Forcing Andrew Tate’s audience into an echo chamber means they no longer see the critique or rebuttal to these ideas. This can reinforce potentially harmful concepts into young impressionable minds.

Andrew Tate is a controversial figure that many are tired of hearing about; however, it is important to understand that despite being banned on many social media platforms, he and his ideas are not going away any time soon.

The professional kickboxer-turned-internet personality has gained massive publicity in recent months due to clips surfacing of him saying a variety of misogynistic comments. 

In the attempt to rid the internet of his many off-colored comments and ideas, Tate was completely banned from platforms including Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, rather than just taking down his more egregious content. While done with good intentions, the banning of Andrew Tate does more harm than good. 

Before his banning on Instagram, Tate had amassed over 4.5 million followers on the platform. Additionally, many of his clips gained popularity on YouTube and TikTok, uploaded from various fan accounts. 

Using this popularity, Tate has been able to sell his ideas through his own platforms. While his “Hustlers University” subscription service is seemingly down temporarily, his followers can still join “The War Room,” which costs over $4,000 and is described in his website as “a global network in which exemplars of individualism work to free the modern man from socially induced incarceration.” Tate has been using this newly gathered attention to directly profit. Since his banning, Tate moved to the video website Rumble, which jumped in active users by over 45% since his arrival.

As the adage goes, all publicity is good publicity. As someone who does not use TikTok, I did not know of Tate until I heard the news of his banning. Myself and others would have likely never known of Tate or his subscription service had he not been banned. By being silenced, he only garnered more attention.

If you think Tate’s ideas are dangerous and harmful for young men to hear, then you should ask yourself which situation is truly better: videos of Tate being seen by both critics and supporters of him, or videos of Tate only being seen by his followers.

Banning Tate does not address the real and difficult question of why young men are attracted to these ideas. Let’s not dismiss all of these young men as ignorant misogynists; after all, not all of what Tate has to say is offensive. Beyond the man himself, Tate represents a counterculture of reinforcing the importance of masculinity. 

Some of the topics he covers that seem to resonate with young men include traditional gender roles, working out, being financially independent and overcoming mental barriers. The audience for these ideas exists regardless of what happens to Tate, but banning him on these large platforms creates a void for someone potentially worse to replace him. 

Andrew Tate is a part of the larger issue of cancel culture. We shouldn’t silence voices by limiting their ability to speak, but rather by showing them the truth. What we may consider reasonable today may be seen as hate speech tomorrow; therefore, we shouldn’t celebrate Andrew Tate being banned across social media platforms.