Social Describe your ideal "Free Speech" Platform

[MilesAbove]

current-day united states. congrats, guys. we did it.

 

[TheGreatA]

My "ideal free speech platform" is a number of platforms competing against one another, offering alternative services. The family-friendly types will have theirs, and the edgy types will have theirs.

Everybody's happy, and everybody largely stays off other people's throats, since they don't have to "cross" anyone else's territory.

This is the same reason as to why the Israelites and Palestinians need to have their own territory and government, and so forth. Because it just works.

Will this happen under modern-day circumstances? Probably not, since we live in the era of monopolization and globalization. And we are going to have to learn to deal with the fallout.

 

[Higus]

My "ideal free speech platform" is a number of platforms competing against one another, offering alternative services. The family-friendly types will have theirs, and the edgy types will have theirs.

Everybody's happy, and everybody largely stays off other people's throats, since they don't have to "cross" anyone else's territory.

This is the same reason as to why the Israelites and Palestinians need to have their own territory and government, and so forth. Because it just works.

Will this happen under modern-day circumstances? Probably not, since we live in the era of monopolization and globalization. And we are going to have to learn to deal with the fallout.

I often wonder if the problem isn't that some content gets banned from platforms, but rather that people are upset that their beliefs are not (and may never be) accepted by culture at large.

 

[TheGreatA]

I often wonder if the problem isn't that some content gets banned from platforms, but rather that people are upset that their beliefs are not (and may never be) accepted by culture at large.

I'm sure that is a part of the problem, but most people can accept that their ideas are not "mainstream", as long as they can surround themselves with a sub-culture where their ideas are deemed acceptable. Hell, the American left-wingers managed to do that for decades, while the society was largely ultra-nationalist, reactionary and Christian, during Cold War-era times. Being deemed a "Commie" or atheist may have ended up with a person being denounced by their entire family and friends as well as job associates. As we can see, culture can shift quite rapidly from 9/11-era reactionary climate, to the modern-day "progressive" era. A single event may change the entire course, therefore it's best that people don't get married into ideas of what is "acceptable" or not, culturally. Today's heroes might be tomorrow's villains.

The potential problem with further monopolization, and lack of viable alternatives, is that these sorts of sub-cultures may no longer be allowed any space to operate, except in the very deepest and darkest corners of the internet, which will become a problem in itself, as we can no longer contain them, at that point.

Is it really a good idea if all of these people are pushed to using sites such as 4chan, in order to protect their anonymity, and inevitably be pushed towards more and more radical conclusions?

We already know of a number of cases where a person using such a platform, was pushed into radical action, due to residing in an echo chamber of trolls and inciters, all of whom just wish to see the world burn. Whereas the number of violent extremists among Youtube "right-wingers" or alt-righters, or whatever, is bound to be far fewer in number. Using a public platform, under your own name, potentially subjecting yourself to alternative view-points, will always moderate a person's view-points, no matter how much of a hard-liner they might be.

It is best for everybody if we can mediate the line between people being part of the "mainstream" social media, or being part of some "rogue" channel, which is all about incitement. You don't want to push every guy that has weird ideas, for example, about their "white identity", into using a "Stormfront".

 

[nicapica]

Face to face. Preferably in a ring or octagon.

 

[JamesRussler]

How would you fund the site's operation?
How would feeds operate?
How do you handle violators?

The site will make its money from advertising, sponsors, crowdfunding, and perhaps a premium subscriber base. It would be very similar to Youtube’s model, minus the censorship. If some sponsors / advertiser wants to leave, they can GTFO. Smart advertisers want their ads where the eyeballs are.

The feeds should operate how Youtube’s did around 2013. They’ll be based on related videos that get more watch time (not clicks). Trending will be based on what it getting watched the most over a period of time. Whatever system is used, it should always stay consistent. It won’t be changed in order to target certain users.

Violations of what? Law? Of course I would remove all videos that are contraband (no CP, no snuff, no murder videos). If it’s incitement, true threats, or some other Constitutionally proscribable content, I would have my mods evaluate it to see whether it can legally be left up (my mods are all lawyers with judicial clerking experience btw—not like the mods here). For all other videos, I would demand a court order before removing. I would always err on the side of leaving it up.

As for “spam” and “harassing” videos, I would include user interface to address these issues. I certainly would not censor the speakers.

 

[Higus]

The site will make its money from advertising, sponsors, crowdfunding, and perhaps a premium subscriber base. It would be very similar to Youtube’s model, minus the censorship. If some sponsors / advertiser wants to leave, they can GTFO. Smart advertisers want their ads where the eyeballs are.

The feeds should operate how Youtube’s did around 2013. They’ll be based on related videos that get more watch time (not clicks). Trending will be based on what it getting watched the most over a period of time. Whatever system is used, it should always stay consistent. It won’t be changed in order to target certain users.

Violations of what? Law? Of course I would remove all videos that are contraband (no CP, no snuff, no murder videos). If it’s incitement, true threats, or some other Constitutionally proscribable content, I would have my mods evaluate it to see whether it can legally be left up (my mods are all lawyers with judicial clerking experience btw—not like the mods here). For all other videos, I would demand a court order before removing. I would always err on the side of leaving it up.

As for “spam” and “harassing” videos, I would include user interface to address these issues. I certainly would not censor the speakers.

I think that's fine as long as people can accept that not many mainstream sponsors will be ready to sign up. What happens if the site has unsustainable costs compared to its revenue? Will people accept that as a market verdict?

 

[TheGreatA]

The site will make its money from advertising, sponsors, crowdfunding, and perhaps a premium subscriber base. It would be very similar to Youtube’s model, minus the censorship. If some sponsors / advertiser wants to leave, they can GTFO. Smart advertisers want their ads where the eyeballs are.

The feeds should operate how Youtube’s did around 2013. They’ll be based on related videos that get more watch time (not clicks). Trending will be based on what it getting watched the most over a period of time. Whatever system is used, it should always stay consistent. It won’t be changed in order to target certain users.

Violations of what? Law? Of course I would remove all videos that are contraband (no CP, no snuff, no murder videos). If it’s incitement, true threats, or some other Constitutionally proscribable content, I would have my mods evaluate it to see whether it can legally be left up (my mods are all lawyers with judicial clerking experience btw—not like the mods here). For all other videos, I would demand a court order before removing. I would always err on the side of leaving it up.

As for “spam” and “harassing” videos, I would include user interface to address these issues. I certainly would not censor the speakers.

The weird thing is that you can find plenty of murder videos on Youtube, from the streets of Brazil or the civil conflict in Syria. You can also find ex-cons describing how they brutally murdered people, and actually taking pride in it, making money off of it. Selling products based on how they "split wigs" and so forth.

Yet some guy whining about women and trannies is apparently "too much". It just seems like a weird standard.

Why do we feel more comfortable with people seeing this



than some alt-righters rant?

 

[TUFNewb]

Not really technologically feasible today and probably fraught with unseen and severe consequences, and would probably fail, but it is essential a decentralized clone of facebook.

No moderation and pseudo-anonymous if you want it to be, but every action is tied to an ip address and etched into a public ledger for eternity.

Advertisers bid on specific pages and specific content. Revenue generated from content goes directly to user via crypto transfers.

All this driven by a protocol created and maintained by very large open source community that hopefully never dies. That is the closest you will get to a "true free speech" platform.

 

[spamking]

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:

Great idea for a thread . . .

- 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?

I'd expect the platform to act much like AT&T and provide a service without filters. I would hope that users would be able to filter out content they don't want to view without invoking some large scale censorship.

Rules are tricky. I think it's a fine line between being overly moderated and letting users make those decisions and self-moderating.

I don't see content needing to be organized in any specific way . . . maybe let users pick the categories they want to view and leave it at that?

I could see sponsors being able to select what content they want to support or monetize. Let them manage that on their own or make that decision.

 

[JamesRussler]

I think that's fine as long as people can accept that not many mainstream sponsors will be ready to sign up. What happens if the site has unsustainable costs compared to its revenue? Will people accept that as a market verdict?

I doubt users will give a shit about “mainstream sponsors.” They want to read / watch content that interests them.

The site will of course need to have sustainable costs. That just comes with good business management.

However, if banks and ISPs start refusing to do business because of some behind the scenes pressure (as has happened to several companies) that’s not a “market verdict.” Those are anti-competitive practices, and they need to be prosecuted vigorously.

 

[Higus]

I doubt users will give a shit about “mainstream sponsors.” They want to read / watch content that interests them.

The site will of course need to have sustainable costs. That just comes with good business management.

However, if banks and ISPs start refusing to do business because of some behind the scenes pressure (as has happened to several companies) that’s not a “market verdict.” Those are anti-competitive practices, and they need to be prosecuted vigorously.

Who is behind the scenes pressuring banks and ISPs? It's one thing if it's from a media a conglomerate, but another thing if the pressure is coming from consumers.

 

[JamesRussler]

The weird thing is that you can find plenty of murder videos on Youtube, from the streets of Brazil or the civil conflict in Syria. You can also find ex-cons describing how they brutally murdered people, and actually taking pride in it, making money off of it. Selling products based on how they "split wigs" and so forth.

Yet some guy whining about women and trannies is apparently "too much". It just seems like a weird standard.

Why do we feel more comfortable with people seeing this



than some alt-righters rant?

Good point.

Although that video is a classic. “I have sex with a man... I’m not a gay.” LOL!

 

[Gregolian]

The weird thing is that you can find plenty of murder videos on Youtube, from the streets of Brazil or the civil conflict in Syria. You can also find ex-cons describing how they brutally murdered people, and actually taking pride in it, making money off of it. Selling products based on how they "split wigs" and so forth.

Yet some guy whining about women and trannies is apparently "too much". It just seems like a weird standard.

Why do we feel more comfortable with people seeing this



than some alt-righters rant?

The one that sticks out to me is all the street fight vids and shit.

Like, plenty of adults use YouTube but it's also almost become a babysitter for children.

 

[all caps]

The weird thing is that you can find plenty of murder videos on Youtube, from the streets of Brazil or the civil conflict in Syria. You can also find ex-cons describing how they brutally murdered people, and actually taking pride in it, making money off of it. Selling products based on how they "split wigs" and so forth.

Yet some guy whining about women and trannies is apparently "too much". It just seems like a weird standard.

Why do we feel more comfortable with people seeing this



than some alt-righters rant?

When the next war breaks out we're gonna have front row seats on YouTube (and the algorithm will even send us in that direction)

But im supposed to be scared of flat earth videos and believe that YouTube is deleting them for my protection

 

[AlexDB9]

Face to face. Preferably in a ring or octagon.

Id be down for a war room card

 

[Islam Imamate]

Was going to say 4chan. Its far from perfect but it does have very little moderation compared to most other forums. The few times I've been on their /sp/ threads for UFC events I could immediately feel the gulf in moderation between that place and this one and /sp/ is supposed to be one of the SFW boards too.

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

Was going to say 4chan. Its far from perfect but it does have very little moderation compared to most other forums. The few times I've been on their /sp/ threads for UFC events I could immediately feel the gulf in moderation between that place and this one and /sp/ is supposed to be on of the SFW boards too.

I admit that I've developed a habit of checking /pol whenever a big news event occurs so I can get the shitlord perspective as it's happening. It is enlightening to help understand their perspective because it will eventually trickle down to Reddit, Facebook, Youtube and here.

 

[JamesRussler]

Who is behind the scenes pressuring banks and ISPs? It's one thing if it's from a media a conglomerate, but another thing if the pressure is coming from consumers.

That’s the billionaire dollar question.
It’s not consumers doing it. Most consumers are completely oblivious to which sponsors and advertisers support whatever content. Of those who are aware, a statistically insignificant amount are even likely to use the sponsor’s products / services. No one in the corporate world is afraid of boycotts, especially not banks. In fact, plenty of corporations will take unpopular stands these days, and they’ll eat the loss because the management is acting politically (just look at Gillette, with its widely panned “woke” advertisements https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bi...should-p-g-exit-the-shaving-business.amp.html). Boycotts are only effective against small businesses, because they can’t eat the losses.

 

[Nesruk]

Youtube with the only channels being banned are the ones that actually incite violence or threats in their videos, anything else goes. No biased trending/recommended tabs.