I had a lot of fun last night cruzing the fediverse on free speech extremist .
We’ve kinda built up a name brand here at wolf balls. Launching and keeping a instance up reliably for over three months with basically less than 5 minutes total downtime.
People don’t yet know how to use the fediverse. I feel like my marketing skills have grown after creating the character master of balls for videos.
This would be an easy expansion for us. I can use the same postgres instance. And market another technology.
What would you guys like to see on a twitter/gab like clone?
Even less censorship ? We could probably allow straight awful shit to be posted and not blacklist it seeing as it’s personal timeline content and users can block users.
Gab doesn’t fulfill my needs because its a walled off garden and it’s UI kinda sucks.
I don’t really trust other instances like free speech extremist. I don’t know if they will be here tomorrow.
What do you guys think?
Probably gonna do it anyways but I’m looking for input from users here to what they would actually use.
P2P databases would be good. I probably should work on that eventually.
I’m not interested in hosting white nationalist content. Im not a white nationalist. I love hanging out in China town. Im just interested in allowing the most freedom possible while not turning away users.
Getting a little black pilled on it. It might be worth while to have a instance that turns away leftest ideologies. Just so we can build a base of good users. That would need a big talk with all the users here though.
Anyway the exact formula I have not figured out yet. Even gab isn’t really free speech. They allow Nazi content but ban antifa stuff pretty sure. Even if its not in their terms of service.
I said pro-white, not WN or Nazism, but I gave that more as an example and was thinking more generally.
As for Antifa, I’d say they are a terrorist group, so I see no violation of free speech if you disallow groups that have inherently violent ideologies. Just talking about making America great is not in itself terrorism or violence. But hosting a group that sprays bleach or acid at the cops and teaches how to use lasers to permanently blind the opposition should be a no-no anywhere.
Yeah, I’m just spit-balling.
Having met a bunch of self-identified antifa people I disagree about them. It’s a nebulous label which isn’t exclusively self-applied, much like the label of WN or Nazi, and as such there’s no “quality control” on who is or isn’t antifa. Anyone can call themselves antifa, or be called antifa. Ideologically there’s no requirement for violence, although plenty of them are certainly prone to it, and it doesn’t seem right to blanket a diverse set of views as terrorist. I hate to use the slippery slope argument because generally they’re pretty weak, but it really is a slippery slope. Without a formally agreed upon definition, you could basically designate any leftist as a terrorist this way.
Hell, call them all terrorists. If they don’t like it, then stop calling the rest of us Nazis and fascists.
As far as I am concerned, nearly every Leftist is a terrorist and deserves to be treated as such.
BTW, Democrats started the KKK. And yes, I know about the ACP and how it hijacked the Democrats and pushed the conservatives to the Republican party. At that point, there was really no conservative party, and the conservatives fled to the least liberal of the 2 liberal parties.
I can only say so much to change your mind on any particular label, but I think my biggest consideration with this blanket labeling of groups (be they groups I agree with or not) is just the history of how the American government treats “terrorists” - and I’m using that word loosely. Once you’re designated a terrorist, all bets are off and despite what’s on paper, you don’t really have any rights. You don’t really even have to go back far to find examples of this.
The Abu Ghraib prison operated by the US military held people that, by the admission of the former commanding officer of the prison, tortured and executed people who she estimated were 90% innocent. They were just people in the wrong place at the wrong time who happened to be called a terrorist by the wrong person.
Are you sure it’s a good idea to throw the “terrorist” label around, given what our government does to people who get called terrorists? What happens when it’s you, or your family, or your friends who are on the receiving end of that? I’m pretty far left. I certainly don’t think I deserve that kind of treatment for holding the extremist position that we should have 16 years of taxpayer funded schooling instead of 12, or that we shouldn’t have starving kids in the richest country on Earth. Do you?
I guess all I’m saying here is that we have to be really careful with how we use words.
To me, those are just leftist talking points. That is what they say when they are not in control or are grappling for more control. All but them are terrorists.
And I see too many on the Right or somewhere in the middle who want the right to be harmed, or they’d be fighting no holds barred and wishing harm on those who are harming their people, and may Emperor Constantine’s religion of cuckery be damned.
At this point, anyone who makes excuses for Leftists marginalizing Conservatives is part of the Left, and anyone making excuses for non-whites who harm whites is either an enemy or a traitor.
I get what you are saying and see it as misapplied. Personally, I never came here to debate, only to express myself and share. I tend to like to state my opinions and move on.
Surely just being anti-left is the most inclusive of all…?
With all due respect, I was speaking within a specific context to a specific person with a response tailored just to them. And if you go further up, you’d see I was speaking of a hypothetical place, not the direction of this site.
My point is that if one wants a pro-white equality site (not Nazi shit and other degeneracy), they should have that right as a matter of principle. Period. They shouldn’t be forced to be inclusive or have “diversity.”
I apologize if this comes across too strongly.
I aren’t bothered… and I know…
We might well agree that antifa are toxic fascists, but i don’t see how banning violence is workable. Freedom fighters are often smeared as terrorists. These are just words. It’s like an oppressive government making unreasonable laws to criminalize normal and legitimate behaviour - a recent example is the govt Nova Scotia criminalizing protest, by abusing unreasonable laws made for another illegitimate purpose and mission creeping them to apply for yet another illegitimate purpose. Nova Scotians should be protesting outside their provincial govt…
I agree that people should be free to comment and also give everyone else the freedom to take the piss out of them… Which is precisely what lefties try to do
Calling people terrorists is problematic, because why aren’t globalist bankers called that too? I don’t think you can define animherently violent ideology. There’s plenty of violence in religious books.
The original reddit way of just ignoring people seems simpler. If the ideology is the problem, liberate the criticism and mockery of it, and add an admin cost to that kind of free expression… Like a hypocrite tax… Like communists could be forced to run their servers as unpaid collectives, so that they’re shit, and nobody wants to use them. Let the market decide as much as possible.
I mean you can go the dark web, make death threats, and people will ril the shit out of the threat issuer… they are not taken seriously, and lose network, and that’s the admin cost of being a dickhead.
(that’s not directed at you btw, just making a point).
My issue with sites like I propose is that there needs to be a way to keep the crackpots and plants out. So, in that case, have a regular site and have special private rooms for vetted folks to discuss certain topics. Those rooms could require a subscription fee and background checks. I wouldn’t want real or fake skinheads taking over. Every time there is a new free speech site, the Left finds a way to cause violence and pin it on them. That isn’t much different than Nero having the city set on fire and blaming Christians, whether he actually played a violin or similar or not.
You have a good point. International bankers are financial terrorists.
I don’t think you will find much support for a bureaucracy, the right simply has to raise its game to win in the marketplace of ideas.
That’s not quite what I’m calling for either. In fact, I’m saying much what you are. Self-policing is part of raising one’s game. So allow extra privileges for those willing to pay and be vetted so they won’t humiliate whatever new site. Often, those who raise the objection of increased security being a problem want to take your rights in some other way with their double standards.
Vetting that means “background checks” and traceable “subscription fees” is of no interest to some of us who prefer liberty, and also security from potential trojan horse bad actors who want to smole out and dox some of us. The best you can hope for to get buy in, us a 2-tier system, where you have the shallow surface where people self-police, and are mostly dishonest (like at work); and the deeper depths, where people say what they really think (like at home). Submitting to “vetting” is creating a vulnerability that can be exploited or exposed through incompetence. Anonymity or privacy or security is not a flag for malign intent, but a protection in a hostile information space, where reputation attacks are real, and trust is for sheep not for wolves.