Some of you might have heard about this already, but for those that haven't, r/40klore recently banned a 40k lore YouTuber named arch warhammer. Actually, they did more than that, and banned not only him but any and all mention of him (as far as I can tell, this was actually the bigger part, he's not an active poster on the subreddit).
Thread in question:
He has a couple videos up discussing/mocking the subject as well:
However, this thread is not about arch specifically or to try and really support for him (I think he's fine, because his videos usually get more views than that reddit has active posters). It's more about the kind of online culture that leads to this. Arch's "ban" was allegedly put in place to stop arguements between his supporters and enemies everytime he came up, with the main arguments against him being bullshit claims people repeated over and over until they were taken as true (the most credible one that he's a nazi because he's friends with an ethnonationalist. The reality is that he interviewed an ethnonationalist one time). This pattern likely sounds familiar by now.
So the question that this poses to me is how should online communities handle issues like this? On a world that's increasingly polarized and intolerant of dissent, how should you go about building communities that are supposedly to be free of divisive politics, or handle cases like arch where someone's political views are visable in their work (even if not explicitly raised or focused on)? Should they be banned? Should you try and ban the people who don't like them and can't restrain themselves, even if that is a large part of the community you want to build?
Edit:
Oh, seems imperial herald has a post on it as well:
Thread in question:
He has a couple videos up discussing/mocking the subject as well:
However, this thread is not about arch specifically or to try and really support for him (I think he's fine, because his videos usually get more views than that reddit has active posters). It's more about the kind of online culture that leads to this. Arch's "ban" was allegedly put in place to stop arguements between his supporters and enemies everytime he came up, with the main arguments against him being bullshit claims people repeated over and over until they were taken as true (the most credible one that he's a nazi because he's friends with an ethnonationalist. The reality is that he interviewed an ethnonationalist one time). This pattern likely sounds familiar by now.
So the question that this poses to me is how should online communities handle issues like this? On a world that's increasingly polarized and intolerant of dissent, how should you go about building communities that are supposedly to be free of divisive politics, or handle cases like arch where someone's political views are visable in their work (even if not explicitly raised or focused on)? Should they be banned? Should you try and ban the people who don't like them and can't restrain themselves, even if that is a large part of the community you want to build?
Edit:
Oh, seems imperial herald has a post on it as well: