(untitled)

I'm curious about the migration of users from smaller, community oriented online spaces to the corporate, monolithic social media platforms that we see today, such as Facebook and Twitter. How do you think this has impacted our online interactions as a whole? Do you guys actively come to our anonymous imageboards to escape from reality? Should we make a movement to decentralise the net and reclaim our online niches? All of these large platforms have some form of terms of service and I often wonder if that may be impacting the psyche of society as a whole, as we have to police our speech and thoughts in order to comply with the terms of service of our social outlet of choice - with the modern culture we see these days, it often feels like we spend more of our time performing for the gaze of those around us, rather than being in isolation and allowing ourselves to truly let go. I'm curious if there is any published work on this, something like sociological studies. What are your thoughts lainons?

I have no idea. I shy away from these big sites. I visit more than 150 different small sites, each one fills a niche. What I can't talk about in one, I can in another.

>>13905 >Should we make a movement to decentralise the net and reclaim our online niches? You don't need a movement. You need a new protocol. http is inherently centralized. On http, you're a pleb and the server is the central authority over you. Look at the protocols pre-http. Like nntp, smtp, irc, ... everything was server to server relays. You fire your messages into the server, it bounces around relays on all the other servers, and your message is delivered to the recipients. If some zuckerberg tried to take over, "the internet considers censorship damage and routes around it." That truism is no longer true. Every little http site, including this one, is its own little feifdom. Server admin can censor and block anything he pleases. Want to fix the problem? Delete your web browser. Start there.

>>13933 even with http server you can have some level of decentralisation... if every joe had their own website, it'd be a lot harder to have a monopoly... remember the old times.

>>13934 > if every joe had their own website, it'd be a lot harder to have a monopoly... remember the old times Yeah, but running a website usually costs money. Why would an average Joe pay for something like that, when he can have a facebook page for free? Basically Zuckerberg won because he gives people a place to soykafpost for free, but people pay for it by losing their privacy and freedom to say anything they want. But for an average Joe that is fine.

>I'm curious about the migration of users from smaller, community oriented online spaces to the corporate, monolithic social media platforms that we see today, such as Facebook and Twitter. This migration never happen. First, a larger portion of users had begun to use the Internet in the last 10 years. Second, most people have lived behind some kind of wall. The problem is the number of digital castles become smaller and their size become bigger. Also, most of the people like to stay in a big service like they like to stay in a big city. Change between Myspace, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and Discord is like move between New York, Los Angles, San Diego, and Seattle. >I'm curious if there is any published work on this, something like sociological studies. Don't forget the basic rule that most of the guys are going to a place where the biggest number of women.

>>13939 >Don't forget the basic rule that most of the guys are going to a place where the biggest number of women. just so they get rejected and harass them? :D

>>13937 well, neocities and similar projects (even though still centralised, but it's not the big brother... and it's easy to migrate) that follow geocities' success show that people still like to create their own content hosting is relatively cheap nowadays, my vps costs like 5 dollars for 3 months... so like if joes bought one fewer lootboxes, they could run their cat's website. i understand where you're coming from, it's quite like that rn, but people get pissed off because of all that soykaf that's going on with all those big companies, so i think there is some chance. >>13939 > most of the people like to stay in a big service like they like to stay in a big city. i love your comparison

>>13943 >just so they get rejected and harass them? Nice first world problem. >>13944 >i love your comparison I don't if you are ironic but I think this way: Big services and cities get bigger because of the opportunities they bring with their size.Where I live you can find a soykaf job easy in facebook as in websites for that. Big cities and big services only have basic personality but a lot in common between them. If you want to accept a gigantic and diversity public, you need to try to be neutral. A big service and city never will be creative or provide a good service as "middle size service/city". Well, maybe I am wrong. But I still believe the biggest services are only gigantic because the money from taxes goes there as always the USA, China and Russia keep their online spheres of influence.

>>13948 >Nice first world problem. aaaaaand? >A big service and city never will be creative or provide a good service as "middle size service/city". i actually like living in big cities (though depends on a definition of one, i guess)

>>13948 i wasn't sarcastic. though, do we really have to bring "government of big countries [blah blah blah]" into this?

>>13905 The problem runs a little deeper than just walking away can solve. Consolidation is the way of the tech industry, what's worrisome now is it's social spaces and social life being consolidated and commoditized. I like to spend most of my time anywhere other than Facebook, but it hardly matters if my friends aren't there. The existing social media sites have mastered the art of getting people to spend lots of time on them and depend on them, and I don't expect or want an alternative to compete with that. I'll get into my reasoning a bit more here. I don't think freedom is something that only individuals have. Humans are social animals; we're in social relationships with other humans almost before we're even born. As muh rugged individual as you are, you still move with the crowd, probably more than you realize. It would be impossible not to. Your perspective is shaped by your social environment. So for anyone to be free at all, they have to exist in a social environment that isn't being controlled. Social media, as we know it, basically exists to manipulate people on a broad social level rather than on an individual level, so if you really want to get out, you can't get out alone. Everyone around you will still be shaped by it if you don't break them out with you. Not to get nihilistic here. Reclaiming space outside of Twitter/Discord/Facebook/WeChat/etc. is worth it, but there's room to think of how to go beyond yet another separatist social network. >>13948 >Nice first world problem. Harassment is a problem in Saudi Arabia too but go off I guess.

>>13934 >decentralisation If Joe's box goes down, it's down for everyone. If a usenet relay goes down, the usenet is still working. The centralized nature of http is specifically the reason why www has this problem. It creates a winner take all situation. The tallest tree shades the forest floor, preventing new competition. People trying to start a new social network on http are really just saying, "Let's cut down this tree and grow a new tree." It will turn out the same in the end. Mastadon or dispora or librethots or whatever else, it will all turn out the same. If you won't put down your browser, then here's a thought experiment for you instead. Design a peer server application with no centralized datastore. https://github.com/PeerServer/peer-server

>>13952 why would i put my browser down... anyway, i was talking about "social network" as in facebook, twitter, whatevs... either way... is it that much harm if joe's server isn't up 100% time? i know it's okay if my website is down for a short time... nobody's gonna die because of that... diaspora or mastodon are actually a great middleground there... federation solves lots of issues, but i guess you just need that peer network, huh.

>>13953 >diaspora or mastodon are actually a great middleground there... federation solves lots of issues Except how it doesn't work. 3 servers have most of the users on mastodon, and #1 is bigger than #2 & #3 combined. Classic power distribution. If it ever did take off, #1 buys out 2&3 and you're right back to facetweet again.

>>13952 ah usenet, you mean nntp, which is federated in almost exactly the same way mastodon is?

>>13956 except i can always make/join a new instance. i mean, enjoy your peer network if that gets you hard, we all make choices.

>>13962 Unless you're derezzed from Mastadon. All accounts are authenticated from the main key. They haven't made much noise about this yet, but Mastadon is centralized authenticated, decentralized hosted. Meaning they can shut down any instance or user. It's a decentralized cancer of centralization. Go I2P, or use an app built on top of Freenet.

>>13963 Thanks for pointing that out. They really believe we will all fall for their "decentralization" BS and join the new zuckerbook... same as the old zuckerbook. If you guys really want to start the next authoritarian social media site, take a cue from gab. They're parlaying anger into a new network much better than this psuedo-anonymity approach you've been trying for years. They're duping gullible suckers into joining their network with their "authentic" outrage. >They took down our payments, we're starting our own to fight the power! >They took down our plugin, we're releasing our own browser! Down with the bourgeoisie! It's so formulaic.

why the fuarrrk people spreading blatant falsehoods ITT?

I found this rather interesting research article that may prove relevant to the topic at hand - will give it a proper read-through and perhaps provide updates!

>>13963 i am pretty sure there are instances that are doing just fine on their own. it's nntp concept >Go I2P, or use an app built on top of Freenet. i don't have a hardon for decentralised networks, so i don't really care

>>13963 hm, i just use it because i like the community.

I personally think that corporate control of the internet is the source of social behavioral change. This behaviour extends far beyond just the internet itself. Privatization of the internet (or rather I should say, communication) changes how we view communication. Many people talk about how centralized social media censors people, but I think the problem is far greater. These corporations are quite literally trying to dictate how people communicate - in a way that is decoupled from even the human element within the corporation itself. It is no coincidence that spiraling political violence correlates with the rise of social media. Any website such as gab is not decentralized enough. Think about email for a sec. All that's required for true social media is connection between two communicators, centralization is just a means of providing the same service in an easier means. This is why facebook is so much more oppressive than MySpace ever was, while MySpace was hosted in a centralized way, it allowed individuals to communicate the way they wanted rather than standardizing communication.

>>13985 If the internet is being used to control how people think, then is it possible that we're already in the dystopia that we had fears of ages ago? People are being manipulated into having certain sets of beliefs, and if you don't have those sets of beliefs, then you're either a nazi skinhead, or a communist. To stop this from happening we would have to not only completely change the nature of the internet itself and how it works these days, but how corporations in todays world work as well, none of which are very easy.

I think it's important to remember that in many cases there is no conspirator. Corporations want to make bank, they don't care about the social consequences of their influence. Censoring "bad words" is about retaining advertisers, not converting people. There is nobody pulling the strings imho. If they really cared you would see actual political radicals being targeted instead of just randies being plucked for calling someone glitterboy or something. This is how eugenicist beliefs can spread on a platform that bans people automatically for saying slurs. This isn't to say this isn't bad. To the contrary, society is being lead instead of "human" sources of direction such as culture or morality, towards a nihilistic, capitalist influence that only cares about the bottom line, scrubbing away our culture and collective identity. I'd prefer the conspiracy to be honest, at least there would be a human soul running the show. Idk if the "everyone is a nazi" is directly caused by this but I do think it's a consequence of misinformation that spreads rapidly due to the complete mismanagement of social media. People say that dumb soykaf both because theyee uneducated and because the structure of modern social media encourages hostility imho.

>>13985 >These corporations are quite literally trying to dictate how people communicate - in a way that is decoupled from even the human element within the corporation itself. There's a handful of rather interesting ongoing court cases in several EU member states right now precisely about this issue. A facebook user makes a post. Facebook removes that post, even though it doesn't violate any laws of the member state (and remember, this is Europe, every country has hate speech laws here) The user goes to court, claiming that facebook, because of its dominant position, is effectively censoring him and that rules set by a foreign corporation shouldn't supersede actual laws. I don't know how fruitful those lawsuits will be but there's a growing movement and a growing sentiment in Europe that facebook and other social media platforms need to be regulated. >>13988 >I think it's important to remember that in many cases there is no conspirator. Corporations want to make bank, they don't care about the social consequences of their influence. It's worse - it's not that they don't care about social consequences, it's that they're actively evil. Facebook is the Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines of the Myanmar genocide. They supported actual ethnic purge because it quote-unquote drove engagement and created value for shareholders. Over ten thousand people were killed and 750 000 fled the country.

>They supported Prove it.

>>13986 >if you don't have those sets of beliefs, then you're either a nazi skinhead, or a communist. Or you realize internet points are meaningless and stop caring what chatbots "believe" about you. Case in point, when I posted in polite disagreement on some discus attached to an opinion piece and the opinion author deleted my post, I know he's the fragile little egg. I don't care about all the comments who agree with him. I know he deleted all the disagreement. Their reality isn't reality. If you fall for it, and believe it is reality, then you become the sort to sit and wonder how DJT won the 2016 and such.

>>13991 https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/FFM-Myanmar/A_HRC_39_64.pdf

>>13990 >sentiment in Europe that facebook and other social media platforms need to be regulated. that's been happening for years? European here, what's wrong about our hate speech laws? at least in my country and the country i live in rn it seems more effective than what US is doing

this thread became patting on each other's back about how you're different from "chatbots", just saying... is this a problem of all imageboards? i hoped lainchan would be different

>>13990 You're right. Corporations aren't just focused on profits, but also using excess profits to have influence on society, including oppressing minority opinion. But the way that this censorship is managed is automated (individual moderation is not profitable on large social media), and completely disconnected from the individuals using the service (very different from 2000'a style forums) leads to a direct control over how people communicate. Censorship is just the tip of the iceberg - social media causes society to socialize differently, completely at the whim of corporations. For me I'm actually less concerned about direct interference from corporations and more the long lasting effects such oppressive means to communication has on society. Within 10 years of social media coming on the scene, extremist political sects have been popping up all over the place. Social media gives them both a means to propagate and spread their ideas. Even in the best, nonpartisan conditions, I still think it's a recipe for disaster. Censorship does stop some of the entry level mooks, but these groups have adjusted their language and presentation to adapt to the new environment. This allows extremism to spread far more readily. Think about how on most forum communities, an obsessive fascist or socialist would get muted or mocked. Not so on modern social media. And this isn't even going into direct political interference attempts. Censorship also makes martyrs out of those who do get censored, which increases the solidarity among those who were part of that group. That's why conservatives think they're targeted so hard on twitter, when in reality the only survivors who aren't adjusting their language are a specific set of liberals. This warps the view of conservatives and thus they think they're specifically targeted, when in reality it's mostly corporate communication is oppressing everyone and some just get affected by it more. This is all assuming no political slant - most of these companies have a liberal, center-left leaning slant. Which just over complicates things further, and further suggests they are trying to somewhat mold society. It's just a big, complicated picture, that's all...

>>13994 Or maybe they're just people with thin skin. They're probably afraid to see the world differently. Plus, being hostile won't help. If you're really tearing into people aggressively, it's not that they're chatbots, it's that you're being a dick lol Imho I think most people are uneducated and pacified with their lifestyle. They're okay with huge corporations doing soykaf like this because it doesn't matter to them. We are in the minority here, even if we know the consequences go much deeper. Use this as an opportunity to educate the layman. Imagine what power we could have if we did that instead of mocking them.

>>14011 but that won't happen, because for *some* people it's more about ego... "i'm better than normal people, because..." i don't blame people for not listening to netizens talking about security and privacy, because in people's mind they have image of a regular neckbeard spewing soykaf to feel better. (and before you disagree, look at this board. you have people who can discuss matters without need to make themselves feel superior and then are others)

>>14010 >including oppressing minority opinion that depends on your world view, though. depending on side you are standing on, it's either oppressing minority opinion or fighting against injustice. politics are very complex > Social media gives them both a means to propagate and spread their ideas. internet did that since it became a thing > Not so on modern social media i wouldn't say that's true nowadays... you whined about censorship yourself > most of these companies have a liberal, center-left leaning slant. i'd say they just reacted to mainstream... what people seem to want. i'd bet they would be far right if that's what majority was... now why we, as a society, became liberal is another thing...

>>14013 By minority opinion I just mean any opinion that is not accepted by the mainstream. it doesn't refer to a specific opinion. It can range from things like lgbt or internet privacy to antivaxx, flat earth or what have you. Also, it depends on context, but while what that opinion is might not be consistent, the fact that minority opinions exist and are censored is something I think that can be readily observed. Not really "whining" about censorship. Centralized censorship is a branch of the problem. After all, censorship still exists even anarchist communities, it's just that in that case the community controls this censorship. The problem is centralization of censorship through an authority. In fact it's social media's approach to censorship that doesn't allow it's users to control the media themselves that's more the problem with censorship in social media. Take the following example: antivaxx people are readily censored in smaller communities by being shunned by members. However, because centralized censorship is, for some reason, not targeting these people, their views spread despite the majority of the userbase's protest, to the point that it has real world consequences. Essentially, the disconnect caused by the authority of centralized corporate censorship allows ideas to spread without the control of the community. I think the social media companies have an intent in trying to mold social values but are very clearly playing with fire. The problem with modern social media is that a single company for each format controls how it is run. This is not how the internet was always. It's very clear that progressively, socialization has grown more monopolized and this has direct consequences in real life. The reason why corporations appeal to the popular opinion is because it sells. This should be obvious. But the problem isn't what the opinion is, it's the fact that they are controlling the means of communication. Sorry for not clarifying.

>>14016 well, antivaxx in particular is a quite dangerous thing that we as a society should fight against... i am not saying censorship is the way, obviously educating would be much better. >it's just that in that case the community controls this censorship. The problem is centralization of censorship through an authority. but that's the same thing... it's just in the first case the authority isn't facebook or whatever. > for some reason, not targeting these people, their views spread despite the majority of the userbase's protest, to the point that it has real world consequences. if big social media websites actively censored them, there would be an outcry, though. (also sorry, i wrote that first sentence before reading this paragraph) > corporate censorship allows ideas to spread without the control of the community. honestly i really think most of them don't care about any values, just money... so they just enact rules that they think the users want. >but are very clearly playing with fire. i agree, it has backfired (as aforementioned rise of alt right, for example) or essentially erasing some people >The reason why corporations appeal to the popular opinion is because it sells. This should be obvious. i agree > it's the fact that they are controlling the means of communication. i don't disagree, but it's always been like that... throughout our history, that's nothing new. now, that doesn't mean it's okay. just saying that this hasn't happened overnight because internet (or web) was invented

>>14011 >it's not that they're chatbots, it's that you're being a dick lol but they won't realise that. a dick will always be a dick, especially if you point that out.

>>14018 >well, antivaxx in particular is a quite dangerous thing that we as a society should fight against... i am not saying censorship is the way, obviously educating would be much better. Agreed. However, a problem with this stance is that it assumes all people will eventually reach this conclusion. There is still the likely possibility that at least one person objects - thus, censorship must emerge as a way to self regulate. The problem then becomes - what is an appropriate way to censor? For example, your solution of education could be considered a form of censorship because it intends to use certain ideas to suppress other ones. I should stress that this isn't "bad" in of itself, its just the nature of education and communicating information. Anarchistic censorship would entail then that members of the community decide through the sum of their individual actions (such as ostracizing the antivaxxer) to censor antivaxx ideas. In a community where people are educated about medicine and believe in its power, antivaxx as an idea would find it difficult to propogate, especially since most people would conclude that its extremely dangerous to everyone. >if big social media websites actively censored them, there would be an outcry, though. (also sorry, i wrote that first sentence before reading this paragraph) This is true, and herein lies one problem with centralized censorship - even if large corporations were 100% invested in our needs as people and simply trying to provide a service, it is impossible to regulate censorship on centralized scales, especially that of a global internet, without cracking a lot of eggs. >i don't disagree, but it's always been like that... throughout our history, that's nothing new. now, that doesn't mean it's okay. just saying that this hasn't happened overnight because internet (or web) was invented True, I just believe that the internet has the potential to change that. The stakes are arguably much higher now because the internet is so heavily integrated with modern communication. >>14020 lel

>>14022 But with de-centralized censorship, couldn't people just reject some beliefs or ideas not because they are proven to be false, but because of their own personal biases? Think of the other chans and how they can behave.

>>13905 What is on that onion site? Only SFTP seems to be up for me

>>14022 >that members of the community decide through the sum of their individual actions (such as ostracizing the antivaxxer) to censor antivaxx ideas that would just cause those people start their own antivaxxer communities that would be basically echo chambers though :/ they could become more extreme (have you heard about "smart water" that can heal you because you tell it to heal your health problems? crazy.) and we'd left them behind (and people who would stumble upon these communities and wouldn't know better at the time) >True, I just believe that the internet has the potential to change that. i used to be optimistic about internet like that, then all this soykaf happened and we live in this hellhole where internet is for nothing else just spewing hateful stuff and trolling (not even the good kind) >The stakes are arguably much higher now because the internet is so heavily integrated with modern communication. i agree as an example, my sister is a mum now. she has two children and she joined those mum groups on facebook. that would be fine, because at first it was only those "let's go to park together" kind of stuff... but she just fell down the rabbit hole and now she doesn't trust vaccines (i don't care what happens to her, it's her decision... but i don't want my niece and nephew to die because of a disease they wouldn't even get if they got vaccinated) and recently i heard something about "healing period blood"... and it all started by joining a normal community that became a haven for ostracised mothers who didn't feel like they could talk about antivaxx anywhere else. >>14020 >but slowly becoming more of a problem :/

>>14023 You're approaching a fundamental problem with information itself. Truth is dependent on relative information. We know antivaxx is bad because of certain information we accept is true. If other information was true, antivaxx would be a good position. People actually eventually reach this conclusion, which means the problem isn't just a theoretical one. The reason why I believe decentralized censorship arises is a need to standardize information, to remove inconsistencies. As a result we can determine if information is true or false. The real reason why we are not antivaxx is because we believe in medicine, which is so useful that most of us favour medicine over the possibility of antivaxx. Antivaxx people pay the price for their beliefs through death. But it doesn't make medicine true or antivaxx false. Both are just models that offer us the ability to make choices and predict based off them. Notice here though that we as individuals determine for ourselves whether or not to be antivaxx. With centralized censorship, an authority makes that determination, whether or not it's in our best interests. While in the case of antivaxx this isn't so bad, many positions are far more controversial, which underprivileges minority opinions that are not supported by that authority. Essentially, censorship is inevitable. But it's toxicity comes more from its implementation than anything. In a relatively decentralized setting, such as a network of online forums, extremists tend to congregate at specific locations. They might be extreme but their numbers are small and not accepted by other groups. Arguably, social media like FB and Twitter allowed their ideas to become more mainstream as users from the chans used these media accounts more.

>>14006 There's nothing wrong with hate speech laws. I'm a European as well and, like pretty much everybody here, I fully support them.

>>14026 >Arguably, social media like FB and Twitter allowed their ideas to become more mainstream as users from the chans used these media accounts more. this is offtopic but there were a few articles (and i must admit i was wondering the same thing) that the reason why chan communities became so extreme in some of their opinions was the outside influence... "someone" swaying them that way for their personal gain.

>>14027 maybe it's a cultural difference? simiarly as US gun laws are pretty lax compared to European? now, i don't own a gun and i don't think i will ever want to, but if someone else wants to, that's their business... however, i am glad for our laws... it seems to work (it least based on what i see in the world) idk, maybe i am under affect of EU propaganda or something.

>>14028 Wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

>>14029 Americans believe that everyone has the right to be an insufferable ass. Source: am american

>>14028 For some chans and their boards in particular, that would be a stretch, but for others.... I could see it happening, though I think that outside influence would have a pretty slim chance of happening or even being effective given the nature of the more popular chans.

>>14028 >>14045 image is kinda exactly what happened on some chans with the minor change that it wasn't some gov. trans preachers organized on discord and flooded chans with their content to popularize their ideology on chans. The discords&subreddits are still on logfiles. They are basically the modern jehovas witness of the digital age.

>>14046 Absolutely pink pilled. I lurk on chans where this happens and at this point I believe it is a meme, but it was serious at one point, we all remember that discord incident, you're right in that it was serious and going on (and probably still does in a limited capacity) at one point. In the age without the internet these people would have been arrested or put in an asylum for being like that, but now with the internet and the anonymity that comes with it, we can get these cult like groups where this stuff goes on online. We live in the cursed timeline.

>>14051 you don't need a prevalent presence, once you push an idea others latch on and from there it runs on it's own. The are various different groups to pick from. Commies trying to wage slave capitalism is bad with meme's were probably the most hilarious one but I choose simply the one most known. Same also happens on reddit itself although here it's business driven. Entire threads are just duplicated botspam to viral market some crap.

>>14028 It really does feel like a lot of the less-than-savory ideologies that plague imageboards are being pushed not because the people pushing them agree with them and want to spread their beliefs, but because they don't and getting people to believe these ideas gives them a more "concrete" (for lack of a better word) enemy to rally people against and use as a scapegoat.

>>13905 the seeming necessity to provide and receive constant positive affirmation would get to me quick. i get the feeling that they are designed to be meat grinders for the psyche. no boundries, no ablility postpone confontation for even a second, no ability for more nuanced information like tone or timing, no separation of friend groups, no forgeting, your whole life instantly comparable to others. its a rough situation, i can see why they get so afraid of being left out. their whole life can change in an instant. here i dont have no commitment i can leave for months and not give a soykaf or face the time sink/necessity to display myself as a functional person im just another disembodied chatbot ai. whats bizzar is how little actual data gets spread for the investment of time in those situations. beside cat videos ofc

>>14066 I think it's simpler than that. Extremists congregate on imageboards because their ideas aren't tolerated anywhere as much as they are on chans, besides their own echo chambers of course. I just wish they would stop pretending like they owned these places and that people with more moderate views are in the minority or must have wandered in from some other platform.

>>14073 i can't talk for others, but they might as well be a minority... i left a few places because fighting with extremists drains too much energy and i wouldn't convince them about "my truth" anyway...

>>14073 its not that simple. people use the word "extremist" as in place of the word "other". your perception of whats is moderate by your own words does not adhere to the actual realty of your perception of the culture. those problems begin and end with you. try not to spread your cognitive disease. you can be better lain

>>14073 That behaviour is not without reason. As they pretend to be the norm new visitors who don't know better fall for it.

>>14078 Extremist is on point. Average person doesn't waste their live organizing & marketing their church. The gap is the amount of effort they put in.

>>14078 >people use the word "extremist" as in place of the word "other". I don't though. I use it as per the dictionary definition.

>>14073 >Extremists congregate on imageboards because their ideas aren't tolerated anywhere as much as they are on chans, besides their own echo chambers of course. You're saying that people who are subject to censorship congregate in places where censorship is light. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. If you can't handle someone with a differing opinion then you probably already know where your safe space is. >>14082 >I don't though. I use it as per the dictionary definition. >>14078 is correct. More specifically, you observe a large gap in values but assuming the side implementing censorship is righteous and assuming everyone who is "not tolerated" are the extremists is completely fallacious.

>>14081 >The gap is the amount of effort they put in. It does take effort to stand by your convictions in the face of government and corporate oppression that is true.

>>14102 > assuming the side implementing censorship is righteous I never said that at all.

that all depends on how you define free speech though

>>14104 >I never said that at all. >>14073 >Extremists congregate on imageboards because their ideas aren't tolerated anywhere You are clearly implying a dichotomy between censorship and extremism. Either elaborate or just admit you're wrong, don't try to weasel out with autistic word games.

I think that migration is going both ways. However I am young I did not know the beginnings of the internet but I suppose that at the beginning there was much more small community on the internet.

This has been on the medium.com frontpage (at least mine) for like a month now.

I have been thinking about this topic for a while and there are several aspects about sns that bring more downsides than anything else. For one, it's not even social anymore, but rather centraliced gatherpoints of interests.If people go on reddit or twitter to their niche part of the site, they basically interact with strangers. A newsfeed introduced by facebook is like reading a newspaper of things you are interested in, not always the people. The other things to point out, when people do confront each other, it ends in arguments and finally in we against them mentalities on a big scale. People always had different opinions and usually don't change them. There are only opinions, but no conversations. The difference being that 10 years ago, people didn't gather around the same few spots on the wired. I also think the creativity of people is very restricted on the big sites. It's important to remember that on myspace, people could use css to design their own pages, on twitter all you can do is change your avatar and write a tiny introduction. Coding was a right, now it's a priviledge. Now the next part that goes for everything, as soon somthing becomes popular, all the people nobody likes join. When money and influence are on the line, companies and governments will be present and use it to their advantages. It's also important to note that people have much more control over what they see on sns than they think. A smart user can be very selective about what appears on his screen. It's very easy to remove the entire social aspect and just consume the media of interest. Personally I left all big sns years ago and don't miss anything. RSS is something I highly recommend, to filter specific blogs and news sites one is interested in. There are enough messenging tools out there, but no need for social media, when the social aspect is dead for a long time. Go explore the wired for interesing places, there is still adventure and wonder to be found. Pages like https://fauux.neocities.org/torment.html are great. Click on the lains as link to the next one.

>>13988 >I'd prefer the conspiracy to be honest, at least there would be a human soul running the show. I fully agree, the problem right now is systemic and far reaching, and is pretty much impossible to solve, simply due to the fact that corporations only care about profit. Yeah they're censoring free speech, and selling your information, and they're going to keep doing it, because it's profitable. The JC, the Rockefellers, the Deepstate, whatever other conspiracy theory bullsoykaf people like to pull up, are fuarrrking irrelevant, because in the end it's just billionaire tech CEO's trying to increase profits and pull in more advertisers. Similar to a hydra, any radical change to a single site will only result in more sites popping up and reaping the further profits. Until a fundamental systemic change occurs, nothing relevant is going to happen.