What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about "niggers") that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to get enough real users to avoid becoming Voat. Who can say Voat wasn't trying to get the truth out there as much as Gab? IIRC, Gab ran for years without being known for conspiracy theories, while Voat was doing pizzagate etc. from the beginning (like us). Thus Voat attracted more attention from 3 letter agencies, like we will. Gab is not a threat as much as we could be, because we're hyper-focused on dismantling the establishment's foundations (very high signal-to-noise ratio for getting the red pilled).

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values it's right to exist on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree.

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about "niggers") that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to get enough real users to avoid becoming Voat. Who can say Voat wasn't trying to get the truth out there as much as Gab?

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values it's right to exist on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree.

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about "niggers") that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat. Who can say Voat wasn't trying to get the truth out there as much as Gab?

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values it's right to exist on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree.

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about "niggers") that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat.

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values it's right to exist on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree.

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about "niggers") that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat.

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values it's right to exist on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree.

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about niggers) that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat.

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values it's right to exist on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree.

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about n*ggers) that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat.

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values it's right to exist on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree.

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about n*ggers) that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat.

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values that on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree.

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about n*ggers) that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat.

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values that on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree. it's my personal take that moral ideals (principles) are less likely to survive than goals (outcomes).

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about n*ggers) that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat.

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values that on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree. it's my personal take that moral ideals (principles) are less robust than goals (outcomes).

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about n*ggers) that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat.

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values that on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the methods to spread the truth. Just getting my thoughts out there, and I accept that many will disagree.

What good is the truth if it cannot be found or heard by those who need it?

If a three letter agency wants to target us, they need only increase the noise to such an extent that the signal is lost (i.e. fill the site with so much low value content/bait without substance, it becomes a chore to find anything worthwhile).

It's easy to suck all of the mods' time into deleting child porn, that there's no time to manage the content. If your first impression of a site is that it's a lot of meaningless content, or looks like an echo chamber of one type of ideology (eg: every other post is about n*ggers) that you don't hold, you're not likely to visit again.

If free speech and "extremist content" drive people away, why is Gab doing so well?

A site is vulnerable when it is small, because it doesn't take much manpower to derail it. See Voat. Once you're past a certain size, it becomes increasingly expensive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low. Perhaps Gab was there at the right time and the right place to avoid becoming Voat.

You don't get out of such a position by more censorship and lies.

I never advocated for lying. Come on. And not all censorship is bad. Censorship that improves the signal-to-noise ratio improves efficiency of information dissemination. The only issue is having well defined rules for removal. A post that does race baiting with no useful information is just noise without substance. A community that values that on par with a post with lots of useful information, for the sake of free speech, is a community that values noise on par with the signal for the sake of free speech.