At the Male Supremacism Studies Conference, held by the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism (IRMS), some of the most extreme calls for censorship yet emerged from figures who see open digital discourse as a problem to be solved, not a value to protect.
Virginia Commonwealth University professor Dr. Kay Coghill and Patrick Hermansson, a senior researcher for the UK-based group Hope Not Hate, openly pushed for aggressive deplatforming as a means of silencing dissenting viewpoints, particularly those labeled as conservative or “supremacist.”
Dr. Karlyn Borysenko, an independent journalist and commentator, attended the conference to document what she describes as a deliberate effort to suppress opposing political views under the banner of “combating extremism.” What she observed was not a nuanced discussion about violence or threats, but rather an open endorsement of censorship as a political weapon.
Coghill, speaking candidly at the event, declared, “I think a solution that will really disrupt capitalism, honestly, is de-platforming people and making specific websites, forums, whatever, illegal and actually having consequences, material consequences.”
She went on to emphasize the need to cut access to digital platforms entirely: “making sure people do not have access to these social media websites and forums that allow them to perpetuate and push this information in digital spaces, because that’s where the youth is getting this information from.”
Coghill also criticized Elon Musk’s decision to reinstate previously banned figures on X, such as President Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos, suggesting that once individuals are removed, they should stay removed, permanently.
Patrick Hermansson, representing Hope Not Hate, a group that openly champions deplatforming, conceded that while this tactic remains central to their mission, its effectiveness is waning. “I spent my whole career doing deplatforming. It’s like the core strategy we do,” he stated.
But as platforms multiply and decentralize, he acknowledged, “they have their own platforms and … it’s very hard to control them.” He lamented the lack of pressure on major social media companies to continue aggressive bans and noted the growing financial and technical independence of those targeted by such efforts.
“There’s so many alternative platforms with huge reach now,” Hermansson added. “But it’s becoming less and less of a useful tactic over time because we don’t have this sort of pressure to get people off these platforms anymore.”
Borysenko, who has documented other instances of ideological bias in academia, characterized the conference as less about understanding harmful ideologies and more about promoting a narrow worldview where disagreement itself is deemed dangerous.
According to her, these ideas are being normalized in higher education spaces, where students are increasingly taught not to engage but to censor.
