[Zigurd]

This is the kind of argument that leads to "Let's put Jordan Peterson in charge of the equitable distribution of female partners." Unfortunately, that not even a fanciful comparison.

Some things have an objective ick. Whether it's women not wanting to touch icky men or advertisers not wanting to have their ads next to their abstruse rants entailing sexism, racism, or fascism. The question is do you value your ick more than you value being prosperous or laid? A smart lawyer once said "You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you."

[techostritch]

I mean, I’m not personally in the market for a free speech social network, the more moderation the better, but for those who want an anything goes social network not subject to the ideological whims of the owner, with strict first amendment protections, would this work?

(I am personally sus that there are a lot of people who would actually use such a thing, but people seem to talk about it a lot)

[Zigurd]

At the risk of being redundant to the other guy who asked you what's the problem, there are plenty of sites that will post whatever horrifying theory you want published.

But you say those sites have no reach. They have no reach because they're full of trolls. That's what would happen to any network no matter who owns it that attracts that kind of audience.