4 ms·

>The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure The "right" does not have to build it's own infrastruc

>The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure The "right" does not have to build it's own infrastructure, plenty of right wing media personalities and publications maintain a presence on Facebook/Twitter/etc... as long as they follow the rules of the platform. That headline is just clickbait nonsense.

roenxi 5y ago
In the case of Trump, Twitter was actively interfering with one of the main channels being used by a Republican president, up to and including banning him while claiming "I will not be going to the inauguration" is an incitement of violence. That isn't an acceptable situation for a wing of politics. The right will need friendly, or at least neutral, versions of the big social media platforms and they will keep losing elections until they figure that out. People may or may not agree about the specific case, but looking at the capabilities in a strategic sense and it isn't something that can be glossed over. The outrageous treatment Trump received on social media is a big deal; insofar as the right wing is a political entity it has to respond.
hellojesus 5y ago
And if they want to be able to have social media that isn't subject to the terms of the mainstream ones... they have to build their own. Which I'm happy about! The more competition, the better! It baffles me why people act like Twitter is the only place on the web. It's popular, sure, but it's easily cloned and could be extended upon. The real issue hindering competition is dollars.
syshum 5y ago
>> rules of the platform. Which are themselves politically bias to one world view, that of the US political left. To be clear I am not talking about the enforcement of the rules, which is a problem in itself, but the actual rules as laid out are such they favor the identity politics of the modern "left" in the US. Those that do not support, or agree with identity politics must do verbal, and ideological self censorship to exist on said platforms.

roenxi 5y ago

In the case of Trump, Twitter was actively interfering with one of the main channels being used by a Republican president, up to and including banning him while claiming "I will not be going to the inauguration" is an incitement of violence. That isn't an acceptable situation for a wing of politics. The right will need friendly, or at least neutral, versions of the big social media platforms and they will keep losing elections until they figure that out. People may or may not agree about the specific case, but looking at the capabilities in a strategic sense and it isn't something that can be glossed over. The outrageous treatment Trump received on social media is a big deal; insofar as the right wing is a political entity it has to respond.

hellojesus 5y ago

And if they want to be able to have social media that isn't subject to the terms of the mainstream ones... they have to build their own. Which I'm happy about! The more competition, the better! It baffles me why people act like Twitter is the only place on the web. It's popular, sure, but it's easily cloned and could be extended upon. The real issue hindering competition is dollars.

syshum 5y ago

>> rules of the platform. Which are themselves politically bias to one world view, that of the US political left. To be clear I am not talking about the enforcement of the rules, which is a problem in itself, but the actual rules as laid out are such they favor the identity politics of the modern "left" in the US. Those that do not support, or agree with identity politics must do verbal, and ideological self censorship to exist on said platforms.