Naomi Wu: They defunded me on Patreon, now they want SubscribeStar [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
It'll be $next_year soon, there needs to be better than e.g. this, which was in the suggested videos sidebar:
No, it's not a niche at all. Payment processor and patronage sites are markets, and to the extent incumbents in those markets exclude certain distinct submarkets, there is a niche serving the unserved submarkets. But serving all submarkets allowed by law isn't a niche, and overlaps significantly with what th incumbents serve.
> A situation or activity specially suited to a person's interests, abilities, or nature
but I just realized that wouldn't fit at all. But you get the idea of what I meant when I said niche, right? I see people wanting to throw money at other people, and they will find a way, either way. Not providing them a way before they make their own is "leaving money on the table", if you will.
Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists, for example: then their is a open niche for service to virulent racists. There's not for unconditional service, because, but for (in this hypothetical) except for virulent racists, there's no one left unserved by the existing, albeit potentially conditional, service.
> Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists
So what are you driving at? Just some racists, now and from here on out, so no loss? And what's a "virulent racist", a racist that makes other people racist by mere contact? If that word means nothing, why was it added? Why was that example chosen over Naomi Wu, for example?
By definition, services that play these games cut out anyone who does not want to empower such arbitrarily acting and unaccountable gatekeepers. That's what the law is for, for actual society.
Silicon Valley is clearly not up to the task, these virtual kingdoms are demented, that stuff should be for video games and private forums, not platforms that speak of community or society. They want to receive from society, but not fulfill their duties to society. Free speech is not an optional luxury, and mobs out to destroy livelihoods and doing their virtual lynch justice stuff are not benign. People who on average can't deal with people that well, even on a small scale and face to face, cannot be in charge of large systems that affect the social lives and livelihoods of massive amounts of people. It's not just a trainwreck, it was kinda predictable.
There's no hidden message, the thesis is explicitly stated: “the gap/niche/market/whatever is the specific unserved groups, not unconditional service.”
> Just some racists, now and from here on out, so no loss?
No, there was no hidden value judgement in the hypothetical. It would be the same, mutatis mutandis, if the excluded group were, say, African-Americans rather than virulent racists; there is demand for services for the specific unserved groups but—and experience, not just theory, shows this is the case—there isn't a “niche” for “serves everybody within the law” caused by the kind of incumbent companies at issue excluding some particular groups. The niche that is opened is serving specifically the excluded groups.
This was a factual response about market realities to the upthread claim about what niche was opened, not some kind of covert value judgement about who deserves service.
> Silicon Valley is clearly not up to the task, these virtual kingdoms are demented, that stuff should be for video games and private forums, not platforms that speak of community or society. They want to receive from society, but not fulfill their duties to society.
Exercising judgement in what ideas one relays is a duty to society, and enabling that is the core point of freedom of speech.
> Free speech is not an optional luxury
Indeed it is not, so why would you deny it to the firms you are pointing to?
> and mobs out to destroy livelihoods and doing their virtual lynch justice stuff are not benign.
Comparing deplatforming to lynching is ludicrous and disgusting.
You simply read "niche" as something like "A focused, targetable part of a market for certain products or services that has unmet demand". As I said, replace it with untapped potential and your "thesis" doesn't apply, while my point remains unchanged.
> Exercising judgement in what ideas one relays is a duty to society, and enabling that is the core point of freedom of speech.
Yes, and that's fine for private forums and video games, and birthday parties and all that.
> Indeed it is not, so why would you deny it to the firms you are pointing to?
Why are you trying to hard to not get my point which is in plain English, and then expect me to answer that first?
Because they're not persons, and they're offering themselves as middlemen, as services with which we communicate and even engage in politics with.
Is the fact that the mailman can't rewrite my letters or decide on a "case by case basis" whether to deliver them infringing on their free speech? No.
> Comparing deplatforming to lynching is ludicrous and disgusting.
I called it virtual lynching. Where the motive is to completely remove a person, out of sight out of mind, if they starve, who cares, that applies. The way the people go about it, that's just mob hatred. If you find calling that out disgusting, it says something about you, it doesn't change what it is. If you're going to talk about what is disgusting, try this totally irrelevant tangent about the word "niche", without having a point, in a topic you are not interested in, where a person pretty much asked for help.