[–] GapingAnus 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

We can. Some of us have.

The problem is that natural monopolies exist when barriers to entry become too high to practically surmount. You can make a new Facebook, and many have tried, but you're just not going to get the critical mass of people to move unless you can hook them with some particular gimmick or feature that makes it genuinely superior to the old. Consider also that Facebook, Youtube et. al. have had a decade plus to refine their user experiences and infrastructure. Competing with that is just not possible as a reactive event, it has to grow organically over time.

There's also the danger that new mediums become insular little hug-boxes of people who think alike and then you'll just have replaced one hivemind for another. You won't have your ideas challenged competently in such an environment and so you don't grow stronger.

[–] captainstrange 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Facebook,

Not a natural monopoly. Funded by in-q-tel, after it saw how successful myspace was. And then government funds were used to undercut myshit.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] GapingAnus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It's not immediate, I get that, but what's the issue with that?

Ok, then I misunderstood your intent and refer to my other point which was that since existing huge sites have solved a particular problem, the alternative must solve a different problem because any new site won't have the capability that the established ones do. I can't market a new ale to compete with Guinness on their terms. I'd need to find a particular niche and hope it is large enough to attract enough people to establish a critical mass of users to get the snowball rolling. I could be wrong here but I don't think the average man in the street cares enough about free speech to stop using youtube in favor of using some other video sharing site. And established youtubers who made youtube what it is can't move because they depend on the ad-shekels.

As to the other point, I have no problem with sites or newspapers having a particular bias or agenda. The problem is one of tolerance of other views and reaction towards those views. Break the circlejerk on reddit and you'll get downvoted into invisibility, banned from the sub, shadowbanned by an admin or just have your account outright deleted.

Do the same here on voat and you'll have some people call you a fag but that's about it. Apart from our obvious larping lefties who think this is reddit, it's even rare to attract downvotes and certainly much more difficult than to attract a genuine counter-argument. There's a clear bias on voat but dissenters are treated far more fairly than on reddit.

That's what I mean when I want to avoid circle-jerks and hug-boxes.

[–] MrPim 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Consider also that Facebook, Youtube et. al. have had a decade plus to refine their user experiences

They have. Which makes it doubly sad that both currently have absolutely shitty UI.

[–] o0shad0o 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You also get small groups or individuals who don't want to have to deal with more than one social medium. I know more than a few who have Facebook and that's it, and if you want to have anything other than email you have to join FB.

[–] PhillyNekim 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

The banks / paypal etc are shutting off the cash flow to alternatives so they can’t take off

[–] Reed_Solomon 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Indeed, you have to solve that problem first.

[–] lordbastiat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Got any solutions? To the banker question.

[–] TrollingForBasss 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They banned me from a site.

I moved to a clone.

They banned the clone from their services.

We rewrote the clone on top of Free software.

They blocked the clone from sear h engines.

We spread by word of mouth.

They pulled our hosting.

We moved to out own server.

They pulled the upstream connection.

We move to Russia.

ISPs blocked us.

They pulled our domain name.

We registered an overseas name.

They pulled that name from the DNS.

We spread our best stuff by torrents.

It turns out they can kill any given file from all torrent sites in less than an hour. They did it to us.

This has been practiced since 1998 when the DMCA banned Free people from (most of the benefits of) the Internet.

Now they are after the last white conservatives.

This is a civil war, but most people are not fighting yet.

[–] TimberWolfAlpha 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Ironically, ICQ survived beyond all its peers.

[–] thisistotallynotme 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I still use my 5-digit ICQ number.

[–] TimberWolfAlpha 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

7 Digit here. Envy.

[–] FuckshitMcDickTits 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Even moreso for IRC. It's gone mainstream with Slack, which is basically IRC++.

[–] TimberWolfAlpha 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm a bit of a purist, I have a very strong preference for traditional IRC over Slack, which just seems like an unnecessarily reinvented wheel to me.

Also, most of the services named in the OP are centralized services, where as anybody can run an IRC server on a handful of different softwares, using any number of clients. if someone kills one, another pops up to take its place. But, when AIM died, nobody sprung up (despite me fervently wishing they would) with an open source OSCAR server or anything.

[–] 13520579 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Why not both? These magacorps only exist because of NSA support, they need some push back.

[–] captainstrange 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Those were the alternatives till artificial government-funded monopolies were created, and the alternatives couldn't compete.

[–] ChessKnight 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

We can. I made a bitchute account this morning after watching the Computing something video. I also like the term Alt-Tech that I saw used. It makes it sound rebellious, and the MSM will try to vilify it due to word similarity with Alt-Right, and thus unintentionally promote it.

[–] DeliciousOnions 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The honeypots are propped up by their backers and will not fail under any circumstances.

Twitter hasn't been financially sound at any point, yet it continues on - someone is keeping it going by pumping money in the back door.

load more comments ▼ (17 remaining)