No-platforming

No-platforming is the practice of refusing to give a speaker a platform — denying them the opportunity to speak at a venue, appear on a broadcast, or participate in a discussion — on the grounds that their views are too harmful to be heard. It originated as a strategy by student unions in the UK in the 1970s–80s to prevent fascist speakers from using campus resources, and has expanded significantly in scope and application since then.

What it means

No-platforming is the ideological argument that underlies much of what we now call deplatforming. The reasoning: some ideas are so dangerous that even giving them a hearing normalizes them and causes harm. Critics of this position argue that it invariably expands — starting with genuine extremists, then moving to mainstream conservatives, then to anyone who challenges prevailing orthodoxy. History suggests this pattern is reliable.

The targets of no-platforming campaigns have included academics studying controversial subjects, comedians, journalists, politicians, and religious leaders — people who, by any neutral standard, represent mainstream or at least legally protected viewpoints.

How it works on Gab

Gab explicitly rejects the no-platforming model. The platform's design assumes that the solution to speech you disagree with is more speech — the classical liberal position articulated by John Stuart Mill and later by the U.S. Supreme Court. When speakers are removed elsewhere under no-platforming rationales, Gab is typically where they end up.

Related terms

No-platforming is the ideological justification; deplatforming is the practical action. Cancel culture is the broader social phenomenon. The marketplace of ideas is the philosophical counterargument.