|
|
|
|
|
|
by m-p-3
1990 days ago
|
|
|
Deplatforming, for the better or worse, is putting a bigger spotlight on decentralized platforms to mitigate the issue of hosting something that businesses are unwilling to touch. They'll always try to find a platform they can leech on that cannot be moderated as easily, because not one holds the keys to the kingdom. I feel like that attempting to silence a group by deplatforming is similar to attempting to block/censor a service provided over the Internet, the network sees censorship as a system failure and it will always attempt to find a route around that. |
|
|
No, it really doesn't. John was wrong. What happens is that 'censorship' is applied at a particular level of the stack and this forces people who want to share or view the content to move to a more complicated and expensive process at a higher level of abstraction in the delivery stack. This is because decentralized systems are less efficient and because, so far, decentralized systems have incredibly shitty UX. You can shine a spotlight on decentralized alternatives and they may get a little bit of attention, but the attention will not last long enough to have a significant impact. The true believers may try to make the effort for a while, but they will slowly drift back to spending most of their time using the easiest possible mechanism and tool because they actually have other things to do with their time and life.