The 'lurkers' (an unnecessarily biased name for readers) get pretty upset when someone they read and follow gets censored or removed.
Most ppl, contrary to mainstream projections, value hearing from a range of voices, including those that go against establishment narratives.
In my experience they complain and a few leave in protest for a while and come back later. This hasn't led to people changing platforms much in my lifetime ...
How then do you explain the massive audience numbers who followed Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens to their new platforms after they were censored and removed from their old ones, and in the case of Candace, an older platform that is rapidly cratering after their hypocrisy about free speech has now been exposed?
Granted, this is more independent media than social media, but the two commingle and are far from separate domains.
In the case of Tucker, do you think X is more censorship-resistant than Fox News? If so, why?
(Not familiar with Candace Owens)
Tucker streams his show from multiple platforms (not just X), including from his own website. But my point wasn't that X is necessarily more censorship resistant than Fox News; it's that ppl will, in large numbers, follow a censored voice to other places where they can continue to listen / watch / read them.
Another example is Joe Rogan who, while he personally hasn't been censored, has great popularity partly because he often invites on guests who have been.
Yet another example is Glenn Greenwald, who was censored by the media organisation he helped to found. Again, his audience followed him in large numbers to his new platform (Rumble).
