Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So your two listed goals are in competition. That's why I'm saying you reap what you sow: you wanted a world where people can be deplatformed, and you got it. I don't "want a world where people can be deplatformed". I am 100% in favour of better censorship resistance, open messaging, etc and I 100% think whatever "bad" comes out of a system like that would be far outweighed by the good it brings. But that doesn't m…
You don't want a world where people can be deplatformed, but you want facebook to deplatform people? If I built an uncensorable distributed/federated FLOSS Facebook equivalent (fedbook?) with distributed moderation (personalized so it censors out the things that would offend you/spam from your feed, or whatever you set it to) and it became popular, would you be for that? Do you think it that Hateful Ideas wouldn't be…
I'm in favour of you building it. Then let's see what happens. Does that answer your question?
> I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing.
What of it? I've already said Facebook has too much influence. You can be against having a king, and in favour of the king doing something about, idk, taxes.
> Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't?
This is such a weird question. Are you asking if I'm in favour of Facebook existing? I already said I'm not. Or is your question "if you were King of the World & Master of the Universe, would you make Facebook disappear?", which, again, this isn't the Matrix.
These aren't useful questions, you're just trying to figure out what my stances are. My positions don't matter. I'm just trying to try to help you understand a concept which is incredibly easy to grok to a lot of people.