3 ms·

> The person who replied to this assertion noted some examples of such alternative platforms being interfered with Those are alternative platforms to twitter i

> 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?
        pwinnski 6y ago
        You seem to be missing the entire point. Questionable alternatives to twitter are "alternatives" only in the sense that questionable alternative to mainstream entertainment options are "alternatives." The entire point is that boxing matches are not questionable, while underground dogfights are illegal and not really therefore a reasonable alternative.
        yeetawayhn 6y ago
        Yet boxing matches are questionable. Underground dogfights being illegal is a tangential point, based only in legal semantics.
        mullingitover 6y ago
        Nothing, boxing matches are an above-board activity, as opposed to dogfighting, that's my point. Above-board web sites with reasonable moderation standards are doing fine, and always have been.
        yeetawayhn 6y ago
        That's just circular reasoning. You claim they're "above board" because they are not questionable, but the only metric by which you deem them not questionable is that they are "above board". This discussion is going nowhere as long as you don't understand that.
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.

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?
      - pwinnski 6y ago
        You seem to be missing the entire point. Questionable alternatives to twitter are "alternatives" only in the sense that questionable alternative to mainstream entertainment options are "alternatives." The entire point is that boxing matches are not questionable, while underground dogfights are illegal and not really therefore a reasonable alternative.
        yeetawayhn 6y ago
        Yet boxing matches are questionable. Underground dogfights being illegal is a tangential point, based only in legal semantics.
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        Nothing, boxing matches are an above-board activity, as opposed to dogfighting, that's my point. Above-board web sites with reasonable moderation standards are doing fine, and always have been.
        yeetawayhn 6y ago
        That's just circular reasoning. You claim they're "above board" because they are not questionable, but the only metric by which you deem them not questionable is that they are "above board". This discussion is going nowhere as long as you don't understand that.

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.