Why exactly won't the outcome of this be that their alternate platform is dominated by characters that ruin the brand and drive away normal customers? Thats's what happens every time this is tried elsewhere.
Although I'd rather see some sort of open source project or crypto based platform instead of another centralized service that can be taken down by their payment processor. Brave browser and BAT could be the answer
>normal customers also like the add that "normal" can change pretty quickly, ask women in post-revolution Iran. Within living memory alt-right would be considered normal by a large chunk of the population and people would be chasing people of color and LGBT off these platforms. The tools used to censor opponents today could be used against you tomorrow
But it's obvious to any user what the difference is between Twitter and a site like Gab. You have to dig to find white supremacists and holocaust denial on Twitter, through a mountain of celebrity gossip and banal conversations. Meanwhile, that stuff is showcased --- is the dominant conversation! --- on the alternative site.
And it's obvious why that's bound to happen: the users that get the most value from supposed non-censoring platforms are exactly the ones that want to broadcast hateful and alienating messages.
Unless you're comfortable talking about recipes or your new book or an upcoming lecture sandwiched between lectures about Jews controlling the media and sending all the black people back to Africa, you're not going to stick around on that platform. Peterson won't be able to do it; it'll destroy his brand.
So again my question is: how is this supposed to work? Maybe it's not really a Patreon competitor but something more like the old Deck blog advertising network, where you'll have to be yea cool to join.
Yes, Twitter does censor people but in an extremely selective and politically motivated way.
I guess my general point was that just because someone publishes on Platform X, that doesn't mean they necessarily hold the same views as the majority of users on that platform.
I take your point about regular content being swamped by the crazies though. Maybe it's a problem of scale? Attract enough regular people to drown out the extremists.
If you join a platform that is obviously dominated by people talking about how Jews are lizard people, others will draw conclusions about you whether you approve of them or not. Which, of course, makes it even harder to attract the regular users that you weren't going to attract anyways because nobody wants to talk about their life next to someone yelling about "the Jews."
Unfortunately the definition of what is a "character that ruins the brand" keeps moving further and further to the left.
The antidote to bad speech is more speech. Instead of attacking people, attack their arguments.
No one has been shut down from continuing the "conversation" on their own platforms. You're not allowed to wander into Wal-Mart and sell whatever you want. You're also not allowed to wander onto Patreon and sell whatever you want.
It took a couple of days for SubscribeStar to have their paypal access removed once the loonies began their next witch hunt.
How far do we take the witch hunts before we decide enough is enough?
If everyone in the world decided not to trade with people they didn't agree with on everything, there would exist no trade.
You really need to stop making judgements about people.
People who shun white supremacists are not morally equivalent to white supremacists.
I'm not suggesting anything of the like. In fact, I will join you in shunning white supremacists, as I would shun supremacists of any race.
When "shunning" becomes more than denunciation, but taking action to unperson people and have them fired, cut off their finance, and make false accusations about their peers, I draw the line.
If you want to keep believing in the moral superiority of that kind of social justice, be my guest.
But thank you for playing the role of "guy who argues in bad faith." I think we're done, here.
That is just a foolish phrase by a Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to take it as Gospel.
Many people all over the world disagree, including centrist and far-left people.
His protest was against government compelled speech.
http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...
" In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them."
Conveniently leaving out what happens if you don't pay a fine: you can end up in jail.
Another thing is they state things need to become really bad before you get prosecuted so it won't happen. Well that all depends on the political climate. Plenty examples in the world for that.
Lastly they mention other places in the law where speech is limited. But they point at places where certain speech is forbidden, not where it is compelled.
The entire article looks disingenuous.