The practice of platforming is quite controversial and calls for much debate, specifically within the political system. Platforming is essentially when you give an individual the opportunity to publicize their opinion about a certain issue in front of an audience. Nowadays, with the universal tool of social media, platforms are made more available to those individuals who are willing to work for it. With this being said, one can come to terms with the fact that a platform may not always be used in order to spread a positive message. A widespread argument for platforming states that any individual should have the right to speak their mind on the topic of their choice. In contrast, people against platforming argue that selected individuals should not have …show more content…
Due to the thought held of platform holding power, it is argued that giving the speaker a platform is equivalent to giving someone the power to harm another through the use of free speech. This is not true as anyone could cause harm to another individual through the power of free speech regardless of having a platform or not. Also, it is said that the elimination of platforming is not to prevent the ideas from being started but to prevent them from being validated. Although someone is given a platform, this does not validate their opinions. Everyone is entitled to holding their own personal opinions on an issue, regardless of being given a platform to speak their mind. To conclude, the debate on whether or not an individual should be given a platform is one of much controversy. Through this paper, both sides of the debate and their arguments are Conforti 5 analyzed. From one point of view, platforming is encouraged as it is not a tool for activism and the discrepancies surrounding the decision on which individuals should or should not be given a platform. It is a right to free speech rather than a cause for harm. On the other hand, it is