Much of it depends how public it is. For instance something like whisper needs to remove nudity/hate speech else they'll be kicked off iOS/playstore. But, you can still send it directly without issue.
I'm kind of curious why we can't have an uncensored platform that represents both sides. Is it because good people prefer censorship?
It's because most people fall into 3 camps:
- those who want an uncensored platform so they can be assholes
- those who want an uncensored platform, without wanting to be an asshole (many of the people on this site)
- those who don't want to be on a platform where random people can be assholes to them
The third camp is the largest, and it doesn't take many people in the first camp to make the platform not worth using for them.
I think Facebook skirts it because it doesn't really have a public forum rather it has a large buffet of build your own forums that are not publicly visible from each users friends feed and a "let's solve for a feed of content likely as possible to keep said user on our site using as much history / personal information we can datamine about them, their k-nn's, and users in general"
For example "how voat turned out" seems to be ideal for a certain portion of internet users unwelcome by other sites and so perhaps they congregate there thus skewing the sample towards the way it turned out.
Hate speech and incitement of violence is a felony in most free democracies that protect speech.
1) Standing up and saying "I hate black people. I wish they would all die." 2) Standing up and saying: "I hate black people, if you see them, kill them."
There's a clear difference here. The first is speech, an opinion, not directing action, advocating for violence, or to break a law. I say that's protected, as distasteful as it may be. The second is clearly criminal, and illegal. It is speech, but it is directing violence, and a law to be broken. That is the incitement of violence and a crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/ha...
a) there's a lot more demand for alternatives among groups that have been kicked off analogous platforms. You almost have to hide them to avoid the stain. And of course, when a Buzzfeed editor asks why you haven't kicked off $UNPOPULAR_GROUP_X, they're not going to convey your actual principled response; they're going to convey that you're a closet $BAD_THING.
b) people remember offense and want to stay very far away from things that have offended them. Most judgments, by necessity, are made subconsciously. The association between "Reddit Name and Mascot" and "Bad Thing I Saw on the Front Page" is going to be made automatically and take many times more effort to undo.
"Don't shoot the messenger" is a phrase because our inclination is to lash out at the perceived vessel. It requires additional abstraction to take the immediate/physical association out of the mental blame loop.
This is why Facebook starts totally empty. It's why Twitter starts totally empty and then suggests the most banal/run-of-the-mill initial follows. It's why reddit can't shake the edgy atheist college sophomore as it's primary demographic (that demographic upvotes things that appeal to their niche only to the front page, scaring away everyone else).
People don't want a neutral point of view, they don't want both sides. They want their views reinforced and their egos stroked. Nothing else will suffice. Consumers are very unforgiving.
The fact that we can now retreat into an infinite echo chamber via the internet has had highly deleterious effects on civility.
They worked around it, or at least the users did.