Would a "conservative" internet be a viable business

>>1550878
it might work but there's a couple obstacles.

1. most conservatives are old and don't internet.
2. most conservatives are old and will be dead soon.
3. the current conservatism is based on denying reality, a strategy that doesn't work for long.
4. the current conservatives have been denying reality for over 20 years now, that strategy is closer to its end than its beginning.

other than that, go for it.

>>1550895
Liberal kike confirmed

>>1550901
yeah, you have a point.

conservatives are also stupid, and stupid people don't have a lot of money to spend. Low education, usually poor.

thanks for bringing that up.

>>1550878
You have to be careful that you don't go completely off the deep end.
Conservapedia bills itself as a conservative counterpart to Wikipedia (which DOES have a liberal bias that does occasionally get out of hand), but it is in fact the insane ramblings of a handful of fundamentalist Christians.

>>1550895
>>1550895
All of these were on the top of my head, which is what prompted me to create this thread. I think 1 and 2 are the biggest current obstacles, but I'm not sure I agree with 3,4.

The economic situation for the young generation is, or has the perception, of being less certain than it was for their predecessors. This has led right-wing parties to gain sympathy from the youth and we are seeing a rise in nationalism, following the usual pendulum effect model. As concessions are made and left-wing politicians have gained influence, the right has been able to leverage that and instill fear in a new generation. Maybe they aren't a huge block yet, but I don't think they are going away and in some respects, existing large internet businesses are making moves that alienate and breed tension in this segment of the population (look at the power struggle that occured on reddit and is ongoing with twitter)

>>1550913
Well, counter-point, a lot of the upper-middle class white suburban types actually do have a lot of disposable income and make/made up a lot of Fox News viewership. They were willing to pay a premium for access too, which i think solves another obstacle of restricted market size

>>1550918
Another interesting point, I was going to mention conservapedia in the OP and ask if that's indicative of why the idea would be hard to work with.

Look at /pol/, I'm just conjecturing here, but I cannot imagine there are enough people who want to associate with that kind right-wing crowd. Would that be the outcome of trying to have a "right-wing twitter"?

>>1550878
You would have to call back to the Boys Club days. Not everyone sees everything, you have to build networks defined by a specific purpose. Google tried that with circles and failed, but I don't think the idea is completely dead.

The problem with marketing to conservatives is they don't profit you as much as liberals. They don't want you to have their marketable data, they don't want to pay for something they don't like and they're picky about features. They want up front costs and low frills typically.

So you could make money, but you do so by saving money on crowd sourced ideas and graphical designs and comfort features. You profit by making a stripped down product backed by your word and strong features.

Intelligent conservatives are usually loners. Middle aged whites who want a nostalgic place of security and homogeneity are your best bet.

>>1551048
You should market it to moderate libertarians.
Libertarians have social views that are mostly acceptable to the mainstream, but because they're a political minority they're extremely cautious about corrupt media. Thus you get people who the mainstream won't write off as utterly contemptible but who are also critical of the mainstream.

And for what it's worth I think millenials are going to be more conservative in 10 years than they are right now. I watched the Daily Show in high school but I've grown more and more disillusioned with the left since 2012 and I know I'm not the only one.

>>1550895

> the current conservatism is based on denying reality, a strategy that doesn't work for long.

You mean shit like "men and women are equal" or "you should let niggers fuck your wife, because some other white dude owned a nigger 200 years ago" or "DAS RACES" or "I'm obviously a non-binary genderBBQpanhomokinqueer-fagette and my preferred pronoun obviously is zexisodimomflipflop or zhe you fucking priviledged cis-scum" or "Let's pay people money for not working, what can go wrong with that" or simultaneously whining about low-wages and supporting the import of cheap, third-world labor or giving people far more free shit the government can pay for or knowing fuck all about economics and thinking that every gay retarded shit you deem "fair" is something that works and is affordable?

>>1551029
yes, but their average age is 78.

you've got old people with money and minutes left to live and you've got young poor idiots and that's about it.

>>1551134
Sure, I agree with your assessment, but consider what >>1551103 said. I'm trying to think long term and wonder if it's possible to try and bet on how the demographic shift in a the parties will play out. Fox news wasn't always ancient was it? I genuinely don't know, but my suspicion is that the demographic shift was just a reflection of a loyal viewer base that only captured a share of the next generation at a rate slightly above how quickly the previous one was shrinking. Their viewer numbers have had positive growth slightly above broader pop growth, when taken as both median and average.

I don't think the old guard makes a good demographic for an emerging idea, but perhaps someone could try and tailor it to whatever is emerging from the new generations right-wing movements.

Also please keep the political rhetoric out of the thread unless, it's just going to derail the topic. >>1551124 >>1551134

Talking about generalizations can be useful, but only if it applies to how they behave as consumers

>>1551173
You're talking to a shitposter.
He doesn't have anything to add to the discussion, he is just trying to piss off /pol/tards like >>1551124

>>1551173
>only if it applies to how they behave as consumers
I'd say that being dead or broke affects their behavior as consumers.

Fox is a new media, its business model was literally illegal 30 years ago. Ironically it was conservatives that outlawed it. The let go of the requirement for "news" to be true when the started losing the demographic war. Essentially when they realized they weren't reproducing.

they had lots of kids, but most of them were and are liberals. Sadly conservatism isn't heritable.

unless you can predict the future it's not always a great bet to court the groups that are going extinct.

you could be the last iceman though. That's what Fox does. They know their product is obsolete, but there's still some market for it.

>>1551192
>you could be the last iceman though.
you'd just have to bring your product to market and get it in front of hundreds of millions of people-

all in the few years you have left before your market dies of old age.

>>1551192
Conservatism is not inheritable sure. However, unless we form a global state that abolishes all forms of heirarchy and get to several generations of people born under that system, right-wing political groups who seek to retain the status-quo of a beneficial power structure. The current manifestation seems to be a reaction to a degrading sense of white identity, but this does not need to exclusively be the domain under which the new-right will flourish.

>>1551316
depends whether we see the current decline as simply a reversal of fortunes which will inevitably come full circle in the future or if it's the end of an era.

I remember the cultural struggle of the 70's and I'm aware of the liberalization of the 60's. I witnessed the resurgence of conservative values in the 80's-90's and their steady decline since.

Most likely what we're experiencing now is an anomalous period of peace which won't be followed by more peace with left and right battling for social dominance. Most likely what is going to follow is war. Not civil war, but war for resources. War with Russia and China, war with Islam, just war.

The longer peace persists the more liberal values will prevail. Because conservatism is couched primarily in the fear of war, and we've got generations now that have never seen the thing. They barely believe it exists. Your own predictions would seem to arise from this ignorance. Just because a thing is a certain way now doesn't mean it will stay that way.

But if we ignore probability and the Malthusian problems of expanding consumer populations riding dwindling resources,

as long as peace continues conservatism will continue to die. Because the threats it posits aren't then credible.