Let's assume the existance of ContentMart, a big, centralized content platform, used by everybody.
Let's assume three people who use it and offer content: Mr George (a far-right user), Mr Paul (a far-left user) and Mr John (who doesn't empathize neither with the far-right, neither with the far-left, he uploads content non-profit).
And on other side let's assume the existance of two alternative platforms to ContentMart, both newer and with less popularity. By now, neither Mr George nor Mr Paul nor Mr John have knowledge nor means to create their own platform.
Beginning of the purge:
ContentMart begins an account purge to get rid of the users aligned to extreme ideologies, both far-left and far-right. Mr George will believe mistakenly that ContentMart chose to be on the side of the users like Mr Paul while Mr Paul will believe mistakenly that ContentMart chose to be on the side of the users like Mr George. Mr George finally finds the first alternative platform and will call their followers to join to that platform. Mr Paul finds the second alternative platform and will call their followers to join to that platform. It could be possible that Mr Paul or a fellow have tried the first platform, but by seeing it already occupied by the Mr George fellows, they'd quit and stay away from them.
Mr John doesn't care. He's not like Mr George nor Mr Paul. The users who see his content is very general, or at least none of them looks like Mr George nor Mr Paul.
One day ContentMart bans Mr John. A change in the terms and conditions of usage of ContentMart is prejudicial for those who upload a certain non-authorized content and Mr John becomes a victim. He could try any of both alternatives to ContentMart but he will find both platforms full of users who with he won't feel comfortable. So Mr John will keep trying to use ContentMart.
At best one day Mr John will have the knowledge and the means to create his own platform for personal use, but until the day this happens, or the day that the alternative platforms have a more welcome attitude with the Mr Johns around the world, they will keep prefering to use ContentMart.
First of all I'd like to thank the Write.as developers for the help.
In the WriteFreely's github they offer with the sources, the binaries for running it on GNU/linux, windows and macOS on 64-bit architectures and for the rest of the architectures one has to build WriteFreely from the source. The thing is that buildin the source on a raspberry pi (ARM architecture) is not recommendable because even if you can install golang on a raspberry pi, the building uses a lot the resources for a long time to compile.
So the alternative is to build the sources on another machine for another architecture and then move the binary to the RPI's folder where writefreely will run. So, let's begin.
In the RPI execute the command cat /proc/cpuinfo. It's for knowing the version of the architecture that the RPI uses. For example, an RPI 3 model B uses an ARMv7 architecture
Download on the RPI the latest release of writefreely for GNU/linux and extract the tar.gz. Not doing anything else there until later.
On the other machine (I used my computer with GNU/Linux), having golang installed (version 1.10 or superior is required).
Assuming that the environment variable GOPATH points to $HOME/go, create the “go” folder at home.
Create the “bin” folder in the “go”
Here comes the important: executing from the go folder this command env GOARCH=arm GOARM=7 go get github.com/writeas/writefreely/cmd/writefreely. This command will download the sources and build them for the ARMv7 architecture. If the RPI uses another version, it's just changing the number in the GOARM variable.
After finishing, the binary will be on the bin folder. You have to move the binary to the RPI, and replace the old binary that came on the tar.gz with the new one.
I recommend to apply chmod 755 to the binary
Check that it works executing ./writefeely -v on the RPI. If it works, it will display the version of writefreely.
There's a subject that for a long time has been out of any analysis, it was even believed that it was overcome, but evidently these days bring it up again with a new spirit, and that we're all seen that it's already part of the moral atmosphere in which we're absorbed. I'm talking about the anti-system movements that we see emerging, like mushrooms after the financial stock-market rain, everywhere.
The sixties, at the end of the decade, left a lesson that all those who lived that process had incorporated to their lives, but that it's hard to pass it on the new generations.
How to explain so much mental immaturity if today, the very people who were leaders of that can't understand why they were like that back then.
Among the conclusions that are deduced of that, talking about May of 1968 first, Woodstock in 1969 later and, the others, the militia and the military of the cold war, there are a couple of aspects that aren't considered, but are the ones that now emerge directly or indirectly.
The anti-system movements, whether the ideological sign they have, they bear within its evolution and development a chain of internal happenings that are innate to all of them. They begin with a total, absolute and definitive rupture and they end assimilated and completely functionals to the system they fought so much. When we read Proudhon, for example and we see the great bitterness left in him, due to the failure of the Paris Commune and the whole “regressive” series of happenings that came later, we feel that we're before a kind of eternal figure which occur as a consequence of wanting to remain coherent after a political failure that has social and cultural consequences.
In the following thoughts written quickly I will try to give my fully personal interpretation of what I believe it really happens.