Ads on websites are displayed by multinational entities. All multinational entities must pursue a "politically correct" image, or else risk alienating their partners. This is why corporations like Google, Facebook, and CNN try to be as inoffensive as possible.

Sincere opinions are inevitable since man is cultured. That means media corporations censor by necessity.

Crowdfunding is the only way to have a free-speech platform but WarLight isn't crowdfunded; it runs ads. If follows that WarLight is in a truly unfortunate situation, as are any platforms that simultaneously want open discourse and ad revenue.

You're against freedom of speech. You only want your side to express their opinion, you don't want freedom for others.

idc about your stupid ad hominem.

But I digress.

I know there has always been talk among the mods about censoring the OT because it supposedly turns people away from WarLight. These are the same people that admit that the OT is not taken seriously. It isn't. No one has stopped playing the game because of the forums.

While censorship might be able to secure revenue, banning players for expressing certain opinions would drive down site activity and ultimately negate any extra ad revenue.

>says he doesn't care
>gives me a response
>shows he actually does care

Cognitive dissonance detected.

You should adress this to Fizzer and/or the mods and not the plebs.

if you believe in crowdfunding buy a membership.

Do you understand that without ads, websites and companies won't easily be able to carry on running due website hosting costs, server maintenance costs, human costs, software costs and many other costs? The same applies to families. If you or your relative(s) or guardian(s) didn't have a source of income (via jobs/self-employment) then they wouldn't be able to buy essential things like food and drinks. Without food or drink, then you would die. A person dying is like a website/company shutting down and you don't want website or companies such as WarLight to shutdown/discontinue their services, do you.

I find your very basic example to be condescending and missing the point entirely. The point is platforms that expect to host controversial subject matter cannot rely on Google ads.

Why should a risk site expect to host controversial stuff?

This is a question I'm glad you asked.

Forums that have free speech produce funnier, more interesting content. 4chan being a prime example. A quality forum compliments its game.

Additionally I separate the forums and the game. Like I said before I don't think people get scared off from the game because of the forums and the OT is already treated like a shit post fest.

Yeah they are funnier, but when it conflicts with the original goal (running an online risk site), the original goal should not be sacrificed. You can't really separate the two since they're on the same site and get the same ads, so, while it'd be fun if we could migrate /pol/ to the off topic forum, it would come at an unreasonable loss.

''You're against freedom of speech. You only want your side to express their opinion, you don't want freedom for others.''

and?

''Why should a risk site expect to host controversial stuff?''

nice fallacy, can't assert a negative. Why should content be removed?

''but when it conflicts with the original goal (running an online risk site)''

In what way does the forum interfere with people playing the game?

Edited 7/8/2017 00:26:50

"nice fallacy, can't assert a negative. Why should content be removed?"

While it's not a fallacy and this is just shifting the burden of proof to avoid having to answer, I'll bite.

Controversial content, has, in the past, proven to be a nuisance in that it can get ads turned off. Since making people pay to play would severely hinder warlight's creative base and it's store of players keeping the open games alive, this is unreasonable. Crowdfunding, while it can work for something's, likely wouldn't work for something as big as warlight. As such, the simplest solution is to censor some content and preserve warlight as a game.

''this is just shifting the burden of proof to avoid having to answer''

nice projecting

>we should give in to the jews to spare peoples fwee fwees

truly you're an anarcho-capitalist

minds.com is pretty good for free speech - Warlight is NOT the place for extreme political statements, regardless of Fizzer's alignment.

Why should a risk site expect to host controversial stuff?

Because humans are controversial. It's in our nature to be argumentative, contentious, outrageous,etc. Sure, there needs to be some baseline rules about what can and can't be posted. However, attempting to purge any and all content that could be deemed "controversial" is a witch hunt that will never end.

Edited 7/8/2017 04:11:05

''but when it conflicts with the original goal (running an online risk site)''

In what way does the forum interfere with people playing the game?

... google takes away ads, WL can't make money ... idk seems like a easy concept to grasp.

*also my original post again.*

if you believe in crowdfunding buy a membership.

Edited 7/8/2017 04:27:57

"A person dying is like a website/company shutting down"

Wise words for Dan the man!

I don't know what i clicked or watched but i always get shit like ''Find your Muslim Wife'' or ''Find a Polish love interest''.

''minds.com is pretty good for free speech - Warlight is NOT the place for extreme political statements, regardless of Fizzer's alignment.''

t dumblr