Back when I was a kid, if the Mods sucked, you'd stop going to that website.
Serious question, why do unhappy customers keep buying what bad companies sell?
I stopped using Facebook and many subreddits. I have this self control.
Is there anyone here that cannot stop visiting bad websites?
Breitbart.
>> Back when I was a kid, if the Mods sucked, you'd stop going to that website.
If websites existed when you were a kid, you are not the target market for this tool.
>>Serious question, why do unhappy customers keep buying what bad companies sell?
That's how addiction works.
>>I stopped using Facebook and many subreddits. I have this self control.
Then they have won. Every time a reasonable person disconnects, the ratio of unreasonable people on a platform increases. Unreasonableness, extremism, creates greater engagement, generating more add revenue.
>> Is there anyone here that cannot stop visiting bad websites?
We are all here aren't we?
Seriously, what's so hard with not using social media? Aren't there plenty of offline stuff to do and people to talk to in meatspace? Is its prevalence a uniquely American thing?
Of course it's hard to quit. It's designed to be hard to quit.
Many good convos have happened on this -- Facebook is de facto required for participating in some levels of society. I've heard of people being required to use Facebook to get information as vital as announcements about school for their kids. For those of us with poorly understood chronic illnesses, Facebook is the only place we can find people who share our condition and can trade information with. Many community events are only announced through Facebook events. Essentially, it's infiltrated so many aspects of life that it's become very difficult for many people to fully walk away from.
It's sometimes not about self-restraint, and that's an ongoing discussion here: What do you do when everybody else are on these services?
That's up to your message though. If people share your tweet, it might. If you're banned from the platform, that's not an option, no matter how many people find your opinion valuable, they'll never see it.
Since their TOS are vague, and they enforce it very discriminatory, deplatforming is obviously not about "violating TOS".
> The point is there are very, very few people who have their voices heard.
I agree wholeheartedly. My point isn't that everybody on Twitter automatically reaches everybody else on Twitter. It's that he has the chance. If you tweet something that everybody loves, you can go viral. If you're banned, you can't.
Everybody can run for office, but not everybody can win. If you block people from running in the first place, you better have some damn good reasons, and they better not be "I don't like their political opinions".
People were able to organize and communicate effectively on the web before Twitter, Facebook, etc. Not being on one of the big social media silos isn't de facto censorship, it's just slightly less convenient than being on them.
But it's still entirely possible to build an audience elsewhere.