Posted on 08/17/2018 9:47:15 PM PDT by lasereye
Edited on 08/17/2018 10:18:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
So what would prevent them from following him on a conservative Twitter? And if they didn't who cares? You're missing the point of what a conservative site is for. It's for conservatives to share information without being censored.
See my post 50:
We don’t all get to vote for the same thing.
Determine a social media’s large advertising clients—pick the business most susceptible to poor publicity for the spotlight. Personalize their management—highlight their role in supporting a hostile platform. Make it widely known they support a platform that behaves in an adverse manner relative to a large portion of the business customer base. Mount a campaign to reduce the business profitability due to linkage with the hostile platform. When the first succumbs rinse and repeat.
That's a circle jerk. That's not activism. And there's countless sad, desolate corners of the internet where you're allowed to hang out with other like-minded conservatives and regurgitate talking points that everyone agrees with.
What you increasingly can't do these days is articulate conservative and right-leaning populist ideas to an audience of 300 million on Twitter. Yet, Leftists, many of whom have blue checkmarks after their name, are allowed to spew freely their dogma to the millions.
There is not an "audience" of 300 million on Twitter. Only people who follow someone see what they say. Period. Anyone who wants to follow what someone says on Twitter would be a liberty to follow them on the conservative version.
When are some bright young conservatives going to create conservative versions of all these platforms?
The answer to this is when Jews stop for en masse for the demoRATS.
I have been on the internet far longer than 85 to 90 percent of the people on this board. I said internet not this board. And when chat rooms and boards are run by people, as is always the case, there is no neutrality on any platform. Never has been and never will. Remember MySpace? It still exists. There have been others who have created other venues and platforms. There is this thing called money that FB likes to wield to acquire its competition. The problem with conservatives is that they view a business as an investment as a stepping stone to invest in larger items and shiny objects. There is nothing wrong with this. Zuckerburg and his ilk are taking advantage of this to squash the competition.
In the end, the real question is not why are there no platforms being created, because there are, but why are those who are creating these platforms selling them to Zuckerburg?
Gates did not invent MS DOS or Windows. He acquired it for roughly 10K. Jobs did not invent the mouse or Apple computers, he acquired it The problem most face today not that new things need to be created but these big tech companies FB, Apple, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, etc. have led the world into believing there is no room for another. They have put the barrier to entry so high in a Red Ocean that it will take innovation and strategy in a Blue Ocean to overcome that entry barrier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.