Social Describe your ideal "Free Speech" Platform

[Higus]

Lots of talk about Youtube banning and demonetizing content to the point where people are either looking for market alternatives or suggesting the government intervene.
If you were going to go the former route, like Peterson's proposed "Thinkspot", how would you run it? Some questions to think about:

- How do you envision the platform to be used?
- How is it different than competitors?
- What kind of rules do you see in place?
- How do you organize content?
- Does it pay for itself? If so, how?

 

[abiG]

Easy: First Amendment

 

[tinker_190]

It would involve complete strangers arguing about MMA then eventually evolve into the downfall of western civilization. I'm just trying to come up with some clever name.

 

[Gregolian]

For me there's no real ISSUE with what YouTube is doing it just feels like they're only going after one side of the aisle. Demonitizing guys like Military Arms Channel and .22Plinkster... the former who just does honest firearm reviews and also reviews old school WWI and WWII era firearms for fun and the latter who does some review but also does a ton of .22 rifle trickshots I don't get. All they did is review products and shit, neither are advocating for the destruction of anything.

MEANWHILE, you have a channel with a shitheel that denies a genocide took place still monetized baffles me. They just need to be more even handed in their approach.... which I doubt will occur cause there's no one to whack them on the nose with the newspaper when they done fuck up.

 

[Gregolian]

It would involve complete strangers arguing about MMA then eventually evolve into the downfall of western civilization. I'm just trying to come up with some clever name.

CAMELDOG!

 

[nostradumbass]

Are you just having sherdoggers do the brainstorming for you so you can swoop in with our ideas to make that Anderson Silva money, playboy?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Lots of talk about Youtube banning and demonetizing content to the point where people are either looking for market alternatives or suggesting the government intervene.
If you were going to go the former route, like Peterson's proposed "Thinkspot", how would you run it? Some questions to think about:

- How do you envision the platform to be used?
- How is it different than competitors?
- What kind of rules do you see in place?
- How do you organize content?
- Does it pay for itself? If so, how?

Nice try Zuckerberg.

You ain't going to Winklevoss me.

 

[nac386]

If the entire (and only) point of the platform is "free speech" then I would say a Sherdog forum setup, but with a section for creating a posting videos would be perfect. The site would have no censorship or language restrictions.

However, if the point is quality discussion, you need to moderate the discussions just like all the other successful platforms. Quality discussion requires moderation, and that has been shown repeatedly.

I think everybody knows that deep down. That is why everybody, even those who pretend to want zero censorship, join and are daily visitors to moderated sites instead of Gab. If you are not on Gab, posting every day, you should ask yourself why not? The answer is pretty obvious, I think.

 

[all caps]

Sherdog without everyone mocking each others thoughts and encouraging everyone to share their own personal ideas no matter how stupid.

 

[Trotsky]

This man's First Amendment jurisprudence to a T.

Then, where his leaves off, his:

The United States has a strong, intuitive, and enduring framework for speech rights. It's just a matter of getting conservatives, who seem to think the government should be able to arbitrarily censor citizens and journalists as a reinforcement of its own authority, off of the Court.

References for the last bit:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-473

 

[VivaRevolution]

To answer seriously.

You need to attach people's name and picture voluntarily to participate in said forum.

Anonymous speech is great. It serves it's purposes.

The purpose it doesn't serve at all, is forcing people to use that filter we all use when we know we are being judged. You can't have constructive anonymous forums for speech.

 

[nac386]

Sherdog without everyone mocking each others thoughts and encouraging everyone to share their own personal ideas no matter how stupid.

You cannot expect people not to mock stupid ideas. Ideas are going to be judged and mocked accordingly. If they are held in good faith, a reasonable discussion can be had. But many are not.

For example, yesterday a poster said that "the Swedish genetics are being raped out of existence of inferior mongoloids."

That is an objectively untrue and absurd statement, and it is absolutely going to be judged harshly by anybody who values honesty or moral integrity. There is absolutely no reason to humor that person, and pretend that their statement was accurate. There is such a thing as stupid ideas, and when they are asserted as facts, they have to be judged harshly.

 

[all caps]

You cannot expect people not to mock stupid ideas. Ideas are going to be judged and mocked accordingly. If they are held in good faith, a reasonable discussion can be had. But many are not.

For example, yesterday a poster said that "the Swedish genetics are being raped out of existence of inferior mongoloids."

That is an objectively untrue and absurd statement, and it is absolutely going to be judged harshly by anybody who values honesty or moral integrity. There is absolutely no reason to humor that person, and pretend that their statement was accurate. There is such a thing as stupid ideas, and when they are asserted as facts, they have to be judged harshly.

So call them out. Some of you want big brother to come save you from someones stupid ideas however by banning whoever said that stupid shit.

 

[Mcountry]

If the entire (and only) point of the platform is "free speech" then I would say a Sherdog forum setup, but with a section for creating a posting videos would be perfect. The site would have no censorship or language restrictions.

However, if the point is quality discussion, you need to moderate the discussions just like all the other successful platforms. Quality discussion requires moderation, and that has been shown repeatedly.

I think everybody knows that deep down. That is why everybody, even those who pretend to want zero censorship, join and are daily visitors to moderated sites instead of Gab. If you are not on Gab, posting every day, you should ask yourself why not? The answer is pretty obvious, I think.

Who get's to decide what "quality discussion" is then?

 

[44nutman]

If the entire (and only) point of the platform is "free speech" then I would say a Sherdog forum setup, but with a section for creating a posting videos would be perfect. The site would have no censorship or language restrictions.

However, if the point is quality discussion, you need to moderate the discussions just like all the other successful platforms. Quality discussion requires moderation, and that has been shown repeatedly.

I think everybody knows that deep down. That is why everybody, even those who pretend to want zero censorship, join and are daily visitors to moderated sites instead of Gab. If you are not on Gab, posting every day, you should ask yourself why not? The answer is pretty obvious, I think.

YOU are correct. IF this place had no moderation it would be nude and/or disgusting photo crazy around her. Plus throw it the overt racist and homophobic posts.
It would be chaos and honestly only the incels and gimmicks would be left posting on here.
Social media sites unfortunately have to regulate or you get a bunch of fake stuff and disgusting content, that will drive off your posters. Less posters equal less revenue.
The people that are like Derp Free speech when it comes to businesses that run these sites are living in a fantasy world.

 

[Deleted member 539235]

stormfront obv

 

[nac386]

So call them out. Some of you want big brother to come save you from someones stupid ideas however by banning whoever said that stupid shit.

I did. My comment was not about being saved from bad ideas, my comment was about challenging and "mocking" bad ideas. You are welcome to your ideas, you are not entitled to not be mocked. The mocking is part of free speech.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Right here.
We can talk about a great variety of topics without heavy handed moderation.

 

[nac386]

Who get's to decide what "quality discussion" is then?

I think you've already decided what quality discussion is, that is why you are on Sherdog posting every day instead of a completely unmoderated site.

Are you on Gab?

 

[Higus]

Who get's to decide what "quality discussion" is then?

How would you filter it out? Or would you?