To each his own, I suppose but banning things based on religious views means that only those sharing your views will join the site. Unfortunately for them, they will probably never grow to the size and proportions of other online communities due to their limiting of free speech and censorship.
I understand what you mean and I would never, myself, be interested in a more "closed" community. However, a social network like Facebook already allows you to build your own "echo chamber" by selecting your friends. It's just that these websites reinforce side-wide rules that are aligned with these people's values.
In other words, it's not like openness is a fundamental characteristic of mainstream social networks in the first place.
I just don't think it will go very far. The developed countries of the world are getting less and less religious as time goes by and I think we will see it fall out of favor within my lifetime (I'm in my late twenties). Young people, who make up the majority of internet users, are even less inclined to be religious. This combined with the restrictive and conservative views on important civil issues that religions seem to champion, make me believe that the majority of people seeking an online social community are not going to look at any of these new religious start-ups. I am sure they will get some kind of a following but the issues that set them apart from non-religious social communities are mostly civil rights issues and that will inevitably give them really bad press. In other words, it might gain popularity at first but as soon as they start to really define what makes them different from their competitors, it will cause enough controversy for the moderately religious to back out in fear of being associated with the politics of an online religious social community.
This all adds up to a pretty specific and small user-base that probably won't be able to monetize very successfully.
They presumably aren't all that interested in growing to the size of other communities (if we assume evangelization is off the table, which maybe we shouldn't), despite their avowed aims of "[taking] on Facebook and Twitter." I think @Triseult makes a good point, that openness isn't a prerequisite for building a social network. Community, I think, is – shared interests and/or values. It's a damn shame this particular one seems so appallingly homophobic – as far as I know, even the Catholic church doesn't really declare homosexuality in general sinful (thanks, Wikipedia!). Still, I have to appreciate that despite their intolerance, this at least doesn't look like a particularly hateful website.
And honestly, I do think there is a time and place to embrace freedom of speech, so I understand that certain communities might appreciate very strict moderation, even of personal content. And while I wouldn't join up myself, I do think it's okay that this kind of website exists.
No doubt some will find it interesting and join up-
I just don't see any one of these becoming anywhere near mainstream and due to that, I don't see them making enough money to survive.
Religion is divisive and really, lets imagine a world where these online religious social communities started gaining a decently sized user-base of some kind, eventually they will be compared to secular competitors if they get big enough and then the differences between the two will be painfully apparent. Homophobia is just one thing that is fairly common in the religious world, but there exists a plethora of outdated or backward beliefs in many religions, nearly all of them frowned upon by today's generation (which happens to be the largest internet using demographic). When you can plainly see the differences between religious online social communities and secular ones side by side, it will be hard for the majority of young people to pin themselves to a site that seemingly supports ideals counter to those held by the majority of their generation.
And honestly, I do think there is a time and place to embrace freedom of speech, so I understand that certain communities might appreciate very strict moderation, even of personal content. And while I wouldn't join up myself, I do think it's okay that this kind of website exist.
That, ultimately, is the point. Freedom of speech must necessarily include speech you don't like. It doesn't mean you can say anything you like without consequence; if your speech demonstrates that you're an intolerant bigot then there's no requirement to protect you from the consequence of that speech when people start to shun you.
To each his own, I suppose but banning things based on religious views means that only those sharing your views will join the site. Unfortunately for them, they will probably never grow to the size and proportions of other online communities due to their limiting of free speech and censorship.
I understand what you mean and I would never, myself, be interested in a more "closed" community. However, a social network like Facebook already allows you to build your own "echo chamber" by selecting your friends. It's just that these websites reinforce side-wide rules that are aligned with these people's values.
In other words, it's not like openness is a fundamental characteristic of mainstream social networks in the first place.
Hahaha, good point!
I just don't think it will go very far. The developed countries of the world are getting less and less religious as time goes by and I think we will see it fall out of favor within my lifetime (I'm in my late twenties). Young people, who make up the majority of internet users, are even less inclined to be religious. This combined with the restrictive and conservative views on important civil issues that religions seem to champion, make me believe that the majority of people seeking an online social community are not going to look at any of these new religious start-ups. I am sure they will get some kind of a following but the issues that set them apart from non-religious social communities are mostly civil rights issues and that will inevitably give them really bad press. In other words, it might gain popularity at first but as soon as they start to really define what makes them different from their competitors, it will cause enough controversy for the moderately religious to back out in fear of being associated with the politics of an online religious social community.
This all adds up to a pretty specific and small user-base that probably won't be able to monetize very successfully.
I think (and hope!) you're right. Let's hope you are, for all our sakes. :)
They presumably aren't all that interested in growing to the size of other communities (if we assume evangelization is off the table, which maybe we shouldn't), despite their avowed aims of "[taking] on Facebook and Twitter." I think @Triseult makes a good point, that openness isn't a prerequisite for building a social network. Community, I think, is – shared interests and/or values. It's a damn shame this particular one seems so appallingly homophobic – as far as I know, even the Catholic church doesn't really declare homosexuality in general sinful (thanks, Wikipedia!). Still, I have to appreciate that despite their intolerance, this at least doesn't look like a particularly hateful website.
And honestly, I do think there is a time and place to embrace freedom of speech, so I understand that certain communities might appreciate very strict moderation, even of personal content. And while I wouldn't join up myself, I do think it's okay that this kind of website exists.
P.S. – had to chuckle at "TempleOS."
HAHAHA! Yeah I thought that was hilarious too!
No doubt some will find it interesting and join up- I just don't see any one of these becoming anywhere near mainstream and due to that, I don't see them making enough money to survive.
Religion is divisive and really, lets imagine a world where these online religious social communities started gaining a decently sized user-base of some kind, eventually they will be compared to secular competitors if they get big enough and then the differences between the two will be painfully apparent. Homophobia is just one thing that is fairly common in the religious world, but there exists a plethora of outdated or backward beliefs in many religions, nearly all of them frowned upon by today's generation (which happens to be the largest internet using demographic). When you can plainly see the differences between religious online social communities and secular ones side by side, it will be hard for the majority of young people to pin themselves to a site that seemingly supports ideals counter to those held by the majority of their generation.
That, ultimately, is the point. Freedom of speech must necessarily include speech you don't like. It doesn't mean you can say anything you like without consequence; if your speech demonstrates that you're an intolerant bigot then there's no requirement to protect you from the consequence of that speech when people start to shun you.