Content producers would have control to charge access for posts... But for the first phase, it'll be 100% voluntary. Our implementation would be so that we use the content producers merchant info. Later, we could use a third party to hold the CC info so that if stripe/etc, terminate them, they may still be able to process recurring charges.

Zero costs. The group owner will need to signup for something like Stripe or paypal/etc and we just put a form up that goes there.

@Admin The problem with that is it's the likes of Stripe, Square, and Paypal that are causing a lot of this; they're the common denominator between all of the censorship services and have an extreme amount of leverage.

It would make a lot of sense that they're putting on pressure because there is a degree of platform suicide going on here and Youtube / Twitter are not so stupid as to miss the indicators. I think it's more the financial side driving this affair and the businesses are responding. Certainly, we all know the culture and ideology driving a lot of these companies in their decision making processes, but shareholders aren't going to give a damn about any of that when the bill comes due. The leadership, at least, is probably taking a good degree of heat for all this nonsense as the negative consequences are stacking up. Not good for business.

Therefore, it's likely an outside influence driving the momentum and that outside influence has pressure that can be applied across the board. Each time I dig into a story of what's going on, the names of Stripe, Square, JP Morgan Chase and Paypal keep coming up. I don't think that's a coincidence.

That being said, is there a free speech focused payment provider, yet? That's a thing that needs to happen, imo.

@AchillesAsheelz I absolutely agree with @AchillesAsheelz on this topic. These are the names I'm hearing that are the point of failure. I also second a payment provider platform with free speech as a main tenant.

@Admin

True, I understand you can't control the logistics - got to be pragmatic. You can only work with the materials, at hand. Government always gets involved with the money, sooner or later, their fingers are in every pie; but something like this seems more akin to how the Rockefeller's stuffed Social Security through via alumni associates and ivy league circles - more or less the beginning of the modern Deep State concept - instead of Federal meddling.

I have noticed the ban hammer tends to fall harder on anti-establishment types, but I think that's associated with money interests, too.

I read somewhere that Gab found an alternative, but I'm not sure how far they are willing to go or the cost overhead, etc: [secondamendmentprocessing.com]

Obviously politically charged, so you'd have to take that under advisement, but I doubt you'll find any pro free speech processor that isn't, with the current environment. In the least, they could be an elective alternative in the event that things get stupid. It just seems predictable that there will be blow back after Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet take things too far. After people start jumping ship they're going to find other ways to control the narrative.

Things like this could be a vulnerability if not load balanced between interests. Just my opinion, though. I appreciate your time.

We would not receive the funds but have them go directly to the account of the group owner (we never see the paypal/credit card/bitcoin info). This is for us to compete with Youtube directly.

@Admin what is more direct than making donations to his gofundme or his patreon. No Youtube involvement there - is there? I dnt know

I don't think you're thinking wrong, @Chicago. I think you're asking good questions. I can see some problems with the idea--potentially catastrophic. Throwing money into something changes it. I don't love the idea of monetizing conversation. I mean, if everyone wants to pay me a salary for giving my opinions I already give away for free... Umm, or wants to pay me to quit giving my opinions--that'd be okay too.

I may have misunderstood the OP.

If I understand correctly, the "owner" is just the person the group follows, they would not necessarily need to be a member. No one would have to collect money. I imagine a simple link to the person’s PayPal or whatever would suffice. Am I stating the proposal correctly, @Admin ?

@WorldSigh, @chuckpo Think of it as a combination of Patreon + Youtube + Facebook but we don't charge any fees. The end goal would be for us to get a collection of IDW/demonetized people from Youtube to build a community here in their groups.

@Admin
Yes, it had occurred to me that financial support from members might garner a few high profile members. The caveat would be the elimination of any hint of ideological censorship. No one wants to invest time in another Zuckerberg fiefdom!

Coinbase. You need not have to be a cryptocurrency investor in order to use Coinbase, as they have a wallet for native currencies (like the US Dollar). Someone could transfer money on Coinbase. That would be one alternative.