"it would really depend on what you want to use it for" It was my understanding that social media platforms were for connecting with people and sharing content/ideas with them.
If you're trying to rebut my claim, you're going to have to actually do it, not point to something else and claim that it does.
A 15 second google shows the top social media sites based off monthly active users. Tell me an equivalent, viable platform to rival Facebook/Instagram that doesn't share the same political values.
I’m not seeing a claim there, and what you did bring up (marketshare) I’ve responded to. If you want an alternative to mainstream social media, they exist and aren’t as popular, but since we’ve agreed that popularity isn’t monopolistic... who cares?
They may get stopped from having their message show up in the "recommended videos" column on YouTube, and that's fine. Nobody has a right to be in that column.
(When the man said "The revolution will not be televised?" This is what he was talking about. ;) )
In 2019, you might as well restrict those guilty of wrongthink to standing on soapboxes and distributing pamphlets. Everyone you don't like will be restricted to the technology of 20 years ago.
(When the man said "The revolution will not be televised?" This is what he was talking about. ;) )
Basically, in 2019, if you don't have virality+monetization, you don't have the franchise.
Putting aside the hysterical Orwellian reference, the world would be a better place if everyone from ISIS to Nazis had to go back to shouting on street corners. This implicit argument you keep making about parity of amplification being equival not to free speech is ludicrous. Given how often people in this thread alone have confronted you on the issues with it, and the cagey nature of your responses it’s increasingly difficult to assume you make this argument in good faith.
You can believe that people are owed a Youtube channel and a Facebook page, but at least recognize that no law or principle in law supports that belief.