If the site is billed as a 'free-speech' site, then trying to attract people who are startled by it, is probably a bad idea.
If he wants to get rid of 'toxic' users, that's a whole different topic that will conflict with free speech.
it gets toxic and there is no focus on anything else..
I'm not sure that is inevitable. That is what happened on Voat, but part of that was timing and a reaction to outside forces.
While it may always be a danger, I think it is an avoidable one.
If the site is billed as a 'free-speech' site, then trying to attract people who are startled by it, is probably a bad idea.
If he wants to get rid of 'toxic' users, that's a whole different topic that will conflict with free speech.
> it gets toxic and there is no focus on anything else..
I'm not sure that is inevitable. That is what happened on Voat, but part of that was timing and a reaction to outside forces.
While it may always be a danger, I think it is an avoidable one.
When you flood a site with users that are only there for muh free speech, it gets toxic and there is no focus on anything else outside of the meta aspect of having a site that supports free speech. Generally speaking, of course. There is no fucking way that Voat will ever attract any other demographic than the one that's already there, I think the 2.5 year old accounts that suddenly went dead after the hate subs jumped to Voat says it all.