6 comments
The problem I see with the platforms that advertise "free speech" as a platform feature is that they end up attracting people that are 1. not completely in control of themselves 2. the kids in school that do the old "not touching you! not touching you!" shit thinking that "free speech" means the platform can't still slap the shit out of them. 3. People who just want to say all the banned words because they find them funny.
The better methodology is to start a platform with maybe a feature or two, or different UI than the platform you're breaking away from (digg=>reddit, myspace=>facebook, grunting and throwing rocks to get attention=>twitter). You don't announce free speech but you mostly run your platform that way with some vague cover-all TOS/rules. This allows you to throw people that hurt the platform in time out and discourage users that are continually shitty and hurt your platform.
And truthfully in this atmosphere declaring yourself a free speech platforms puts a target on your back, the site hosts, the payment processors, advertisers; they'll shut you off. We've reached another social ebb in which subversion is necessary for the free thinker
Parler is just god awful. Once they started getting a few mainstream people on there, they would mass ban normal people who would give the "celebrities" a hard time. They ban for most anything that Twitter would have banned you for 4 years. Yet they still advertise as a "free speech platform"