You might be reading this through your own filter. It's an overloaded term right now but I took the parent to be referring to actual violent radicalization which is a real online threat: https://rcmp.ca/en/corporate-information/publications-and-ma...
reply(Forgive the link source - I can see in hindsight how that might not be perceived as the most objective source - but there are many other sources for those who care to look.)
So social networks dont benefit from radicalizing people? Abusing their own human nature against them? Thats your argument, really?
replyI may be off here, but I believe that they are referring to the political aspect of the word “radicalize”. In a standard democracy, it’s not really appropriate for the government to attempt to halt the spread of competing philosophies that may result in electoral changes. (This doesn’t apply to so-called “defensive democracies” as well as “guided democracies” which IMO aren’t really democracies.)
replyThe problem in these discussions is that radicalize is an overloaded term. It could mean convincing someone of your non-mainstream political view, or it could mean inspiring someone to commit an act of terror. The former seems perfectly fine to me and well within freedom of speech and association.