De-Platforming as a Public Relations Strategy

Is de-plat­form­ing a sound pub­lic rela­tions strategy?

De-plat­form­ing is one of the most aggress­ive tools that an online mod­er­at­or can utilise. 

Should an online mod­er­at­or use this tool, wheth­er it’s a social net­work restrict­ing user accounts or an organ­isa­tion delet­ing com­ments? The short answer is … maybe.

When is de-plat­form­ing a sound course of action from a PR perspective?

Analysing the Situation

Whether or not an organ­isa­tion should attempt to de-plat­form depends on how your organ­isa­tion would answer three questions:

A Rational Understanding

By ask­ing three fun­da­ment­al ques­tions, you’ll under­stand what kind of scen­ario your organ­isa­tion is deal­ing with. De-plat­form­ing is typ­ic­ally asso­ci­ated with raw emo­tion (anger, sad­ness, frus­tra­tion, etc.), so it’s advis­able to approach the situ­ation rationally.

1. Is the de-platforming grounded in a publicly accessible policy?

Suppose a social net­work shuts down an account based on user beha­viour that viol­ates their terms of con­di­tions. In that case, in states that viol­ate laws or reg­u­la­tions, a social net­work has every prerog­at­ive to end that account.

Why have con­di­tions if they aren’t being enforced?

Afterwards, the sus­pen­ded user can press charges against the social net­work. Still, if the viol­a­tion is doc­u­mented and the terms of con­di­tions are law­fully com­pli­ant, there’s not much more to be said about such a termination.

This is a rel­ev­ant insight for PR depart­ments as well:

It’s good prac­tice to put great effort into your policies. Because you should mod­er­ate your online chan­nels fiercely, you should elim­in­ate unwanted sub­scribers on your email lists. You should remove com­ments that dis­respect the rules of engage­ment your brand has put forth. Delete, block, ban — whatever tools you have, use them.

And therein lies the prop­er under­stand­ing of chal­len­ging and com­plex mat­ters like these.

In your policies, you would­n’t state that you will delete, block, or ban con­tent or users just because you feel like it. If you remove people because you can­not face their truths con­veyed fac­tu­ally and respect­fully, then you don’t have a troll prob­lem. You have a cul­tur­al man­age­ment prob­lem that you must address first.

2. Is the de-platforming a response to abuse of general democratic principles or criminal behaviour?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m firmly against can­cel cul­ture in gen­er­al — and de-plat­form­ing in particular.

Yes, loud minor­it­ies will fire each oth­er up and find safety in num­bers for oth­er­wise socially less accept­able pos­i­tions. Algorithmic fil­ter bubbles will gen­er­ate online echo cham­bers that amp­li­fy the band­wag­on effect.

But the uncom­fort­able hypo­thes­is here is that we can only grow as demo­crat­ic soci­et­ies if we col­lect­ively decide to hash these dif­fer­ences out using com­mu­nic­a­tion instead of violence.

In crude terms, com­mu­nic­a­tion and viol­ence are human­ity’s only tools for nego­ti­at­ing power. Violence — or the threat of it — has been a fun­da­ment­al real­ity through­out his­tory. And com­mu­nic­a­tion is the bed­rock of our civilisation. 

Violence, used as a form of nego­ti­at­ing power, is more pre­val­ent in our demo­crat­ic soci­et­ies than we might think. Refuse to com­ply with any form of demo­crat­ic legis­la­tion for long enough; how­ever subtle the refus­al or minor the non-com­pli­ance, someone with a fire­arm and gov­ern­ment­al author­ity will even­tu­ally appear at your doorstep.

To mit­ig­ate peace (as in the absence of viol­ence) through com­mu­nic­a­tion must, by inher­ent design, be upheld by a major­ity pos­i­tion. This is also why demo­cracy is an act­ive state of affairs; demo­cracy must be rein­forced by its con­stitu­ents on a recur­rent basis.

In a demo­crat­ic soci­ety, can­celled cul­ture and de-plat­form expres­sions of viol­ence — not com­mu­nic­a­tion. They are inher­ently anti-demo­crat­ic measures. 

Allowing groups with some­times anti-demo­crat­ic agen­das to com­mu­nic­ate freely exposes our demo­cra­cies to viol­ent altern­at­ives. But one would be mis­taken to think of demo­cra­cies as weak.
The cost of free­dom is pre­cisely that — a cost.

If someone is instig­at­ing viol­ence against demo­crat­ic prin­ciples nego­ti­ated via vari­ous forms of com­mu­nic­a­tion, the demo­cracy has been giv­en the full man­date of its con­stitu­ents to defend those prin­ciples — also with violence.

So, de-plat­form­ing is a demo­crat­ic tool when com­mu­nic­a­tion breaks down and is replaced by viol­ence or instigation.

3. Will the PR effects of de-platforming hurt the organization both short- and long-term?

Deplatforming is a final pub­lic rela­tions chal­lenge. If the account own­er or con­tent cre­at­or feels wrong­fully pun­ished, that rela­tion­ship might escal­ate bey­ond repair imme­di­ately. Being de-plat­formed is often tied with a strong emo­tion­al response. 

Such a broken-down rela­tion­ship might scale socially if the account own­er is fol­lowed by like-minded peers who can become highly vocal and act­ive adversaries.

There is also con­sid­er­able poten­tial blow­back in decid­ing not to shut down a spe­cif­ic account. Many accounts, espe­cially polit­ic­al ones, cre­ate divi­sion and spark debates. There will be blow­back from dis­gruntled interests when such reports step over the line.

Potentially adverse PR effects should be a sig­ni­fic­ant con­sid­er­a­tion in decid­ing when to de-plat­form cre­ate, and revise the pub­lic policy.

De-Platforming Scenarios

When con­sid­er­ing de-plat­form someone, you can use these scen­ari­os to determ­ine the right course of action:

A Complex PR Matter

De-plat­form­ing is, without a doubt, a com­plex mat­ter in PR.

On the one hand, we have a rampant can­cel cul­ture that hurts free speech (and, by exten­sion, all stra­tegic PR work) in the long term.

On the oth­er hand, organ­isa­tions must have integ­rity and fight back whenev­er their brands are attacked.

To make the situ­ation even more com­plex, we have a prob­lem where autonom­ous tech giants estab­lish rules as they see fit.

So, when it comes to de-plat­form­ing, the answer still has to be … maybe.

PR Resource: How To Navigate Cancel Culture

Spin Academy | Online PR Courses

Cancel Culture and Social Media

“Cancel cul­ture on social media is a form of pub­lic sham­ing that aims to dif­fuse pub­lic dis­course and pro­mote tol­er­ance, but can also be viewed as a form of intol­er­ance against oppos­ing views.”
Source: Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities ¹Velasco, J. (2020). You are Cancelled: Virtual Collective Consciousness and the Emergence of Cancel Culture as Ideological Purging. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 12. … Continue read­ing

Cancel cul­ture, de-plat­form­ing, and woke journ­al­ism are becom­ing chal­len­ging PR problems:

“Cancel cul­ture or call-out cul­ture is a phrase con­tem­por­ary to the late 2010s and early 2020s used to refer to a form of ostra­cism in which someone is thrust out of social or pro­fes­sion­al circles — wheth­er it be online, on social media, or in per­son. Those sub­ject to this ostra­cism are said to have been ‘can­celled’.”
Source: Wikipedia ²Cancel cul­ture. (2023, January 4). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​C​a​n​c​e​l​_​c​u​l​t​ure

Public opin­ion often forces brands to de-plat­form indi­vidu­als, part­ner organ­isa­tions, advert­isers, col­lab­or­at­ors, etc.

“Deplatforming, also known as no-plat­form­ing, has been defined as an ‘attempt to boy­cott a group or indi­vidu­al through remov­ing the plat­forms (such as speak­ing ven­ues or web­sites) used to share inform­a­tion or ideas, or ‘the action or prac­tice of pre­vent­ing someone hold­ing views regarded as unac­cept­able or offens­ive from con­trib­ut­ing to a for­um or debate, espe­cially by block­ing them on a par­tic­u­lar web­site’.”
Source: Wikipedia ³Deplatforming. (2023, January 8). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​D​e​p​l​a​t​f​o​r​m​ing

Here’s how to nav­ig­ate the mor­al war as a business:

• Avoid breezy grand­stand­ing. CSR- and ESG activ­it­ies should be laser-focused, clearly defined, and business-relevant.
• Internally, cel­eb­rate the diversity of thought. Having cowork­ers who think dif­fer­ently is an asset to any busi­ness culture.
• Don’t let the can­cel cul­ture intim­id­ate you. Protesters are loud and noisy, primar­ily online, but they don’t have the num­bers to match.
• Direct your resources towards your brand com­munity. Most of your cus­tom­er base will be in the silent major­ity, not in the extremes.

Learn more: How To Navigate Cancel Culture

💡 Subscribe and get a free ebook on how to get bet­ter PR ideas.

PR Resource: The Spiral of Silence

Spin Academy | Online PR Courses

The Spiral of Silence

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s (1916 – 2010) well-doc­u­mented the­ory on the spir­al of silence (1974) explains why the fear of isol­a­tion due to peer exclu­sion will pres­sure pub­lics to silence their opinions.

The the­ory was developed in the late 1970s in West Germany, partly in response to Noelle-Neumann’s obser­va­tions of how pub­lic opin­ion seemed to shift dur­ing the Nazi régime and post-war Germany.

The spir­al of silence the­ory is based on the idea that people fear social isol­a­tion. This fear influ­ences their will­ing­ness to express their opin­ions, espe­cially if they believe these opin­ions are in the minority.

Rather than risk­ing social isol­a­tion, many choose silence over express­ing their opinions.

“To the indi­vidu­al, not isol­at­ing him­self is more import­ant than his own judge­ment. […] This is the point where the indi­vidu­al is vul­ner­able; this is where social groups can pun­ish him for fail­ing to toe the line.”
— Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1916 – 2010)

As the dom­in­ant coali­tion gets to stand unop­posed, they push the con­fines of what’s accept­able down a nar­row­er and nar­row­er fun­nel (see also the Opinion Corridor). ⁴Opinion cor­ridor. (2023, April 8). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​O​p​i​n​i​o​n​_​c​o​r​r​i​dor

“The smart way to keep people pass­ive and obed­i­ent is to strictly lim­it the spec­trum of accept­able opin­ion, but allow very lively debate with­in that spec­trum — even encour­age the more crit­ic­al and dis­sid­ent views. That gives people the sense that there’s free think­ing going on, while all the time the pre­sup­pos­i­tions of the sys­tem are being rein­forced by the lim­its put on the range of the debate.”
— Noam Chomsky

Noelle-Neumann emphas­ised the medi­a’s role in shap­ing pub­lic per­cep­tion of what opin­ions are dom­in­ant or pop­u­lar, thus influ­en­cing the spir­al of silence. 

Populism and Cancel Culture

The mech­an­isms behind Elisabeth Noelle Neumann’s spir­al of silence the­ory could fuel destruct­ive soci­et­al phe­nom­ena like pop­u­lism and can­cel culture:

• Populism. The spir­al of silence the­ory sug­gests that indi­vidu­als are less likely to express their views if they per­ceive these views to be in the minor­ity or socially unac­cept­able. In the con­text of pop­u­lism, this can lead to a situ­ation where main­stream or mod­er­ate views are under­rep­res­en­ted in pub­lic dis­course, giv­ing dis­pro­por­tion­ate voice and momentum to more extreme, pop­u­list opin­ions that may appear more wide­spread than they are. ⁵Silfwer, J. (2018, August 6). How To Fight Populism. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​h​o​w​-​t​o​-​f​i​g​h​t​-​p​o​p​u​l​i​sm/
• Cancel Culture. The spir­al of silence may amp­li­fy can­cel cul­ture by dis­cour­aging indi­vidu­als from speak­ing against or ques­tion­ing the dom­in­ant nar­rat­ive for fear of social ostra­ciz­a­tion or back­lash. This can cre­ate an envir­on­ment where only one view­point is heard or deemed accept­able, and oppos­ing views are silenced, some­times lead­ing to the pub­lic sham­ing or ‘can­cel­la­tion’ of indi­vidu­als who express these con­trary opin­ions. ⁶Silfwer, J. (2020, August 24). Cancel Culture — A Serious PR Problem. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​c​a​n​c​e​l​-​c​u​l​t​u​re/

In both cases, the spir­al of silence con­trib­utes to a polar­ised envir­on­ment where views become dom­in­ant not neces­sar­ily because they are more pop­u­lar but because oppos­ing views are not expressed due to fear of social isol­a­tion or repercussion.

Learn more: The Spiral of Silence

💡 Subscribe and get a free ebook on how to get bet­ter PR ideas.