{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/60518a52f69aa815d2dba41c/66a11f81191529948ad8941b?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"Lawfare Daily: Deplatforming Works, with David Lazer and Kevin Esterling","description":"<p>In the runup to Jan. 6, lies and falsehoods about the supposed theft of the 2020 election ran wild on Twitter. Following the insurrection, the company took action—abruptly banning 70,000 users who had promoted misinformation on the platform. But was this mass deplatforming actually effective in reducing the spread of untruths?</p><p>According to a&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07524-8\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">paper recently published in Nature</a>, the answer is yes. Two of the authors, David Lazer of Northeastern University and Kevin Esterling of the University of California, Riverside, joined <em>Lawfare</em> Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic to discuss their findings—and ponder what this means about the influence and responsibility of social media platforms in shaping political discourse.</p><p>To receive ad-free podcasts, become a&nbsp;<em>Lawfare&nbsp;</em>Material Supporter at&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.patreon.com/lawfare\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">www.patreon.com/lawfare</a>. You can also support&nbsp;<em>Lawfare&nbsp;</em>by making a one-time donation<em>&nbsp;</em>at&nbsp;<a href=\"https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials</a>.</p>","author_name":"The Lawfare Institute"}