[Imnimo]

They say it's "undeplatformable", but it's really just a way of screaming into the void because no one is going to want to dig through a pile of trash to find out what they're saying.

I'd say it's a great win-win. They get to spout whatever they want, and no one has to hear it.

[0des]

> no one is going to want to dig through a pile of trash to find out what they're saying

People still use clearnet websites that do this every day. For some sites, read: news outlets, it is their business model.

[lazyeye]

As compared to big tech which gets to "spout whatever they want" via censorship and controlling the discourse. And everyone has to hear it.

[Imnimo]

I mean that's the beauty of it. I get to choose whether I want to hear Twitter's version of discourse or NoFILTER's version, or neither. So when people I'm unlikely to want to listen to decide to go to NoFILTER, that's a win for me.

[lazyeye]

I dont think they are mutually exclusive. Its perfectly possible to create self-regulated forums that function well without big tech being involved. I think we've have been conditioned to believe that people like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey are the best people to provide this kind of environment. I dont think this is remotely true.

[Imnimo]

How can there be "self-regulation" on a platform that is "unstoppable, uncensorable, undeplatformable"?

I certainly agree that there are plenty of valuable forums that are not run by tech giants, but they function because they have dedicated moderation and censorship. The trouble is that the set of things I think people should be allowed to say is extremely large, but set of things I want to see in a forum or any sort of social media is much smaller. It doesn't have to be Jack Dorsey at the helm, but someone has to be sweeping up the filth to make a forum a place I want to interact with.