I stand by what I said: you ARE ignoring my core points. If you want to prove otherwise, please provide answers to these simple questions:

1. What do you think happens to racists when they are no longer allowed to talk? Do they suddenly become not racist? Disappear in a puff of smoke?

2. How do you propose we change racists minds if not by talking to them?

3. Do you think corporate platforms will always only make progressive ideas easier to find? Or are you open to the possibility that if we allow companies to pick and choose what speech they make easier to find, they may choose ideas you disagree with to make easier to find?

> People have a right to say what they want its true. I am simply saying we have no obligation to make their message easier to find.

You're saying people have a right to say what they want, but then you're proposing that Gab not make it easier to find certain messages by not allowing people who say that message to say what they want. So which is it: do people have a right to say what they want, or not?

You just want to say you're pro free speech and anti-censorship, so you're saying "make their message easier to find" instead of "allow them free speech on your platform", but they're the exact same thing. A rose by another name would smell as sweet.

Keep in mind, platforms like Reddit/Twitter/Facebook originally sold themselves as communications platforms. I doubt even you would be okay with telephone companies refusing to connect calls between people they don't like--why is it okay for a newer communications platform to refuse service to people they don't like?

> De-platforming does work.

No, it absolutely does not. When Reddit censored bigots, they just went to Voat, and now they have a community where if they say something reprehensible, nobody downvotes them or counterargues. We've just put them in an echo chamber where they can organize and communicate unchallenged, without hearing any reasonable viewpoints.

Even if every single open-minded person on the planet refused to allow racists to post on their websites, racists would just create their own websites. Do you really think there are no racists or terrorists or anti-vaxxers who are capable of writing a Twitter/Gab clone?

> While we are at it, what about disinformation campaigns from hostile foreign governments? Anti-vaxxers? Climate change deniers? Bots? Trolls? Does all that get to continue unabated? Hows that working out?

> We are living in an unprecedented time where objective truth is no longer collectively agreed upon and fringe viewpoints have made their way to the mainstream.

Objective truth has NEVER been collectively agreed upon. All the objectionable groups you mention existed before the internet. Crazies have ALWAYS existed.

What's different now is that with increased communication, mixing of communities, and the loss of social inhibitions caused by the anonymity and impersonality of the internet, sane people are suddenly confronted with the craziness that has always existed.

And yes, crazy people are able to communicate with each other in unprecedented ways. But that cat's out of the bag--unless you're proposing that we shut down the entire internet, they're going to be able to communicate, whether it be on Twitter or Mastadon or Gab or some equivalent platform created for racists by racists.

But the flipside is that SANE people are able to communicate with crazies in unprecedented ways. Where previously a racist could live their entire life only talking to their racist family and neighbors, now a person of color from the other side of the world away can call them out when they post something racist on Twitter, and tell them that what they are saying isn't true.

If we push the crazies off mainstream platforms, that doesn't solve the problem--they just go on being crazies. But if we allow them to communicate on mainstream platforms, we get to explain to them why their crazy beliefs are wrong. Over and over again, publicly, so that anyone who comes across bigoted or hateful or otherwise harmful ideas also comes across the truth. It's much more difficult than sweeping racists under the carpet and pretending they don't exist, but it actually stands a chance of changing racists into open-minded people.

> I will happily admit that I don't have all the answers but I can tell you that the status quo is not working and we need to start thinking out of the box.

Let's look at what the status quo is:

Reddit: "You agree not to use any obscene, indecent, or offensive language or to provide to or post on or through the Website any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is defamatory, abusive, bullying, harassing, racist, hateful, or violent. You agree to refrain from ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, homophobia, and personal attacks when using the Website."

Twitter: "Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease."

Facebook: "We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation."

The status quo is already doing exactly what you want, and it's not working. So yes, I agree the status quo is not working.