New life for the website

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

12.21.2023 03:03PM

Hi folks,

As you might have noticed, I am barely available these days due to some challenges in life and I figured that it's probably time to move the ownership of the website to somebody else, that is, to try to sell it or donate it. I still need to do some research on how difficult it's going to be to transfer everything, because frankly I've never done anything like that, but that shouldn't take too much time. Anyway, if anyone is interested, please DM me.

When it comes to the tech stack:

It's almost a fully server rendered site implemented with Elixir/Phoenix. For those familiar with Ruby or Python, it shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

The front-end is mostly jQuery, coz for such a simple interface, it made no sense to bring up heavy artillery like React. Although the chat is implemented with VueJS, due to its highly interactive nature. I can provide more details in DM if interested.

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,270

12.21.2023 05:18PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

If you have to transfer the website due to business on your end, make sure whoever the new owner is doesn't censor people like what the corporate media does. I wouldn't want someone like George Soros running DART.

Debates: 269

Posts: 7,560

12.21.2023 05:58PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

@TheUnderdog

I like the current owner.

I wouldnt want for this site to become one of those "safe spaces" where you can only debate few topics.

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,270

12.21.2023 07:42PM

-->

@Best.Korea

I'm fine with the current owner as well. But the current owner is not fine with the current owner being the current owner.

hey-yo

Debates: 24

Posts: 382

hey-yo

12.21.2023 07:45PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

Consider selling the site to another forum based website. Maybe something similar in format or theme. Except lacking in the debates section.

Debates: 7

Posts: 1,020

12.21.2023 07:55PM

-->

@Best.Korea

For once, I agree with you.

Metaphorically speaking, the same "demon of censorship" came to possess every sizable tech company all at once in the second half of the 2010s. They'll bring that same toxic anti-free speech environment here if they can get their hands on this website.

Here. A literal debate platform. What would remain is a sad echo chamber between leftists of all stripes and a tiny handful of ultra-vanilla RINOs who, despite themselves, would still find themselves walking on eggshells at times to avoid a ban. In turn, the website itself would die because it'd become so insufferably boring overnight. And in turn, the buyer would compensate for this by defrauding advertisers with a torrent of spam accounts and spam content like what happened on DDO.

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,270

12.22.2023 01:33AM

-->

@Swagnarok

What would remain is a sad echo chamber between leftists of all stripes and a tiny handful of ultra-vanilla RINOs

If your definition of a RINO is an anti Trump republican, would you call Ben Shapiro a RINO? He doesn't like Trump.

the same "demon of censorship" came to possess every sizable tech company all at once in the second half of the 2010s.

If the Daily Wire and Prager U and Charlie Kirk were being censored by Big Tech, you would have no idea those people even exist.

Stop playing the victim (just like many hardcore BLM supporters)!

ponikshiy

Debates: 9

Posts: 604

ponikshiy

12.22.2023 02:07AM

-->

@DebateArt.com

I offered to buy the site under a different username previously. Just hit me up so this doesn't go into the wrong hands

Debates: 7

Posts: 1,020

12.22.2023 06:41AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

If your definition of a RINO is an anti Trump republican, would you call Ben Shapiro a RINO? He doesn't like Trump.

A RINO is an ultra-center rightist who holds normal right-wingers in disdain. He craves the respectability afforded liberals through their control of the media and academia, and for a while they might even give it to him, so long as he sells out his own party in exchange. But in the long-run he's helping them shift the Overton Window left, and eventually he himself will be dubbed a radical whose politics are outside the mainstream.

If the Daily Wire and Prager U and Charlie Kirk were being censored by Big Tech, you would have no idea those people even exist.

Prager U is pretty tame though, and delineates more or less the outer limits of how right-wing you can go before being deplatformed or demonetized on YouTube. Several years ago, I would sometimes have alt-right or alt-lite videos (e.g. Sargon of Akkad) recommended to me on YouTube. Today it's all BreadTube (including a few communists) or occasionally Matt Walsh, suggesting the far-right has since been purged from there. And I suspect that whatever small far-right presence does still exist on YouTube is volunteer-based and they can't make a living doing it.

Additionally, see Parler, which overall was to the left of Gab but nonetheless was temporarily purged from the internet after January 6, because big tech stopped hosting the website and they had to find a new business partner.

Stop playing the victim (just like many hardcore BLM supporters)!

Dude.

People have been denied banking services needed to live in the 21st century, for no reason other than their speech. The Canadian government hacked and seized the crypto assets of the trucker protesters a year or two ago. The US is the only Western country where you don't have to fear being literally arrested and prosecuted for expressing an opinion as basic as "marriage is between a man and a woman", much less a more hardcore right-wing sentiment.

My life, as it stands right now, is easy compared to what some have been through. Nonetheless, "this violation of my rights is okay because other people have been violated even worse" is how you get fascism. So yes, whatever minute degree of repression the system subjects me to, I will find it intolerable now and in the future.

#10

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,275

zedvictor4

12.22.2023 07:22AM

-->

@DebateArt.com

Hey.

Move on if you need to.

As I will if necessary.

#11

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,270

12.22.2023 02:18PM

-->

@Swagnarok

A RINO is an ultra-center rightist who holds normal right-wingers in disdain.

What does it mean to be "ultra center right"? Right and left are arbitrary labels to describe arbitrary combinations of ideas, with no consistency with their beliefs.

But in the long-run he's helping them shift the Overton Window left, and eventually he himself will be dubbed a radical whose politics are outside the mainstream.

Where the Overton window shifts doesn't matter. The Overton window has shifted right on some issues (abortion) and left on some other issues (gay marriage). The Overton window doesn't exclusively shift left.

Additionally, see Parler, which overall was to the left of Gab but nonetheless was temporarily purged from the internet after January 6, because big tech stopped hosting the website and they had to find a new business partner.

Why would the right be against a company being deplatformed? That's capitalism; that's the free market.

You can pick between free speech restrictions (letting Bid Tech/the free market censor) or free market restrictions (not letting Bid Tech/the free market censor).

The right has to pick one to be consistent.

The US is the only Western country where you don't have to fear being literally arrested and prosecuted for expressing an opinion as basic as "marriage is between a man and a woman", much less a more hardcore right-wing sentiment.

That's because of the first amendment (which is good and even waving a Nazi flag or burning an American flag should be classified as free speech).

But here's the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, it's only congress that cannot prosecute you for your opinions. It says nothing about corporations. Fox News for instance, won't have a smart left winger like Kyle Kulinski on their show much because he makes Fox News look bad (the same is true for Marian Williamson).

With regards to corporations, you right now don't have free speech protections federally. And there are many instances of non government entities discriminating against entities because of their political opinions (the right cancelling bud light).

It's all legal.

Now, I think the first amendment should be expanded so the government and private companies can't discriminate against people for political opinions stated in non-work environments. So you could say that I am more pro free speech than pro free market.

But as of right now, free market and free speech are opposite values on the issue of censorship.

Nonetheless, "this violation of my rights is okay because other people have been violated even worse" is how you get fascism.

So you admit black people have had their rights violated and therefore want to end police brutality? Alright.

#12

Debates: 7

Posts: 1,020

12.22.2023 07:26PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Why would the right be against a company being deplatformed? That's capitalism; that's the free market.

Every important person in an industry, much less dozens of industries, colluding to promote the same ideology, purely for ideological reasons, and deny access to basic services to those who run contrary to such, isn't a natural product of free markets. In a free market, rational people would elevate their money-making instinct above their "I don't like this person so I refuse to serve them" instinct. Rather, it's exclusively the result of the mean-spiritedness of hundreds of thousands of powerful individuals.

And yes, I'll admit free markets aren't enough to solve this. Everyone has an issue that they break with their camp on, and this is mine.

That's because of the first amendment (which is good and even waving a Nazi flag or burning an American flag should be classified as free speech).

Yes, here I was referring to government censorship, not private sector censorship. Government censorship is very real outside the United States.

But since the bulk of human speech has migrated onboard platforms like Facebook Twitter, Reddit, etc., to the unnatural exclusion from said discourse of anyone who lacks access to these platforms, these companies deserve to be considered as powerful as governments in this regard and regulated as though they were governments.

So you admit black people have had their rights violated and therefore want to end police brutality? Alright.

Sure. If it can be proven in court that a black man (or a person of any race) was brutalized by cops and that he didn't create circumstances which justified their conduct, then let the appropriate remedies be taken.

#13

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,270

12.22.2023 08:14PM

-->

@Swagnarok

Every important person in an industry, much less dozens of industries, colluding to promote the same ideology, purely for ideological reasons, and deny access to basic services to those who run contrary to such, isn't a natural product of free markets.

A clothing store can tell a farmer, "we don't sell your product because it is food" and the farmer can't do anything to change that.

A food store can tell a tailor, "we don't sell your product because it is clothes" and the tailor can't do anything to change that.

A store that is open about the fact that they sell clothes and food can accept goods from both the farmer and tailor.

A social media market can say, "We only sell liberal ideas", "We only sell conservative ideas", "We have an open border policy when it comes to the things we sell at our store" (anything goes), etc.

There are other markets/social media companies to state whatever ideas you believe in. If FaceBook won't accept genuine conservative ideas, go to Parler. If your ideas are accepted by neither, go to Quora; I've seen white nationalists state their opinions there.

Go where you are accepted.

And yes, I'll admit free markets aren't enough to solve this. Everyone has an issue that they break with their camp on, and this is mine.

The conservative (and libetarian) camp prefers free speech to free markets. You aren't breaking with the conservative camp on this issue.

But since the bulk of human speech has migrated onboard platforms like Facebook Twitter, Reddit, etc., to the unnatural exclusion from said discourse of anyone who lacks access to these platforms, these companies deserve to be considered as powerful as governments in this regard and regulated as though they were governments.

Our government is nationalized. So you would nationalize an industry? It's fine to advocate this; the left wants to nationalize certain industries (healthcare). Although the difference is the left's reason is to save lives (which is objectively good), your reason is to state your objectively neutral message (I say objectively neutral because while you consider your message to be subjectively good, the left would consider it to be subjectively bad).

Sure. If it can be proven in court that a black man (or a person of any race) was brutalized by cops and that he didn't create circumstances which justified their conduct, then let the appropriate remedies be taken.

Aliright; so you want Qualified immunity repealed. So give the left credit on this issue, even if you disagree with them on abortion, guns, and transgenderism.

#14

Lemming

Debates: 6

Posts: 3,205

Lemming

12.22.2023 11:52PM

-->

@DebateArt.com

Are there financial costs to running DART?

Do you make money by owning DART?

'Could you make money owning DART?

Topic's author

#15

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,403

12.23.2023 04:02PM

-->

@Lemming

Are there financial costs to running DART?

Maybe 40-50$ per month, I forgot the exact numbers, but it's not much more than that.

Do you make money by owning DART?

I make a negative amount of money haha

'Could you make money owning DART?

I guess it's not impossible, depends on how you run it and how much money you have for marketing and whatnot.

#16

Debates: 269

Posts: 7,560