Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors?

Re:Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors? by notriddle on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @09:16PM (#17712425)

And the result is Gab. A site full of people who were banned from Twitter. About half of the "popular" tab is ranting about how the Holocaust never happened, diversity is a weakness, and (((they're))) going to kill all the white people soon. The other half is about how awful Twitter is to ban people. The now-defunct Talk.Tor, and 4chan's /pol/, are the same way.

Most of the users that Twitter and Facebook deletes are actually people (or spambots, but even Gab blocks those) who ought to be deleted, so any service that's primarily filled with expats from them gets filled with slightly-oblique calls to violence and general quackery.

So when a poor user who isn't a skinhead gets banned because someone who happens to have the admin bit has a personal beef with them, they're supposed to switch to Gab? That's not an okay alternative.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors? by CKN23-ARIN on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @10:00PM (#17712628)

I'd offer Mastodon as a healthier example of somewhere Twitter/Facebook refugees can turn. I'm sure there are some federated instances that harbor the type of toxic behavior you describe, but on a well-moderated instance, they'll get depeered pretty quickly. And there are lots of instances to choose from, so a bad admin just means you need to find a new instance -- you're not cut off from the entire platform.

[ Parent | on HN ]