Mini: Facebook has a new "competitor" - Wikipedia co-founder announces plan to release a social networking site WT:Social

[Sharp_3yE]

It's a fail already. Why? WT:Social is a dumb name. That picture of the website make the website look terrible. This wont go anywhere unless a lot of changes happen. 

 

Learn a little bit about influence and you can see when things are bad. 

[williamcll]

So it's just an expansion of the current wikipedia forums(?) , I'll give it a 50/50 chance of working.

[rcmaehl]

5 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

I am pessimistic. It will fail like the others

I would argue that most websites didn't really fail, the founding companies just weren't happy with their adoption and closed them. Heck I used Google+ a bunch as a lot of phones that weren't listed in XDA (e.g. BLU) had active development communities on G+. 

[Brooksie359]

10 hours ago, Sauron said:

All you need to do to find out whether mercury is poisonous or not is read a wikipedia page. You don't need anyone actively arguing against liars and idiots for that. History has shown that giving these people platforms is how they get a following while deplatforming them has been clearly shown to work in removing them from public perception and ultimately from accredited discourse, making them mostly harmless. We have plenty of good examples of this.

 

If your argument held any water then it would follow that we should make ad campaigns for these people and invite them to talk shows, then invite the other side as though the two arguments were equally valid and worthy of consideration. It's painfully obvious that this would have quite the opposite effect from what you say. When you're arguing for a lie all publicity is good publicity because repetition and social normalization is the only way you're ever going to convince anyone.

 

If only a handful of people can find these discussions online then at worst only a handful of people will fall for it, whereas platforming them means gambling that whoever hears them will take the time to read the counterpoints and responses and what have you while giving them orders of magnitude more outreach and potential followers.

 

Also, if it didn't work or even made it worse, why wouldn't these people be in favor of their own deplatforming or at least indifferent to it? Why would they act so outraged when they get banned from twitter or youtube? They know it works and they're scared of it. Don't fall for their bullshit.

It doesn't work and their isn't any solid evidence that it does. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also any form of censorship of ideas is simply bad because then someone might censor out something that is a topic of importance and should be talked about. Obviously there is a time and place for anything and if they want to censor certain topics then that's on them but I do not agree with such practices. 

[Sauron]

16 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

It doesn't work and their isn't any solid evidence that it does. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

All major figures who have been deplatformed now have a significantly smaller following than they used to. I guarantee you there isn't some secret underground network of millions of people seeking out nazis and antivaxxers with no previous prompting.

 

Again, if it didn't work you wouldn't have these people desperately ranting about it all the time. You're implying they're both smart enough to keep going even stronger without a major platform and stupid enough to try to prevent that situation.

16 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also any form of censorship of ideas is simply bad because then someone might censor out something that is a topic of importance and should be talked about.

That goes for the government (and even then things like slander, threats, dangerous misinformation and harassment aren't and shouldn't be tolerated), private spaces get to do what they want. Just because you're legally allowed to say things doesn't mean I have to give you a stage. Also, in these cases we heard what they have to say and deemed it to be anti science bullshit. It has been talked about at length.