What are the best ways to reach a large audience online? (crosspost from /s/Activism)

submitted by Aureus from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]IRONICALLY_A_NAZI 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Own thousands of international NGO's actively working for your political goal, funded by the international banks you also own. I appreciate the enthusiasm and I do agree with the sentiment, but all of this just ends in you getting banned from these websites.

[–]asterias 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That's correct, it's better to support alternative sites that don't have such censorship.

Sites like reddit, twitter, facebook and the like don't allow some random dude to pass a message because he is otherwise active, they allow him to do so because he acts according to their agenda.

[–]Aureus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I disagree. Alternative sites are important, but they massively limit your audience. Every alternative site I've seen so far is basically the original site, except a million times smaller and exclusively for right-wingers.

Note that there is nothing wrong with a site used mostly by those on the right. I think a site like that could be very useful if it prioritized quality content, like I detail in Option Two in this post. Unfortunately most existing sites just offer low-effort clickbait news. This wastes the time of everyone who uses it, and often makes their life worse by demoralizing them.

On the other hand, you could widely promote an alternative site to less-political users (as I detailed in Option One of the post mentioned earlier). This would get those users off of a platform intent on brainwashing them, and instead using a platform that values free thought. However, that involves advertising the alternative site on an existing mainstream platform, like Reddit.

This post by another user, though flawed, has some more criticisms of alternative platforms being a panacea.

[–]asterias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This post by another user, though flawed, has some more criticisms of alternative platforms being a panacea.

Still, this post admits that "most people are not independent thinkers or politically astute". Even if they see a video or a post, they don't intend to act on it.

My question is, suppose you have a bunch of successful tv channels, and they have a dedicated SJW line. Will you insist that they give you a tv show so you can say what you want, even if you know they won't? Or try to make your own tv channel from grounds up so you can have control?

[–]Aureus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Feel free to do either. There's nothing wrong with building a site from the ground-up and in many ways I encourage it.

That said, it's important to be realistic. Don't censor yourself from the mainstream just to use an alternative. Not having a voice in the public square is incredibly damaging in the long run.

In addition, compare how difficult it is to build an institution versus how easy it is to co-opt one. It took centuries for Harvard to reach the prominence it has today... SJWs co-opted it in just a few decades.

Same thing with Reddit. It took over 10 years for the site to become the powerhouse it is today, but only a few years for the woke left to take it over from the top.

Build, but don't ignore the utility of entryism into existing institutions, and definitely don't isolate yourself from the mainstream.