elastolin

Please elaborate.

You don't understand how hard is for a messaging app to gain traction. Telegram has been growing for years and years, and it offers some significant advantages over WhatsApp. Even with all this marketing and effort, I'd say only about 10% of my WhatsApp contacts are on Telegram. Now you want to get people to move to yet another app? For what? Why would they? Because no ads?

If a new app ever manages to become big (as in, Telegram-level big, let alone WhatsApp), it would take years of raising money and marketing. And how would they pay for that exactly? You think people pay a mensual/anual fee for a messaging apps when there are free alternatives? No, the answer is, again, ads. That or selling user data, which is much worse.

You're too focused on the tech, but you have no understanding of how business works.

> Obviously many of these people will go with me once I find a better alternative.

People will go only if there's another service that's good enough and has enough user density. You may find the best privacy-oriented, ad-free messaging app, but if it's empty or if it's hard to use, it's essentially useless.

By this point, it's hard to compete with the behemoths like WhatsApp or Telegram and people will not care about this nearly as much as you do. So, no, it's not 'obvious' at all.

This is actually a great idea, and it shouldn't be too hard to implement.

> ~1$/month, I don't do anything heavy, text messaging only

Won't work. The vast majority people don't pay for messaging service, and without people, there's no messaging app. Ads are the only way forward.

Will they offer an optional ad-free subscription? Maybe, but I wouldn't count on that, and it's likely to be higher than $1/month.

> So, the day I get ads in Telegram I'm leaving

Nobody cares.

> I absolutely despise ads of any kind, and go to a decent amount of effort to block them from appearing on any device in my household

No one cares, my man. This position is so off the grid that your anti-ad cruzade will likely have 0 impact in the real world.

> fundamental disagreement about how society should be

We may not agree, but we can't say it's a "fundamental disagreement" if there's so much people rooting for it.

> What does that look like?

1) Disagreeing with people online 2) Opening niche internet forums that are lax on moderation (except for illegal content such as child pornography and direct threats) 3) Investing in hosting/domain registrars/payment processors that don't deplatform because of political stance (e.g., Epik, SkySilk)

I've been doing 1) and 2) for some time now, but I want to do 3) as well. I think it will become very profitable during this decade.

> Some people should never have power, like nazis.

That's exactly what I'm arguing against. That's just your opinion and you treat it like some universal axiom. Same way you treat 'Holocaust deniers' as some kind of monstrous apparitions. You may not agree, that's all.

It's people like you that inspire me to counteract this trend with full force.

"everything means nothing yada yada yada"

You know exactly what I mean, cut the bullshit. Point being, deplatforming may be okay for the group who exercises it, but not for the group that is being deplatformed. Who the fuck decides? The government? Some out of touch Big Tech CEOs? Fuck that.

Just take a look at Venezuela's current "Law against Hatred" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_against_Hatred)to get an idea of how dumb this whole approach is.

Now, if I'd be willing to argue that this is a antitrust issue (FB, TW, Google / Amazon AWS, CloudFlare / PayPal, Stripe / Visa, MasterCard) having too much power to the point that they decide whether you live or not, and that there should be way more alternatives.

No, it doesn't sound rasonable. Even if it's real Nazis. It's an absolutely retarded standpoint.

True. But it has a more relaxed approach to moderation.

So, deplatforming (silencing) a group is okay, but doing the same for other group is not okay based on some arbitrary criteria.

What if we starting deplatforming Jews or reducing Jewish influence to the point of pratical irrelevance? Would that be okay?

That's not a Trump quote.

>show me a site without moderation that still has high quality discussion 4chan

Pretty much this.

We both know there's about a 100% chance that whoever reads gnu.org and writes a browser extension to block JavaScript on a specific site is a male, so "he/him" is better in this case.

That makes total sense. A more pragmatic and less technical interpretation. I don't condone it seems that's the way we're headed.

It does seem like a slippery slope, though. Someone could argue that your site facilitates bypassing copyright for merely letting users know a particular torrent even exists. They would simply look it up by name in a torrent index that does share magnet links.

Thanks for the insight, and good luck with the website!

Why does hosting a magnet link make a torrent index 'illegal'? After all, you're not hosting any actual content on your server.

Which site?

Is this satire? The fact that you even specify that you "do not ask for passwords" for social media accounts of potential hires, is sketchy as fuck. I'm sorry for the desperate people that go along with this shit.