Agree. I commend the sentiment, I really do. But free speech for free speech sake itself doesn't work, if that makes sense. There also needs to be a certain limited, yet reasonable amount of responsibility by a host entity in what is presented. That's a delicate balancing act, for sure, and so far, I think Phuks meets that goal well.
It's not that I think having a site where anyone can say what they want is a bad idea, it just doesn't work in practice. Using it as a sole marketing point just results in having a bunch of people that aren't accepted on any other sites.
I recall seeing something a while ago where one of the Gab devs was talking about how he was receiving death threats because of his ethnicity or religion or whatever. That's the reward you get for giving these people a platform.
Exactly. And I guess more or less what I was trying to communicate.
I watched the decline of Voat along those lines. I'm also seeing it begin on another alternative I won't name. Left (Reddit) or right (Voat), there are extremists out there. Nut jobs. And sadly, far too many who take them seriously which only leads to a breakdown in civility and a society that no one (except the nut jobs) really wants.
But free speech for free speech sake itself doesn't work
Perhaps you can define why we should have free speech then? If not you, then who? Who gets to define when we can have free speech and why it's appropriate to have free speech zones?
Free speech has always been limited. The famous 'you can't shout fire in a crowded theater' is a perfect example. When people begin to rant and rave about killing folks, etc, as happens on both the left and right, it's no longer free speech IMHO ... that's what I'm trying to say. Nothing more. In everything in life there are limits ... that's why we have laws and cops ... we as a society define those limits, otherwise you don't have civilization, you have chaos.
I'm sure this approach will draw in a lot of high quality users.