This makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
This is a good, fair point (unlike the person who wrote me and told me I was spreading Nazi propaganda). Thank you.
I confess I am not tech savvy enough to validate these arguments, but I have heard that Piratebay is much simpler (text files that point to other files) and is much easier to keep play cat and mouse games than, say, a social network.
But, either way, you are right to point out that a determined opponent can keep up a fight for awhile.
Except blogs have been removed from the internet. And entire, smaller platforms are wiped from the internet.
It's becoming less true that you can always move to a blog or a smaller platform. That's what I said. Seems true and not in the article.
But I suppose I will live to fight another day.
As I wrote: that is becoming less and less true.
I'm surprised that that was taken so negatively. I'm not exactly sure why.
Now you can access all the opinions.
This is becoming less and less true. Removing people from social media. Removing entire websites. Even denying people the ability to participate in financial systems.
Sure. I'd love to hear what other caveats you think are important.
2) If you’re not feeling “hell yeah!” then say no
I've thought a lot about this myself.
I think the first thing you have to stipulate is that this helps when deciding on goals, not necessarily the things you have to do to get the goal. You may be "hell yeah" about traveling the world, but not "hell yeah" about packing. That doesn't mean you shouldn't travel the world. I don't think Derek was arguing for this level of decision making.
If you buy that, I think the key is that it only works when you have a lot of slack. Derek Sivers is and has been independently wealthy and has way way more options than most people do. It's a very good sorting move in that situation. If you have few options, you probably can't use this as universally as he suggests.
It would probably be better described as staying within the Overton window.
It's a different name, but by definition, this standard means you are not getting new, unorthodox opinions to the public.
OP was trying to figure out how to have respectability follow 'rightness'. Only talking to people who are already respectable doesn't help that at all.
I hesitate to bring this up since politics, but in the US it is a very common perception that the media is liberally biased.
And the fact that certain stories are almost exclusively discussed in certain outlets based on politics makes me think that it is not random error.
Also, wouldn't avoiding controversial figures be the opposite of helpful if you are trying to get new information out. Seems to not solve the problem of getting legible expertise that is contrary to popular opinion into the marketplace.
Utopia isn't an option, but that aside....I would argue that it is still better today where people can consistently be wrong and still get to consistently give incorrect opinions. And everyone else in the market will still learn along the way which is an improvement over current state.
I don't think there would be much of a market for ridiculous conditional like that so not too worried about that.