4 ms·

> 8chan hosting is a legitimate liability concern. Some plausible excuse can always be found. > This is not an apples to apples comparison of businesses opera

> 8chan hosting is a legitimate liability concern. Some plausible excuse can always be found. > This is not an apples to apples comparison of businesses operating in good faith with reasonable policies and practices. Humans are incredible capable at "reasoning" (framing, rationalizing) things to any desired perspective or conclusion. > "If someone is able to shut down our unabashed cesspool, eventually they're going to start coming for sites that aren't cesspools!" Those are you words, not the words someone else has said in this thread. You did say this though: > There are plenty of alternative platforms, which conservatives are constantly failing to lure anyone to. The person who replied to this assertion noted some examples of such alternative platforms being interfered with - and of course, a "reasonable" reason can typically be manufactured (imagined) within seconds. And all of this does not take into consideration that visibility of speech largely varies per platform. No, you do not have a "right" to be on a platform, but that is orthogonal to the question of whether the broadcast of certain ideas is being forcefully limited by the employees or executives of large platforms (completely within their current rights).

mullingitover 6y ago
> The person who replied to this assertion noted some examples of such alternative platforms being interfered with Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that a strip club is an alternative entertainment venue to your local movie theater. The alternatives to twitter for people who are not of ill repute are places like Parler and Mastodon, and they're doing just fine and the tyrannical hand of the free market has not crushed them. They're relative failures in the marketplace, but the market doesn't owe them success simply because they have different/lower moderation standards.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  > Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that a strip club is an alternative entertainment venue to your local movie theater. I'm assuming this comparison is supposed to have some rhetorical value to it? Otherwise it just comes off as puritan gatekeeping.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that an underground dogfighting ring is an alternative entertainment venue to your local boxing league. Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that a "massage parlor" (scare quotes intentional) is an alternative entertainment venue to your local strip club. Better?
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      No, because you keep comparing nonquestionable to nonquestionable or questionable to questionable. Your point really isn't coming across well here.
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        Non-questionable? I would put 'individual is a regular poster on 8chan, a site which regularly has child pornography posted' and 'individual is a regular attendee of underground dogfights' in basically the same category. That's just me, I guess.
        yeetawayhn 6y ago
        Yes, non-questionable. You tried to compare massage parlors with strip clubs when neither are questionable. On the other hand, both underground dogfights and boxing matches are both questionable. Your position is all over the place. It's sad, really.
      - r00fus 6y ago
        It's coming across fine to me - the "alt" versions are questionable.
        yeetawayhn 6y ago
        What makes boxing matches questionable compared to underground dogfights?
- mistermann 6y ago
  > The alternatives to twitter for people who are not of ill repute are places like Parler and Mastodon, and they're doing just fine and the tyrannical hand of the free market has not crushed them. It is literally true that: - alternative platforms do exist - the free market has not crushed them I can't help but notice that you didn't address this point: >> And all of this does not take into consideration that visibility of speech largely varies per platform. No, you do not have a "right" to be on a platform, but that is orthogonal to the question of whether the broadcast of certain ideas is being forcefully limited by the employees or executives of large platforms (completely within their current rights). Whether they are "doing fine" depends on the definition of that phrase - doing "fine" at what, precisely? At merely existing, in a binary sense? Yes, it is literally true they do continue to exist. Are they "doing fine" (comparable to Twitter, Facebook, etc) at disseminating the speech and ideas of individual members of society? Objectively, no they are not. > They're relative failures in the marketplace, but the market doesn't owe them success simply because they have different/lower moderation standards. It's interesting that you point this out despite me already explicitly acknowledging that fact, while simultaneously not addressing an important point where we actually disagree. I always wonder what's going on on the other end of the wire when these scenarios arise...is this selective attention conscious and intentional, or is it more like a kind of intuitive, reflexive behavior. Sadly, it seems Western culture is not yet at a point where such things can be discussed in polite company.

mullingitover 6y ago

> The person who replied to this assertion noted some examples of such alternative platforms being interfered with Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that a strip club is an alternative entertainment venue to your local movie theater. The alternatives to twitter for people who are not of ill repute are places like Parler and Mastodon, and they're doing just fine and the tyrannical hand of the free market has not crushed them. They're relative failures in the marketplace, but the market doesn't owe them success simply because they have different/lower moderation standards.

yeetawayhn 6y ago
> Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that a strip club is an alternative entertainment venue to your local movie theater. I'm assuming this comparison is supposed to have some rhetorical value to it? Otherwise it just comes off as puritan gatekeeping.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that an underground dogfighting ring is an alternative entertainment venue to your local boxing league. Those are alternative platforms to twitter in the same way that a "massage parlor" (scare quotes intentional) is an alternative entertainment venue to your local strip club. Better?
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    No, because you keep comparing nonquestionable to nonquestionable or questionable to questionable. Your point really isn't coming across well here.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      Non-questionable? I would put 'individual is a regular poster on 8chan, a site which regularly has child pornography posted' and 'individual is a regular attendee of underground dogfights' in basically the same category. That's just me, I guess.
      - yeetawayhn 6y ago
        Yes, non-questionable. You tried to compare massage parlors with strip clubs when neither are questionable. On the other hand, both underground dogfights and boxing matches are both questionable. Your position is all over the place. It's sad, really.
    - r00fus 6y ago
      It's coming across fine to me - the "alt" versions are questionable.
      - yeetawayhn 6y ago
        What makes boxing matches questionable compared to underground dogfights?
mistermann 6y ago
> The alternatives to twitter for people who are not of ill repute are places like Parler and Mastodon, and they're doing just fine and the tyrannical hand of the free market has not crushed them. It is literally true that: - alternative platforms do exist - the free market has not crushed them I can't help but notice that you didn't address this point: >> And all of this does not take into consideration that visibility of speech largely varies per platform. No, you do not have a "right" to be on a platform, but that is orthogonal to the question of whether the broadcast of certain ideas is being forcefully limited by the employees or executives of large platforms (completely within their current rights). Whether they are "doing fine" depends on the definition of that phrase - doing "fine" at what, precisely? At merely existing, in a binary sense? Yes, it is literally true they do continue to exist. Are they "doing fine" (comparable to Twitter, Facebook, etc) at disseminating the speech and ideas of individual members of society? Objectively, no they are not. > They're relative failures in the marketplace, but the market doesn't owe them success simply because they have different/lower moderation standards. It's interesting that you point this out despite me already explicitly acknowledging that fact, while simultaneously not addressing an important point where we actually disagree. I always wonder what's going on on the other end of the wire when these scenarios arise...is this selective attention conscious and intentional, or is it more like a kind of intuitive, reflexive behavior. Sadly, it seems Western culture is not yet at a point where such things can be discussed in polite company.