I'm glad someone already made this OP because this shit is SERIOUSLY going nuts. Every day there's some new insane censorship by twitter. I'm not a WSWSfag but their article about WaPo was nothing but quotations of the liberal establishment contradicting themselves, and yet Facebook pulled it for "misinformation". They're getting fucking brazen at this point. What do we do bros? Is it too late?
Alternative media, in my mind, should be pursued only in combination with a social-media-centered pushback strategy. the BBC being biased and twitter blocking people from liking the tweet is the juiciest bit here and easy to explain, especially to liberal Burgerfags who rank the BBC above Jesus - just spam quotes in liberal and leftist circles (god knows leftists have been abhorrent on this issue) about how this is 1984, Orwellian, et cetera instead of giving up on mainstream networks entirely. and don't let people just mumble about Chomsky, manufacturing consent etc - ask them what they would DO about it. push for regulation, or a boycott, or whatever, i don't care - but we can't cede this ground for free.
I don't know if alternative platforms ought to be purely leftist or if we should try to get them generally popular - I think both ideas have benefits. I'm far from the person with all the answers here but i will say that this seems to connect with the "dual power" idea i've seen espoused on this board concerning circumventing the media and the internet when it comes to organizing, and replacing people's media diets with less mainstream ones. would this involve getting people to stop reading reddit and twitter for their news? i can't say for sure, but it's certainly tempting to want to circumvent the entrenched glowie power of the twitter radlib bloc. it will be difficult to find the answers, but hiding in our bunker certainly isn't one of them. if we can't unite on theoretical matters or on physical praxis, we should at least unite on online praxis. otherwise we literally prove ourselves to be weaker than stormfags.>>95650>>95632>pointing out shortcomings = "sowing doompills"
[NTA. Does it matter?] Grow a pair buddy. Everyone in this thread shares your same end goal, so why not argue your point instead of implying someone who disagrees is a fucking wrecker? if you support this federation idea, then it's on you to explain why the average person should sign up of their own accord, let alone how you would resolve the specific user-end issues supposing they even decided to try.
Am I putting all the burden for this on you? of course not. should you at least defend your own suggestion instead of calling people doomers while ironically doomposting yourself? i would say so.
>Then we should give up on socialism until capitalism collapses of its own internal contradictions. Same self-defeating logic at work.
the more accurate analogy would be: we believe capitalism is not in people's interests, but clearly it would be silly to just larp like the Austin Red Guards and shout at the workers about upholding anti-imperialism and maoist-gonzaloist-thought. we prefer instead to figure out what people want and what we can offer them that bourgeois politics can't. likewise, if you believe that centralized media is untenable, then you have a duty to prove that your decentralized version can and will work for people.