scrutiny on platforms' content controls beyond traditional safety concerns. Legislative efforts intensified in 2025, with the bipartisan STOP HATE Act, announced on July 24, proposing fines of up to $5 million per day for companies failing to report and enforce moderation against terrorist content and . Sponsored by Representatives Gottheimer and with support from the , the bill mandates transparency in moderation outcomes but has drawn criticism for potentially outsourcing censorship decisions to advocacy groups, raising risks of viewpoint under the guise of . On platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Elon Musk's ownership led to policy shifts reducing deplatforming asymmetry, including high-profile reinstatements and active engagement; former President , previously banned across major platforms post-January 6, 2021, resumed posting on X in August 2024 ahead of an with Musk, contributing to his visibility during the election cycle. Analyses post-2024 election highlighted the failure of sustained deplatforming efforts against Trump, as alternative channels and policy relaxations enabled his return to mainstream discourse without evident suppression of influence. Public support for content restrictions declined in 2025, with a survey from April showing only 52% of U.S. adults favoring government limits on false information online, down from 60% in 2023, and similar drops for tech company actions on violent content. Globally, Pew's April 2025 report across 35 countries underscored broad prioritization of free expression, though variances persisted in perceptions of freedoms. Debates over reforms accelerated amid AI-generated deepfakes, with a July 2024 bipartisan House bill conditioning immunity on platforms' efforts to detect and label such content, while broader proposals call for sunsetting the provision by late 2025 to address evolving liabilities. Concurrently, platforms like Meta announced in January 2025 the end of third-party , shifting to user-generated notes, and further tweaks in , reflecting a pivot away from aggressive intervention toward reduced enforcement intensity.

Alternatives and Future Trajectories

Migration to Alternative Platforms

Following the deplatforming of prominent conservative figures and platforms after the , 2021, U.S. Capitol events, users migrated en masse to alternatives like and Gab, with peaking at over 15 million users amid a surge that propelled it to the top of app stores before its removal. Gab experienced a comparable influx, as deplatforming from mainstream sites drove millions in new registrations and revenue, according to a 2022 Stanford Observatory analysis. Similarly, Telegram saw heightened adoption by U.S. far-right extremists between 2020 and 2023, serving as a hub for and radical networks due to its lax and encrypted channels. These shifts illustrate a pattern where deplatformed communities seek ideologically aligned spaces, often resulting in temporary spikes in user acquisition. Truth Social, launched in 2022 by former President after his suspension in January 2021, exemplifies loyalty-driven migration, attracting a dedicated base of Trump supporters unwilling to engage mainstream platforms. While its user base remains modest—around 2% of U.S. adults report using it for news, with Trump maintaining 4.43 million followers compared to his prior 88 million on —the platform sustains engagement through niche appeal, though it struggles with broader scalability due to limited infrastructure and algorithmic reach. Alternative platforms like these face inherent challenges in achieving mainstream viability, as smaller networks constrain content virality and monetization, yet they cultivate intense user retention among ideologically committed groups. Empirically, such migrations correlate with diminished overall online attention and engagement for deplatformed entities—studies estimate a 43-63% reduction in search and visibility metrics post-exile—while fostering persistent echo chambers that amplify homogeneous viewpoints. Research on Gab, , and highlights how these environments reinforce right-leaning insularity, with users recycling similar narratives and exhibiting heightened risks absent cross-ideological exposure. Deplatforming thus redirects activity to fringe ecosystems without eradicating it, potentially sustaining long-term user loyalty at the cost of broader integration.

Decentralization and Technological Countermeasures

Decentralization efforts in online platforms aim to mitigate deplatforming risks by distributing control across multiple nodes, relays, or servers, thereby eliminating centralized chokepoints where a single authority can enforce bans. Federated systems like those using the protocol allow instances to interconnect voluntarily, enabling content to propagate beyond any one server's policies. This structure inherently reduces the leverage of deplatforming, as users and data can migrate or replicate across independent operators without relying on gatekeepers. Mastodon, a prominent federated microblogging network, exemplifies this approach, with users hosting their own servers that federate via ActivityPub. Following Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter in October 2022, experienced rapid growth, expanding from approximately 500,000 active monthly users to nearly 9 million by November 2024, driven in part by users seeking alternatives amid concerns over centralized moderation. Donations to the project surged 488% in 2022, reaching €325,900, reflecting increased community support for self-sustained, decentralized infrastructure. Such federation ensures that deplatforming on one instance does not erase content, as it persists and is accessible via interconnected peers. Protocols like further advance censorship resistance through relay-based architecture, where messages are stored and forwarded by independent servers without a central . Launched in 2020, Nostr saw accelerated adoption post-2022, with client applications reporting over 18 million users by mid-2025. An analysis of the network revealed 616 million post replications across 17.8 million unique posts, averaging 34.6 relays per post, demonstrating high redundancy that safeguards against targeted removals. This replication mechanism causally undermines deplatforming by ensuring content availability persists even if specific relays enforce bans, as users can connect to alternative relays. Blockchain-based platforms provide immutable storage and economic incentives to resist , leveraging distributed ledgers to verify and propagate content without intermediaries. Platforms such as DTube, built on for video sharing, enable users to upload and access media in a manner resistant to unilateral takedowns, as transactions are recorded on-chain and verifiable by consensus. Self-hosting tools, including for running personal instances of federated services or custom servers, allow individuals to bypass platform dependencies entirely; for instance, deploying or similar on private hardware evades bans by granting full operational control. Empirical assessments indicate these technologies contest centralized platform dominance by fostering resilient networks, though challenges persist in achieving mass adoption.

References

  1. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/deplatforming
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10638500/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10268571/
  4. https://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/esocpu/31.html
  5. https://arxiv.org/html/2401.01253v1
  6. https://css.seas.upenn.edu/the-unintended-consequence-of-deplatforming-on-the-spread-of-harmful-content/
  7. https://seclab.bu.edu/people/gianluca/papers/deplatforming-websci2021.pdf
  8. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630744.3663608
  9. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deplatform
  10. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deplatform
  11. https://www.jamesmadison.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PolicyBrief_Deplatforming_Mar2021_v02.pdf
  12. https://sites.bu.edu/tpri/files/2018/07/tucker-network-effects-antitrust2018.pdf
  13. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%2520Files/21-086_a5189999-6335-4890-b050-a59a4b665198.pdf
  14. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/context/faculty-publications/article/2399/viewcontent/Deplatforming__Sitaraman.pdf
  15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01634437221077174
  16. https://globaldigitalcultures.org/2021/07/06/shadowbanning-in-relation-to-deplatformization/
  17. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/isp/documents/reduction_ispessayseries_jul2022.pdf
  18. https://geoffgolberg.medium.com/the-art-of-the-shadowdan-26c9e740415e
  19. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/guide-content-moderation-policymakers
  20. https://platformglossary.info/deplatforming-de-platforming/
  21. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/twitter-other-tech-companies-slip-on-removing-hate-speech-eu-review-says
  22. https://platformglossary.info/demonetization/
  23. https://www.britannica.com/money/demonetization
  24. https://heritage.umich.edu/stories/invitation-to-a-nazi/
  25. https://forward.com/culture/355112/when-an-actual-nazi-spoke-on-an-american-college-campus/
  26. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/the-lost-civilization-of-dial-up-bulletin-board-systems/506465/
  27. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=chtlj
  28. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/
  29. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/google-twitters-new-transparency-report-shows-increase-government-demands-sheds
  30. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/23/us/gamergate-harassment-reddit-twitter-cec
  31. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/12/new-harassment-policy-for-twitter/383344/
  32. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-14/a-no-gamergate-target-wants-twitter-to-make-harassment-harder
  33. https://www.upi.com/Business_News/2014/12/03/Twitter-changes-policy-to-prevent-harrassment/7881417629168/
  34. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/09/twitter-transparency-report-user-information
  35. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/10/reddit-bans-five-subreddits-harrassment-concerns
  36. https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/reddit-sets-new-content-policy-banning-some-racist-communities/
  37. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/11614780/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-changes-content-policy-lists-bannable
  38. https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2015/06/12/reddit-bans-rfatpeoplehate-four-other-subreddits-under-new-harassment-rules/
  39. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.31.2.211
  40. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/15/facebook-flag-fake-news-fact-check
  41. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/facebook-fact-checking-partnerships.php
  42. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23089/revisions/w23089.rev0.pdf
  43. https://www.statista.com/topics/11495/social-media-content-moderation-and-removal/
  44. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/with-fact-checks-twitter-takes-on-a-new-kind-of-task-idUSKBN23701H/
  45. https://techpolicy.press/deplatforming-accounts-after-the-january-6th-insurrection-at-the-us-capitol-reduced-misinformation-on-twitter
  46. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/what-the-twitter-files-reveal-about-free-speech-and-social-media
  47. https://www.newamerica.org/future-frontlines/reports/parler-and-the-road-to-the-capitol-attack/executive-summary/
  48. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/14/1142666067/elon-musk-is-using-the-twitter-files-to-discredit-foes-and-push-conspiracy-theor
  49. https://jacobin.com/2022/12/twitter-files-censorship-content-moderation-intelligence-agencies-surveillance
  50. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/14/tech/twitter-files-content-moderation
  51. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-63963779
  52. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html
  53. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/fb-691qamhj/
  54. https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/07/954453630/facebook-bans-president-trump-from-posting-for-the-rest-of-his-presidency
  55. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/twitter-and-facebook-block-accounts-of-jair-bolsonaro-supporters-amid-misinformation-probe/erq0t9rkj
  56. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/facebook-takes-down-bolsonaro-video-over-false-vaccine-claim-2021-10-25/
  57. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
  58. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/twitter-files
  59. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/do-social-media-platforms-suspend-conservatives-more
  60. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2024.2306503
  61. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/06/apple-removes-podcasts-infowars-alex-jones
  62. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/technology/infowars-alex-jones-apple-facebook-spotify.html
  63. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/06/645352618/twitter-bans-alex-jones-and-infowars-cites-abusive-behavior
  64. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45442417
  65. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/20/1118624860/andrew-tate-facebook-instagram-banned
  66. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62602913
  67. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/19/andrew-tate-instagram-facebook-removed
  68. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23318861/andrew-tate-tiktok-instagram-youtube-banned
  69. https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-tate-how-the-arrest-of-controversial-influencer-has-boosted-his-twitter-following-12867054
  70. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/03/719897599/facebook-bans-alex-jones-louis-farrakhan-and-other-dangerous-individuals
  71. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/technology/facebook-alex-jones-louis-farrakhan-ban.html
  72. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/14/543360434/white-supremacist-site-is-banned-by-go-daddy-after-virginia-rally
  73. https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
  74. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/cloudflare-ceo-says-removing-the-daily-stormer-is-slippery-slope.html
  75. https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/16/16156210/daily-stormer-russian-domain-godaddy-google-ban
  76. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/apple-google-parler.html
  77. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/tech/parler-suspended-apple-app-store
  78. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55608081
  79. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/parler-drops-offline-after-amazon-withdraws-support.html
  80. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/what-is-parler-why-has-it-been-pulled-offline-2021-01-12/
  81. https://www.vox.com/recode/22913046/deplatforming-extremists-ban-qanon-proud-boys-boogaloo-oathkeepers-three-percenters-trump
  82. https://techpolicy.press/deplatforming-reduces-overall-attention-to-online-figures-says-longitudinal-study-of-101-influencers
  83. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/57ed3397af003b4245ae9a127dfa7bf91fd66129
  84. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter/
  85. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973791961/with-trump-out-of-office-disinformation-online-is-on-a-decline
  86. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-15/alex-jones-got-even-richer-after-being-thrown-off-social-media
  87. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4019767
  88. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3447535.3462637
  89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36959908/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10029837/
  91. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369434522_Deplatforming_did_not_decrease_Parler_users%27_activity_on_fringe_social_media
  92. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374992939_The_systemic_impact_of_deplatforming_on_social_media
  93. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214080120
  94. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07524-8
  95. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/3/pgad035/7081430
  96. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/10/pgad324/7332079
  97. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01253
  98. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751
  99. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/interpreting-the-ambiguities-of-section-230/
  100. https://hbr.org/2021/08/its-time-to-update-section-230
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8547820/
  102. https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/five-years-on-from-christchurch-assessing-the-evolution-of-the-threat-landscape-and-policy-response/
  103. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3710960
  104. https://www.gao.gov/assets/D24106262.pdf
  105. https://politicalscience.ucr.edu/publication/2024/07/01/post-january-6th-deplatforming-reduced-reach-misinformation-twitter
  106. https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/06/05/social-media-misinformation-deplatforming/
  107. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2132
  108. https://theconversation.com/does-deplatforming-work-to-curb-hate-speech-and-calls-for-violence-3-experts-in-online-communications-weigh-in-153177
  109. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/960466075/is-deplatforming-enough-to-fight-disinformation-and-extremism
  110. https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/article-22-digital-services-act
  111. https://www.csis.org/blogs/europe-corner/does-eus-digital-services-act-violate-freedom-speech
  112. https://thesciencesurvey.com/editorial/2024/07/10/social-media-private-enterprise-meets-the-town-square/
  113. https://repository.law.umich.edu/context/mjlr/article/1605/viewcontent/uc.pdf
  114. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2022/10/Turley-JLPP-V45-Issue-2.pdf
  115. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.01253
  116. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3479525
  117. https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3852594-the-twitter-bias-hearings-point-to-favoritism-but-not-for-liberals/
  118. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb2428
  119. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8
  120. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/02/most-liberal-tech-companies-ranked-by-employee-donations.html
  121. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/413428-tech-workers-political-donations-skew-overwhelmingly-democratic-report/
  122. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115286/documents/HHRG-118-GO00-20230208-SD010.pdf
  123. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/07/Regulating-Online-Content-Moderation.pdf
  124. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/the-rise-of-content-cartels
  125. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/media-platforming-and-the-normalisation-of-extreme-right-views/747E769DA6CE4365E0151B55FDF4DEFA
  126. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  127. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072
  128. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB20
  129. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996
  130. https://nclalegal.org/case/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/
  131. https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf
  132. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pdf
  133. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en
  134. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2348
  135. https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_15.html
  136. https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/digital-services-act-and-eu-global-regulator-internet
  137. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
  138. https://itif.org/publications/2025/06/09/uk-online-safety-act/
  139. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act
  140. https://freedomhouse.org/country/brazil/freedom-net/2022
  141. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/online-content-moderation-lessons-from-outside-the-u-s/
  142. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/the-case-of-the-rumble-ban-in-brazil/
  143. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/federal-trade-commission-launches-inquiry-tech-censorship
  144. https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/request-public-comments-regarding-technology-platform-censorship
  145. https://gottheimer.house.gov/posts/release-gottheimer-bacon-adl-announce-legislation-to-combat-terrorists-disinformation-on-social-media
  146. https://www.reason.com/2025/07/24/this-bill-would-fine-social-media-companies-5-million-every-day-for-not-fighting-terrorism/
  147. https://www.compliancehub.wiki/the-stop-hate-act-how-congress-plans-to-outsource-censorship-to-advocacy-groups/
  148. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/13/trump-returns-to-x-with-two-hour-elon-musk-chat-hit-by-technical-glitch
  149. https://www.vox.com/politics/384343/trump-media-shun-gatekeep-musk-rogan-fuentes-carlson
  150. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/04/14/support-dips-for-us-government-tech-companies-restricting-false-or-violent-online-content/
  151. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/04/24/free-expression-seen-as-important-globally-but-not-everyone-thinks-their-country-has-press-speech-and-internet-freedoms/
  152. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/07/exclusive-new-house-bill-amends-section-230-to-combat-ai-deepfakes-00171724?source=email
  153. https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2024/06/11/a-final-bow-for-section-230-latest-plea-for-reform-calls-for-sunset-of-immunity-law/
  154. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/07/business/meta-fact-checking
  155. https://www.nrgmr.com/our-thinking/technology/fact-checked-out-metas-strategic-pivot-and-the-future-of-content-moderation/
  156. https://www.theregreview.org/2023/11/09/mcdonald-the-limits-of-deplatforming/
  157. https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/news/sio-new-gab-report
  158. https://pt.icct.nl/sites/default/files/2023-04/Article%25206_2.pdf
  159. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60419008
  160. https://www.wired.com/story/truth-social-trump-mastodon/
  161. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/trumps-truth-social-tiny-conservative-phenomenon.html
  162. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08676
  163. https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/content-moderation-challenges
  164. https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/02/amid-twitter-chaos-mastodon-grew-donations-488-in-2022-reached-1-8m-monthly-active-users/
  165. https://www.newsweek.com/how-top-twitter-rivals-fared-since-elon-musk-exodus-1984404
  166. https://arxiv.org/html/2402.05709v2
  167. https://fossunited.org/c/pune/punefoss/cfp/9g5kqp198l
  168. https://www.coinmetro.com/learning-lab/how-blockchain-can-transform-social-media-platforms
  169. https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/16/2/367/7148503
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.