Why is that?
Free Speech and censorship resistant platforms tend to attract users in waves. The first wave is the most extreme, as those users get kicked off mainstream platforms first. Then subsequent waves of users join as less extreme views become problematic. While those waves are less radical, they still have to contend with being in the same pool as the others. Ordinary folks join for idealistic reasons and then see a bunch of radical content. I’m sure that puts a ton of people off. Parler, it seems, wants to be free speech but not that free speech, if you get what I’m saying.
> Free Speech and censorship resistant platforms tend to attract users in waves. The first wave is the most extreme, as those users get kicked off mainstream platforms first. Then subsequent waves...
I don't think that's true of social networks. Take Gab for instance: its "first wave" has solidly given it a reputation as a place for extreme racists, which repels everyone else (except maybe a handful of civil libertarians with questionable judgement). That reputation prevents "subsequent waves" of more moderate folks, who would rather go to a different platform.
Also Gab, Parler, et al are really reactions against moderation, not censorship. However, most users actually welcome some level of moderation.
> Why is that?
IIRC, it's even more extreme (e.g. full of outspoken and unapologetic racists talking about racist things in racist terms).
But to me, free speech means anyone can speak their mind, no matter how ghastly others find it.
And on Gab, I have encountered some pretty unsavoury speech - however, copious use of the Block feature on those I find especially distasteful means that I encounter less of those I find as such.
I'd rather have a platform based on free speech and be able to filter 'undesirables' out myself, than have the platform itself choose the speech it prefers me to see/hear/read.
> And on Gab, I have encountered some pretty unsavoury speech - however, copious use of the Block feature on those I find especially distasteful means that I encounter less of those I find as such.
As I understand, being on Gab is pretty much seeking out "ghastly" and "unsavoury" speech. For instance, this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26145412) described it as:
> I signed up for a Gab account purely out of curiosity. There was literally nothing but misogynistic, homophobic, racist, antisemitic trash content on the entire timeline.
So I guess the question is: what content do you see after your "copious use of the Block feature."?
That's interesting. Gab.com's timeline is public and is visible to everyone (there is no need to create an account). I just took a peek at it right now and I don't see anything misogynistic, etc. As you quote this particular as a supporting reference, would you be able to share some of Gab's specific timeline content that made that comment writer think that?
You might want to ask them.
This is clearly not true and easily shown to be so.
There's either free speech, which will include a lot of unsavory, horrible or downright evil content, or there is censorship. It's one or the other. And while censorship might be considered a reasonable trade-off, it immediately turns the platform into a mouthpiece for the politics of the people who run it. And once someone has that kind of power, its abuse is inevitable.