So what stops this new site from getting extremist?
Looking at a similar story of voat here, which quickly became very rightwing and unwelcome to tame ideologies
Looking at a similar story of voat here, which quickly became very rightwing and unwelcome to tame ideologies
IMO, it has already happened. The far-left have already crossed lines that are tremendously damaging for society, while at the same time they point the finger at countries like China for engaging in the same kinds of actions they themselves are engaged in.
Free-speech is not just some alt-right or far-right conspiracy to oppress people. It's a fundamental value that our societies are built on. The idea of free-speech means that some people will say some extreme things, and free-speech is what enables you to point out their extremism so that people can be better informed.
Big tech has become extremist in its calculated attempts to deplatform (unperson) people. The people calling out this extremism sometimes have the undesirable effect that they catch the association of reactionaries on the opposite side (the far right). The people on the IDW have consistently made cases against extremism on the right, and in many ways, they are the limiting the extent of a potential radical right backlash that would otherwise come as a result of crackdowns on liberties from the left.
Enough people leaving if they do not agree with Patreons views
> IMO, it has already happened. The far-left have already crossed lines that are tremendously damaging for society, while at the same time they point the finger at countries like China for engaging in the same kinds of actions they themselves are engaged in.
Right. We also need to look at ourselves in terms of surveilance and social score systems, which no doubt also exist in some form in european countries and the US.
> Free-speech is not just some alt-right or far-right conspiracy to oppress people. It's a fundamental value that our societies are built on. The idea of free-speech means that some people will say some extreme things, and free-speech is what enables you to point out their extremism so that people can be better informed.
Agreed. Free speech is important. Everybody should be able to say what they want, or stay quiet if they choose. However, this does not mean that I have to let my racist neighbour hold a talk in my living room.
The actions of the left are more akin to investigating which bank your neighbour uses, then going to that bank and asking them to close his account down or you will cause a scene.
If a bank gets made aware that they accidentially support a cause they despise morally, why shouldnt they cancel their account?
Because a person's political views have nothing to do with banking.
Because consumer protection laws exist.
Because people are innocent until proven guilty.
Do you really want to see what will happen if you continue to take this to the extreme and deny all services to anyone who disagrees with you?
Exactly.
But what if it is the "Lets kill all the purple people" fund, in a country where purple people have zero rights. Now its not anymore about the persons political views, but where the money gets used.
I dont support patreon banning people with different personal views, but I do support them in their right to not support unwelcome content.
In societies without rule of law, then I think it's fair that a bank could cut off access for another, but we also have a legal framework for dealing with this, the UDHR and the ICJ.
We built these legal frameworks specifically for the purpose of ending the witch-hunting mentality of our medieval ancestors. It's a shame that so many people want to undo centuries of developing frameworks that protect them for their quick virtue signalling.
The real question the far-left needs to ask themselves is, if we throw away legal processes in favor of witch hunts, then who is going to protect them when the tide changes?
I guess I still dont understand. Why should a private company be required to support a cause they dissagree with?
By that argument, you could conclude that anyone has the right to refuse services to any race, gender, sexuality. We have deliberately made laws to prevent this kind of exclusion. Now you suddenly want to bring it back?
Of course, the difference is that if you are white, male and straight, you're not part of the "protected" persons, and you can be denied service by anyone.
And people wonder why there might be an increase in white people shifting further to the right?
You mean like making a cake for a same-sex wedding?
Good call. Sounds like you agree w/ OP that an alternative to Patreon might be worthwhile.
High-karma posts and topics help to deter or teach new comers. They also serve to create a narrative and local extrema that begins to differ from more broadly held views.
Next, consider that a sequestered board also limits (even eliminates) any empathy a user may have had. No one thinks differently from them, no one has a differing opinion.
HN is in stark contrast to these other systems. The entire site may be self-contained, but there is no place for users to hide (in PMs, in sub-boards, etc.). If we want to be here (which I think we do) we have to deal with each other, listen to differing opinions, have real conversations. There is a karma system, and I'm not quite sure how it fits in...
\edit - stray characters
If you run a platform where your members pay you a percentage though, you're not beholden to advertisers. You'd be beholden to law enforcement though.
Thats gonna cause a non-negligible drop of users and revenue
Considering the people who are behind it, that is very unlikely [1]