Saw this post by xianc78 while lurking, inspired me to share my thoughts
https://bae.st/notice/Ai6Bqwb4Y4XAeVJkOW
Authoritarians are parasites, and the authright are just as parasitic as the authleft. They take over alternative and free-speech communities, subvert the culture and values of those usually-libertarian-leaning people who originally created or supported the community, and drive the community into the ground before moving on to the next host. They take advantage of people with higher ideals and integrity who create said communities with the good intention of creating a space for all to use. I've even seen some brag about this fact, in certain cases! These authrighters ironically act exactly like certain groups they hate so much.
Unfortunately, I suspect any future alternative libertarian-minded groups will have to apply Hoppe's proposal to these people and exclude them outright. Libertarians will have to gatekeep their communities, but we'll have to find some way to do it without turning into total echo chambers.
@KryptoBlok I'm surprised that I missed this post.
I think there is more to it than just authoritarians subverting Internet cultures. A lot of libertarians are unfortunately thin-skinned. They don't want to debate and instead just block which is seen as the other side winning the argument, especially when blockbots are involved. You also have the cringe-libertarians (the real "lolbertarians") who unknowingly (or knowingly if they are actually government agents) make a mockery out of libertarianism by making it look like it's all about arming gay couples with AR-15s so they can protect their weed farms. So libertarian users need to stop being thin-skinned about certain subjects, actually do research, and be willing to debate.
One thing that I've noticed that people rarely talk about is that a lot of people fall for the argumentum ad populum fallacy. They think they that they've won an argument because they got enough people liking and boosting their posts and helping them dogpile whomever they are debating. This just reinforces the echo-chamber culture that develops in these types of communities. You could fight this by balancing out the user-base by inviting people of other ideologies, which will get people to actually read other people's talking points and coming to their own conclusion, instead of agreeing with the most popular talking point or the first person to be blocked. But again, these people need to stop being thinned skinned.
This honestly applies to both sides. The Poast types are also known to block people they disagree with. The hachi troll on DRC is just proof of that. These people even block each other. I even remember reading one hellthread on Poast over space colonization. Some thought it's necessary in the interests of Whites, while the Ted/Linkola/National-primitivist types were sperging about the idea and thought it that it was an insult to God who made the Earth for us or just saw the whole thing as a nihilistic cope. It ended with a few blocks.
However, going back to dogpiling and appeal to majority, I think there is clearly a CIA psyop to subvert these niche/alternative communities/networks. First they change the culture. Next, they stage some Christchurch or January 6th type event. Then, media outlets run hitpieces on these communities. Finally, we either see government crackdowns, hosting companies dropping support, debanking, DDoS attacks and doxings by hacktivists, and everyone either being forced back into the controlled alternatives, finding some other niche community, or giving up entirely and touching grass.
That's just one purpose, but the other purpose is to cram most of the opposition of mainstream discourse and the two-party illusion into a limited hangout where questioning just leads to bullying and being told to go back to Reddit/Twitter/Discord/etc. There ARE genuinely good people on the dissident right (please don't dogpile me guys, I'm just giving constructive criticism), but as time goes on I feel like it is really a limited hangout. They are willing to question the nature of race, gender, identity, etc, but they almost never go beyond that. If some issue doesn't involve race, they won't question it. I rarely see them talk about the moon landing, the JFK assassination, or the idea that most news stories are probably just psyops made to divide people and by picking a side, they are giving them what they want. I even had some told me that those theories are just distractions from The Great Replacement. Another thing I noticed is that they will claim that White supremacist shootings are psyops but claim that other mass shootings happen organically. They just jump to conclusions instead of questioning all sides like a true free-thinker.
As for solutions, I honestly don't think we should "physically remove" them. That makes us no better than the Mastodon network. I've always believed that the fediverse (along with other decentralized communities) is for anyone looking for an alternative to big tech. Like I said, you need to balance it out. It seems like most libertarians haven't even heard of the Fediverse. Just invite more. We also have a Nostr bridge. Interact with them as well and build strong relationships. Last year, those auth-righters tried to subvert Nostr as well, but failed. I don't know what stopped them, but it clearly wasn't banning or blocking.
