Unlike those platforms that now heavily censor content contrary to leftist political positions (e.g. pro-life, traditional marriage, etc.) -- ThinkSpot will allow free speech / free thought. Content moderation will be in the hands of each user, not decided for them against their wishes.
I hope all efforts like this succeed. Google, Facebook and Twitter (among others) are now aggressively suppressing speech contrary to their politics. We have finally reached 1984 but the "Ministry of Truth" is ran (for the most part) outside of government.
So, no interoperablity?
Sadly, none as far as I could find.
This could appeal to the masses who understand and are used to this model. Getting them to give-up Twitter/Facebook and jump to federation all at once might be too much for many non-techies.
Hopefully, federation could be added later (although it would be far easier if it were in the design).
@George Any service that uses a centralized server is going to be vulnerable to being taken down. All that is needed is to successfully brand it as a "hate site" and go after it's source of funding. We've seen this before.
The only way to avoid this is to have a decentralized service, same concept as Bittorrent et al. That, or a subscription service where the users are the customers rather than advertisers.
Also, with good client-side filtering tools no moderation should be needed /1
@George except to remove illegal content. /2
@George A robust early model of semi-decentralized service was UseNet. Multiple competing servers networked together in which users could migrate from one to the other via subscription provided incentive to not ban people except in extreme circumstances. Ideological banning was pointless and would cause loss of revenue.
I ran a usenet node in the 80's (it was !rebel).
@George I ran a Usenet server too. It had it's shortcomings, but they were technical and could be overcome with new code. It's the topology that's of interest.
I agree, but don't know how it is to be funded so have no opinion on that yet. Peterson has a sizable following so he may be able to crowd-fund it one way or another.
Gab is a good example of being labeled "hate site" (they are not). They have worked hard to defeat all the attempts to be shut down.
It would be more resilient and less easily censored were it federated. Hopefully it will embrace that at some point.
@George Yes, Gab is a good example of centralized vulnerability. From what I've heard Thinkspot allows "community moderation" similar to reddit. Not a good model, IMO, if free speech is the goal. Let individual users decide what they want to see, not "the community" whatever that is.
FWIW, Peterson has indicated a willingness to tweak things that don't work out.
The only thing I recall about community moderation was visibility of comments for those users who are mostly down-voted. I can see issues with that but also technical countermeasures.
@George Yes, community downvoting opens the door to brigading and other shenanigans. Client-side filtering (killfiing) is the way to go. Think alt.* hierarchy on Usenet.
RCsocial.net — a friendly social networking space for those with an interest in Catholicism.