2 ms·

Mostly importantly, because pretty every company and platform will turn on you when it's politically/legally convenient for them. We've seen it all the time on

by CM30 7y ago

Mostly importantly, because pretty every company and platform will turn on you when it's politically/legally convenient for them. We've seen it all the time on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Suddenly a post or video that's fine legally is blocked/removed because the angry mob is complaining about it with torches and pitchforks. A video or piece of content that's arguably under fair use is removed because a large compant files a claim or strike, legality be damned. Having your own platform is a significant advantage there. It means you're a lot tougher to get rid of when the angry social media mob forms over something 'wrong' you said/did in the past, and many, many companies will not risk legal action by going after an independently hosted site/service. Obviously that doesn't mean the site is invincible. A determined enough adversary can put pressure on hosting companies/registrars/cloudflare, and a DMCA notice can lead to a court case as well. But many won't go to that level of effort, or depend on these platforms being willing to turn on their users at the drop of a dime. Yeah that's not for everyone, and admittedly many users would fine on these platforms. But anyone even remotely likely to get into any type of controversy would certainly be best to own their own platform.

Bakary 7y ago
Most people who post controversial content don't just want to put their views out there, they want to build a large audience and want their views to be successfully distributed or to make money from them. It's almost impossible to completely ban access from online content unless you are a nation state. It seems reasonable to want free speech but entitled to want successfully monetized speech as a baseline.
paulddraper 7y ago
> Suddenly a post or video that's fine legally is blocked/removed because the angry mob is complaining about it with torches and pitchforks. The standards are indeed bizarre. You can read a book that lead to the deaths of millions of Jews in Europe, but not a rambling angry meme collection that lead to the deaths of dozens of Muslims in Australia.

by CM30 7y ago

Bakary 7y ago

Most people who post controversial content don't just want to put their views out there, they want to build a large audience and want their views to be successfully distributed or to make money from them. It's almost impossible to completely ban access from online content unless you are a nation state. It seems reasonable to want free speech but entitled to want successfully monetized speech as a baseline.

paulddraper 7y ago

> Suddenly a post or video that's fine legally is blocked/removed because the angry mob is complaining about it with torches and pitchforks. The standards are indeed bizarre. You can read a book that lead to the deaths of millions of Jews in Europe, but not a rambling angry meme collection that lead to the deaths of dozens of Muslims in Australia.