[froogle]

You have to be careful: given a rallying cry of free speech and no censorship, the main appeal of the platform is going to be attracting those holding unpopular opinions.

This happened with the mass exodus from Reddit to Voat of r/the_donald and similar, and I absolutely can see it happening here. Voat became host to a ton of toxic communities.

And because of that, it's going to push more orthodox people people away from the site towards Twitter in a self-reinforcing loop.

The plan for the site to get a broad range of opinions (in this case, the bounty of $20k for a prominent liberal) seems doomed as a result.

Still - hopefully the founders have learned from Voat and have plans in action to stop it before it gets too stuck in the cycle. The bounty is an interesting idea, though I don't think it'll be strong enough to break the perverse social dynamics involved. More competition with Twitter is a good thing.

[tenebrisalietum]

The terms of service PDF is really clear on what and what is not allowed.

Particularly interesting were links to the US Entity list of defined terriorist organizations. Downloadable in a text file (and it's large).

Since it's not pseudo-anonymous like Voat, and is also being endorsed pretty much by politicians, I think it won't fall into the same traps. I think it's going to become a de facto pipeline to politicians though.

The Terms of Service sound like the vision of a social media network after a Section 230 crackdown.