Jordan Peterson Announces Free Speech, Anti-Censorship Platform 'Thinkspot' (newsbusters.org) 774
Psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson announced a subscription-based free speech platform called 'Thinkspot' on Wednesday that promises to provide users the best features of other social media platforms, but without censorship. From a report: It's being marketed as a free speech alternative to payment processors like Patreon in that it will "monetize creators" and as provide a social media alternative to platforms like Facebook and YouTube. Peterson discussed Thinkspot with podcaster Joe Rogan on June 9, emphasizing a radically pro-free speech Terms of Service. He described that freedom as the "central" aspect saying, "once you're on our platform we won't take you down unless we're ordered to by a US court of law."
Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
It will in this case, because most of people who go there will do so because they have either been blocked from mainstream sites, or support someone who has been blocked. The userbase will self-select into a cess pit.
Re:Good luck... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget the lobster aficionados.
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen it happen before. There's a certain art site, which I will not name, which developed quite a reputation - and with good reason - as being full of artwork depicting minors in a sexual manner. It's not that the art site owners ever sought such an audience: It's just that this particular site was one of the very few to permit such material, and everyone who found their account blocked from a more reputable site fled there. The 'refugees' came to make up a substantial part of the user base.
What's to stop the same thing happening here? If the site mostly attracts those who have been banned elsewhere, it's not going to be a friendly crowd. If the site takes off, it'll soon be full of open calls for genocide, the most dangerous of conspiracy theories, and a lot of really weird porn.
Re: (Score:2)
/. used to be a free discussion platform (Score:3, Interesting)
This goes way back, so many here today probably don't remember it, but /. used to be one of the freest discussion platforms around.
Does anyone remember the Scientology debacle, and the huge reluctance expressed by the editors at deleting a post?
Of course, /. today is a sad imitation of what it once was. The moderation is absolutely atrocious these days, to the point of me always having to switch to -1 just to see all of the insightful comments that have been wrongly modded down.
I suspect that I've even seen
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll be surprised if they are allowed to get an app hosted in google play store or ios.
So use the fucking browser. Geez, it's like ya'll forgot there was life on the internet before everything went all appy (great, now I've likely invoked that app troll).
Re: (Score:2)
Peterson’s daughter Mikhaila encouraged podcast listeners to sign up as testers for the platform in its current beta phase, before the intended August 2019 launch. “We’re in desperate need for a platform that doesn’t arbitrarily decide to throw people off because of random crowd mentality,” she said.
Apparently her father didn't tell her about the part where you can be downvoted into oblivion.
On a platform where you have to pay for access.
*facepalm* x 1000
Re: (Score:2)
Close. Anything that zealously free speech MUST BE a hate platform.
By their definition, I could go online and spew the most vile hateful, disgusting things around, accusing innocent people of multiple crimes and they won't take them down until someone spends a lot of cash to order.
There are people that do that. Have you read comments sections?
Which means:
1) They will attract people that get kicked off of more restrictive websites,
2) They will repel people that do not like this garbage
3) Leaving a major
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech is for speech you detest, not speech you approve of.
Mull that over while you gnaw on your putrid cheese.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But unless you want an explosion, you don't smoke in a munitions factory.
It's a real problem. Every single powerful group has proven untrustworthy when it comes to regulating speech. Every single one. But it's also true that frustrated people are an explosive mixture, and are quite unlikely to injure their real oppressors more than innocents who just happen to be easier victims.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech isn't really the issue here.
There are plenty of places you can say pretty much anything. 4chan, 8chan, Gab etc. They whine about payment processors not wanting anything to do with the, but they are all still up and paying the bills.
No, the problem is that everyone wants to be on YouTube and Twitter because that's where the action is. Same as they want to go speak in the town square where people outside their echo chamber might actually hear them.
Thing is, YouTube and Twitter are not the town squ
Re:Good luck... (Score:4, Insightful)
YouTube and Twitter are de facto public places.
I do find the rise of communism on slashdot interesting. Previously the idea of seizing private property for the public would have been looked on with abhorrence (I mean look at how much people whine about taxes), but straight up "for the people" communism seems to really be making a comeback.
It's oddly refreshing even if it's a dead end.
Re: (Score:3)
Well... not really. "Free speech" is for speech that needs to be said, but that the people in power detest. It's just that it's impossible to guarantee that free speech without also allowing speech that I detest, at least when there's no solid legal distinction to prevent it from turning into a slipper slope.
But the purpose of "free speech" isn't to protect the freedom of detestable people to say detestable things. That's just an unfortunate but necessary side-effect.
Re:Good luck... (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech is for speech you detest, not speech you approve of.
Mull that over while you gnaw on your putrid cheese.
The problem is, the ones who are most trying to kill the speech opposed to them are the ones who support Jordan Peterson.
Watch anyone on these platforms try to argue that the far-right are dangerous, that fascist ideas are actually fascist... Hell, you won't even be able to correctly say "Hitler was right-wing". You won't be able to say Feminism isn't a problem and maybe, women still do have systemic barriers in the way. That will be quashed right from the start. Hell, you wont even be permitted to question James Damore's memo even though it's full of bad assumptions and inaccuracies (that's before the omissions), even the physiologist whose work he based it on came out saying that Damore's assumptions were wrong.
Hell, I expect this comment to be modded down because the last thing that people who complain about "free speech" want is people exercising that right to criticise their ideals. Their belief in freedom of expression is so strong, they constantly seek to silence dissenting voices and then claim victim status. Also because I dared question "the holy treatise of Damore"
I fully expect that this platform will become at best, a haven for hate mongers that will make 4chan look positively civil and clean. Peterson is not well known for handling criticism of his notions well.
But watch this comment get modded down because its speech certain people don't like... and those people aren't the WSJ's or whatever you like to call them either.
Re: (Score:2)
the tolerance of ideas that challenge the established order.
The Church and The Monarchy ruled Europe with an iron fist for millennia.
Perhaps I misunderstand your point here...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair Fred seems to have abandoned the party (Score:3)
"Moderate" Democrats did their best to blow off Gay Rights for decades. This is the same wing of the party that the Clintons belonged to. And we saw how well that wing fared in the 2016 election.
Re:Good luck... (Score:4, Insightful)
And people like you want to bring this here. Then you'll be all shocked when people on the left refuse to vote and throw the election to the fucking right.
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The US is very big on negative freedom, that is freedom from restrictions on doing things. Europe balances that with more positive freedoms, that is being empowered to exercise your freedom.
The latter is somewhat abhorrent to many Americans. For example, the idea that the government should provide people with anything for free. Even so, it does exist in the US, e.g. hospitals have a duty to provide minimal healthcare to anyone coming in to ER, children are provided with free schooling.
So we come back to exa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are against people making sounds with their faces that you do not like. Got it.
Yes, How is that hard to understand? If, for example you make a sound with your face that leads people to believe you will pay them a substantial sum of money to kill someone, then you will probably find yourself in prison because it turns out almost no one likes you making that sound with your face.
Putting things in childish terms does not make them wither not true nor is it insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Free and in Freedom and free as in "Free Beer" have never been the same thing and are not mutually exclusive. I would expect a /. reader of all people to understand that. I guess it just goes to show how long September has been.
Re: (Score:2)
English should adopt more unambiguous words. In spanish we have gratis and libre.
It's not like "to be" which is part of the language and cannot be separated, like spanish, in "ser" and "estar" (one is something you will always be, like being a man; the other is something you happen to be, like being ill).
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell us more about literacy and mental retardation.
Also, since your'e an expert and all ... I've been curious about the difference between 'free as in beer' and 'free as in speech'. ...but see? /. allows people to share 'alternate facts' and the world hasn't ended. somehow.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Does opposing totalitarianism, both fascism and communism, make you a "libertarian crank" now? "Fallacy of the excluded middle" much? Peterson hasn't spoken against the need for government, and has often spoken of the tremendous value we get from an orderly society where basic services work reliably. Doesn't sound much like libertarian creed to me.
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone opposes Totalitarianism.
Bullshit. Plenty of Slashdot posters have never seen an expansion of government power they didn't support. They just don't call that totalitarianism.
That's not Peterson's real schtick. His real schtick is demonize trans individuals,
He has never done so. You shouldn't believe every bit of blatant propaganda you read.
Peterson took a stance against being legally compelled to use made-up pronouns like "Xim" and "Xer". As he said about trans people "they want to be called him or her, just the other one", which he was perfectly willing to do, and has had many letters of support from trans people for that stance.
His stance was specifically against compelled speech! Restrictions on hate speech were OK by him, but compelled speech crossed the line into totalitarianism.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand he supports "enforced" monogamy and some kind of slut shaming that he refuses to give specifics of. His "orderly society" is a totalitarian nightmare when you start to nail him down on it.
Re: Good luck... (Score:5, Informative)
He posted about his support for it on his own blog: https://www.jordanbpeterson.co... [jordanbpeterson.com]
Note how he carefully states (or rather allows someone else to state on his behalf) why other people's interpretation of his remarks is wrong, but doesn't actually explain what he DID mean.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No but if you defend alt-rightards in any capacity you deserve all the derision you receive.
For decades the ACLU defended he right of the KKK to have marches, because if you don't defend the rights of expression of people you disagree with, you don't believe in free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
This one does appear to have built in standards...but those standards seem to equate to "like popular, but not necessarily quite as popular". It might work well for a group with a uniform opinion, but dissenting opinions are likely to disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the description it MIGHT be a hate platform. What it will be is driven by who the initial users are. It is designed to promote "group think", and for those who disagree to have their voices silenced. It the initial group is Unitarian Ministers, then it should be relatively impervious to penetration by hate groups (unless they join simultaneously, and thus overwhelm to voting system).
I think more highly of the Slashdot moderation system But even that didn't prevent the system from drifting from a
Re: Good luck... (Score:3)
but if that's your metric, I think it's time for me to start spouting random nonsense about people, countries and organizations, wait for one of the few million claims I make to actually resemble something that actually happens and call myself the new Nostradamus.
Why not; that's what Nostradamus did. Hell, it's what all psychics and fortune tellers do. Doesn't stop people from being impressed by their charlatanry.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Free market and all that.
Good Luck! (Score:5, Interesting)
You maybe steadfast but the payment processors won't be. They will bend at the smallest amount of pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow 4chan is still around. Bandwidth is cheap I guess.
What's not clear is how his service is different from 4chan or Gab. What is it's USP? That it's got Jordan Peterson on it?
Re:Good Luck! (Score:5, Informative)
What's not clear is how his service is different from 4chan or Gab.
those don't generate revenue for jordan peterson.
Same fate as the rest? (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll attract the most fringe elements, racists, etc, and nobody else will want anything to do with it because people generally do not want to read all that shit.
The challenge isn't to create a censorship-free platform, it's to create a censorship-free platform that the average person would ever want to use. Otherwise it will be a racist echo-chamber and everyone else will stay miles away.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to free speech. If you think that anything someone says is illegal, you're welcome to bring a lawsuit.
Otherwise feel free to live under Communism. I have, and it wasn't pretty.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The challenge isn't to create a censorship-free platform, it's to create a censorship-free platform that the average person would ever want to use.
The average person wants an echo chamber, because positive feedback is more enjoyable than getting modded/voted down because someone disagrees with your political position.
Slashdot is the perfect example of this. For whatever reason, this site still seems to attract cowardly scum who are more than happy to mod down, rather than argue their position.
Re:Same fate as the rest? (Score:4, Insightful)
The average person wants an echo chamber, because positive feedback is more enjoyable than getting modded/voted down because someone disagrees with your political position.
I, for one, like having an echo chamber where I don't hear people's political viewpoints on how I should be murdered.
I don't think it'll matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Peterson especially has a whole new audience. Religion is kind of on the decline in America but folks still want a sense of belonging and spirituality. Peterson's philosophy is designed to give you that without straying too far into actual Christianity. He's sort of like an agnostic televangelist in that regard.
But not anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
>> we won't take you down unless we're ordered to by a US court of law
Also, this guy's about to get a rude lesson in copypasta shitposting if he seriously believes this:
>> "If minimum comment length is 50 words, you're gonna have to put a little thought into it"
Re: (Score:3)
So he's already not abiding by his own 'free speech' claim, if the speech must be a minimum of 50 words.
Weird.
Within about 8.3 minutes it will be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
More like Tidal for fascists. Only with even LESS talent and business acumen.
After all, he's expecting that teenage boys will pay so they could do what they already do for free on various #Chans and forums.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps so, but 4chan is remarkably tame these days. There are still a few racists on /pol/ (though even that's tame compared to the racism that's normal in many places in the world), but most of the site is just weebs being weebs.
Re: (Score:3)
Why the other 497 seconds?
Useful for piracy? (Score:5, Informative)
What about a cease-and-desist order from a copyright lawyer?
Re: (Score:2)
A copyright claim is not a legal order, the copyright holder has to go to court and spend actual money to get an order to take something down. I'm sure they wouldn't spend money on fighting it, but in the mean time it will be several months before it's taken down and the courts will get clogged which may finally create an incentive for lawmakers to legalize some of this or make some other provisions for creators.
Even though YouTube makes it look like it doesn't, the US has strong protections against copyrig
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite right. A DMCA claim is a legal document backed by law. It does not need to go through a court to have the force of law. The reason this is so is because it does not compel someone to do anything. What a DMCA take-down notice does is remove liability from the platform if they comply with the take down. They don't have to comply, but if they go that route then they can be included in the copyright lawsuit and be held liable for copyright infringement if the court sides with the copyright owne
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse just a bog standard copy/paste DMCA notice. I doubt he will want to fight those on his user's behalf. The only option is to take the material down until they file a counter-notice.
The real test (Score:4, Interesting)
The real test will be if people with dramatically opposing viewpoints to Peterson sign up. Let's see what happens to their content. I'm half tempted to do that myself...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Peterson has always welcomed opposing viewpoints, he argues them all the time, that's kind of his job. I do wonder what will happen with all the alt-right and far-left content that is currently on YouTube, it will need a strong reputation system to combat having those float up to the top of the pile.
Don't (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You might learn a bit about Peterson before trying to criticize him. Or to quote Jimmy Buffet about critics who had never listened to his music: "don't try to describe the ocean if you've never seen it, don't ever forget that you just may wind up being wrong."
If you want to learn about a fascinating subject, watch his lecture series on myth and archetypes. It's quite entertaining, and unless you're a fan of Hitler or Stalin, I'm sure you'll agree with the limited amount of political stuff he talks about.
Re: (Score:3)
I've listened to a few things he's said and I'd say exactly the opposite about how he talks about things. He will very carefully choose his words to say exactly what he wants them to say, often by detailing the specifics of scientific literature. When there isn't any precise consensus in the literature, or from his own work, he would say that. When people try to turn what he said into something like a clickbait headline, inventing something that he didn't say, of course he refutes them.
If all you've listen
Re: The real test (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, you've just described a skilled sophist.
He's very good at making arguments by implication, he talks around them from a lot of directions with lots of little leaders pointing inwards but always holds back from actually committing to the point he's making. That way whenever anyone calls him out on his bullshit, he can get into pedantic deflections about precisely the words he wrote, rather than the argument he was actually making. He also finely interleaves facts from good sources, facts from dubious sources and his own viewpoints to make it look like he's quoting a fact but when pressed can simply claim that wasn't a sourced fact. It's a good technique to make a convincing argument.
A typical example: repeatedly retweeting anti-science idiots like Watts, then claiming that wasn't an endorsement. He believes that unless he's caught in the act saying "I endorse climate change deniers" then no one can read his actions and conclude that he has in fact done just that.
The thing is convincing arguments are not right in and of themselves. The Greeks knew about it and put it in writing millennia ago.
He's also pretentious as all get out which leads a lot of people to think he sounds (and therefore is) smart.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean this [jordanbpeterson.com]?
Clearly he's not stating that monogamy must be enforced, or how it should be or is enforced. But that societies historically tend to enforce it, and those societies reap a number of benefits like not having a population of dis-enfranchised males.
Re: (Score:3)
What is it about the right of the state to pass laws about marriage that offends you? The role that parents and grandparents have in teaching the responsibilities of relationships to their descendants?
"Enforced monogamy" isn't about slavery or a reduction of human rights. It's a term for the *existing* social and legal frameworks in various societies. That encourage kids to transition from adolescence into adulthood. To settle down and pro-create. To stick it out when things get difficult, and help to rais
coda on biological denialism (Score:3)
In my previous post, I didn't say what ideas Jordan brought to my party.
Here's one: a better appreciation of the political ramifications of biological denialism.
There's an element on the left who would like to ignore, suffocate, or bury the contribution of biology to human outcomes.
This is ludicrous on its face. What makes it interesting it that it's ludicrous in exactly the opposite way to what's most ludicrous in the metabolic syndrome debate: that any person who is overweight has necessarily over-indulge
Free market (Score:3, Insightful)
The free market will fill these voids in the wake of YouTube and FaceBook demonetization for anything remotely 'offensive' to anyone. I've been thinking about starting a platform like this but I just don't have the influence.
However lawmakers on the left have been talking to regulate FaceBook and YouTube and its creators are inviting it as well so the decisions can be out of their hands.
The only problem I can foresee is that it will need a very strong reputation system for the 'bad stuff' that isn't illegal but nevertheless offensive (eg. far left and far right ideas of racial supremacy) doesn't float to the 'suggestion' lists.
And the catch is??? (Score:2)
Oh yeah.
But I have to honor at least the attempt to promote unfettered crowd-supported Speech.
Too bad us Crowds are such Asshats.
Deus vult... (Score:2)
Censorship is popular (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of the people posting here are saying free speech is hate speech, that only nazis want free speech. Oh well, so much for that little experiment...
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people posting here are saying free speech is hate speech, that only nazis want free speech.
That is such disingenuous tripe. Nobody is asking for the government to intervene. These platforms are private companies that are there to make money so they are going to go to cater to the largest group of people possible. Advertisers on the other hand do not wish to be associated with certain individuals as it may harm their well crafted image and therefore sales. In response the platforms choose to exclude certain type of content to keep the advertisers from leaving. This isn't censorship, this is t
Re: (Score:3)
Literally no one here said that.
What I'd like to see in a new Patreon (Score:4, Interesting)
A Patreon that promises not to take anyone down is a pretty good idea, if nothing else they can get a lot of more edgy content (sexual or otherwise) that is being pushed off of Patreon.
What I would love to see out of a platform built to replace Patreon is, a system that was a little more potentially disconnected. That is to say, right now creators post all content to Patreon and there's a not a great way to have most the experience outside Patreon...
What if instead you had a platform where maybe the default was something like how Patreon works as far as content hosting, but if you wanted to reduce your monthly fee you could opt to have the site show updates that mostly linked back to your real site - kind of like an RSS reader only one built around collecting payments and helping your site understand who was authorized to see what.
Basically once you grow beyond a certain size it doesn't seem like Patreon makes sense, but it's a pretty large leap to a a whole site of your own and managing everything. Something in between would be great.
Re: (Score:2)
A Patreon that promises not to take anyone down is a pretty good idea
This is while it will be winning... until they go back on things and do take people down... they will be forced to... too many laws.... too many jurisdictions.... too many secret government orders
This will be viciously attacked (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This project will be viciously attacked as hate speech and I suspect it will be shut down by registrars yanking domain and all payment processors blacklisting it.
Just think how quickly the "war on drugs" could've ended if we went after drug dealers by cutting off their domain names and banning them from payment processors!
I bet this would work on terrorists, too. Siri, clear my schedule for the week, we're done here.
Missing the best feature of social media plaforms (Score:5, Insightful)
"a subscription-based free speech platform called 'Thinkspot' on Wednesday that promises to provide users the best features of other social media platforms, but without censorship."
The best feature of the big social media platforms is the huge number of people they reach. A subscription based site will not attract nearly as many people as the big free sites.
It will probably attract a right wing audience (as Peterson seems to be flavor of the month in some right wing circles) who will using the voting mechanism to down-vote and liberal/left-wing/anti_trump comments ensuring that it will turn into another Gab-like site.
Re: (Score:2)
A subscription based site will not attract nearly as many people as the big free sites.
Because most people want to share memes, stupid quizzes and clickbait-y articles, and post pictures of their kids/pets/meals. I seriously doubt the average person actually wants to argue politics every single time they go online.
Services they rely on will be attacked (Score:2, Insightful)
Services they rely on will be attacked: payment processor, hosting provider, banks, domain name registrars, etc etc. Fascist left won't tolerate any wrongthink.
Fascist left? does not exist: (Score:2)
1) PoliticalCompass.org
2) After grasping the above; realize that all Fascism definitions are NOT anywhere on the left. Italian Fascism (the creators) are upper right.
3) the correct term: AUTHORITARIAN. In the 2D grid, they are near the top and they can range left/right economically but probably in the USA they are middle to right economically, not actually on the left at all. Relative to the small political diversity in the USA, they are probably left or left leaning (the USA tends to be a y=x, greens being
Re: (Score:3)
Here's Benito Mussolini's official definition of fascism: https://www.urbandictionary.co... [urbandictionary.com]
Maps really well on the US political left: huge government that runs everyone's lives, globalism and expansion, zero tolerance to views contrary to official ideology. Does not apply at all to the populist right that's currently in power. Marginally applies to neocons.
Well this is going to end well... (Score:2)
An all-new online premiere service for abusive phenotypes, sociopaths, and cyberstalkers. Need your daily ration of abusive foul mouth language? This is your place to be!
All is well until some poor kid commits suicide after being psychologically abused on this site. Perhaps the saving grace here is it's not a free site, and kids don't have a whole lot of money to toss at this.
Got beat up by a lobster (Score:2)
Learned my lesson
Potential (Score:2)
I see the possibility of it being abused by the rare genuine hate speech, but someone's got to try. I wish him luck. Free speech is worth fighting for even if there are risks.
Censorship is censorship. (Score:2)
"The first amendment only applies to protection from the government" is such a fig-leaf when it comes to justifying censorship.
We're entering into an environment where a very small number of gate-keepers are effectively able to silence anyone and anything with views they consider 'problematic'.
Saying it's okay to censor views that a) you 'just happen' disagree with and b) the agent doing the censorship isn't the government just sets the stage and tone for future censorship down the line.
The notion of freedo
Sorta like Reddit promised? (Score:3)
Absolute Free Speech Platform=>Extremism (Score:3)
Speaking in general, it's a laudable idea to offer a platform that values absolute or near-absolute free speech. However, if it's made available to the public in any capacity, paid or not, it will always devolve into a cluster of some sort of extremism.
Let's say you get a platform and there are 10 regular users. Nine of these could be along various bands, political or otherwise, and decent but one will be absolutely rabid about something, both in their own posts and replying to others. Because the platform pushes near-absolute free speech, their posting habits cannot be easily curtailed without violating that in some degree. One or two of the other nine users will eventually tire of the rabid user and leave; this amplifies the rabid user by changing the ratio. Even if the remaining seven stick around, the rabid user will attract other like minds, changing the ratio further and each of those seven will have their own cut-off point and leave.
The eventual result is that the community as a whole will be rabid; there will be pockets of sanity here and there, but that's not what will be presented to the outside world. Once it hits a threshold the rabidness can turn toxic, at best getting unwanted attention and at worst causing legal issues. The proprietor may be able to ignore what is happening up until this point, but when it comes the proprietor must make a choice: Try to rein in this to curtail toxicity, at the risk of the entire business model and mass desertion, or to acquiesce and become an explicit accessory.
Putting a financial gate up can make this process slower, but I don't expect it to completely stop the process. The only way that someone can provide a platform for near-absolute free speech without this problem is by gatekeeping the fuck out of it, making it a private society where a person has to have a personal recommendation from a long-standing member to even be considered and the vast majority have to agree to their inclusion. Much like Benjamin Franklin's Junto [benjamin-f...istory.org]. There would still be a max size for those, as well, with Franklin's Junto handled by having separate "branches" managed by original members that were largely ignorant of each other and the "parent" branch.
The reason this doesn't happen in the real world, or at least takes a much longer time to occur, is two-fold:
1) In real life it's far harder for "rational" actors to exit. Most do not have the option to pick up and move, or perhaps not even quit their job outright, and more will be forced into countering rabid actors
2) There are few-if-any placed where a rabid actor can have a loud and constant presence. Either their time and ability is far more limited, or they'll be countered due to #1, or both
I fear /. has been succumbing to this for some time, though unique features and momentum are pushing back.
free speech....subscription based (Score:2)
if it is subscription based, then you cannot have an anonymous account on the system. if you cannot speak anonymously, it is not providing you the entirety of free speech as defined by the first amendment and interpreted by the supreme court.
apparently, he wants to have a minimum length requirement in an attempt to force people to put thought into what they write. i wonder how he's going to respond if people start putting garbage text to pad out small comments to the minimum length. I wonder how he'd respon
too bad I can't (Score:2)
Let Me Guess... (Score:3)
How will this turn out?
The platform will attract its share of trolls and hate groups. Most people dislike those things, so they'll report it and/or leave. Most likely a few will report, then they'll leave when nothing happens.
And the end result is a platform with a higher concentration of trolls and hate groups, which in turn drives away even more regular users. The cycle repeats. Eventually it either collapses into obscurity or becomes an alt-right/hate forum.
If there are any doubts about that, browse this site at -1 for the unfiltered experience. And that's just a taste of it... because the behavior doesn't create an echo chamber here. On a more typical social media site, there will be a positive feedback loop.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had my own platform, it would require you to sign up with your own verifiable identity. I may still allow you to keep your anonymity from everyone other than me, but I want to know exactly who you are so I can ban you if I need to.
The problem is always that this would be open to overly broad discovery in lawsuits completely unrelated to you and to subpoena for invented infractions. I don't really see a good solution for verified ID as long as releasing someones name in associated with an unpopular idea will result in targeted harassment until they are fired from their place of employment and ostracized from their real life community.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there you go.
Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Joe Rogan, Milton Friedman
All of these people are well known. They aren't trying to hide their names. These seem to be the people that Jordan Peterson is targeting as the Silicon Valley corps look to lock out conservative views. Most of the nonsense copypasta is done when children (regardless of age) are allowed to act anonymously.
Maybe their place of employment and their real life community agree with them. Asserting that there would be ostracization is m
Re: (Score:2)
I would never want to run any kind of platform for posts due to crap like child pron, bullying, sextortion, etc.
If I had my own platform, it would require you to sign up with your own verifiable identity.
This is a subscription-based platform, so yeah, I think he's way ahead of you. Hard to pay without a verifiable identity.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I don't like the idea of fascist, neo-Nazi, alt-right propaganda getting out there and emboldening violent hate groups, but OK. Also, tolerance has to go both ways. Can't be tolerant of the intolerant, that's not how that works. You can't have a group of people that has decided to be accepting of each other and let people of other ethnicities and religions live among them, and then be welcoming to someone who hates people of other religions and ethnicities, kind of defeats the purpose.
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are very good reasons why we can't be tolerant of the intolerant, but by the same token we need to be extremely careful with that line of thinking.
Well, yes, because it is basically hypocritical. "I won't tolerate anyone who won't tolerate other people."
That's the kind of stuff that Kirk used to use to get computers to commit suicide when they were running amok in their control of societies.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yes, because it is basically hypocritical. "I won't tolerate anyone who won't tolerate other people."
Looks like another college student just discovered the paradox of tolerance. Hey it even has it's own wikipedia page!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also the justification we used to declare war on the Nazis.
Bullshit. Not tolerating gas chambers and invasions of neighboring countries doesn't mean you have to tolerate everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Occasionally, but only when they are justified.
For example it would be easy to call Peterson a fascist for his authoritarian views, but he isn't, so I don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Occasionally, but only when they are justified.
Funny, on the one hand, you're perfect and you only use the labels when they are "Justified", but those who use those labels against you are "Wrong!".
Could it be your subjective opinion of yourself is different from what others perceive you to be, ie, the biggest gas lighting troll on Slashdot ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the US President does, then every ditz calling themselves a journalist who writes for a liberal rag will. How else will they get their daily dose of outrage from the President leading them around by the nose?
Re: (Score:3)
It may actually *be* a civil platform. The way the design reads any post/poster that violates the group opinion will be made invisible, so there won't be anyone to argue with. What the effect would be, however, is somewhat dubious. Strong echo chambers without effective feedback can induce interesting hallucinations...but not ones that generally act in a pro-survival manner.
Re: (Score:2)
You're using that term... (Score:3)
A "safe space" means the members in the space are free from criticism. This platform is explicitly open to all, and is therefore not a safe space.