[isthisreality]

> the more aggressive they are, the more space it creates for competition

The competition is not apples to apples. Instead, you have ideological bubbles like Gab, and you have the incumbent network (Twitter) which "normies" use by default.

The problem with the default network applying ideological censorship is that it limits the average person's exposure to the marketplace of ideas. In the context of a controversial topic, this benefits the default narrative tremendously.

If we want to reduce ideological conflict, it's imperative to respect alternative viewpoints and engage them as equals. Otherwise, we risk alienating people into becoming extremists, or worse, we allow the authorities (who work closely with censors and fact checkers) to control the Overton window and propagandize us away from the truth.

[vidarh]

Competition is not apples to apples, but it is possible. You have no realistic options to take payments from a mass audience if payment networks cuts you off - that is a huge difference.

[bufferoverflow]

> Competition is not apples to apples, but it is possible.

Ok, demonstrate that by creating a YT competitor with 2 billion users.

Then tell us how possible it is.

[vidarh]

You're moving goal posts. The vast majority of users on YouTube has no realistic access to an audience that size.