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 Homophobia is just one thing that is fairly common in the religious world, but there exists a plethora of outdated or backward beliefs in many religions, nearly all of them frowned upon by today's generation (which happens to be the largest internet using demographic).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.
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.