Heck, even anarcho-capitalists recognise some limited role of government in contract enforcement. But anarcho-capitalism isn't mainstream.
aren’t capable of doing something much easier like creating a forum.
Where did you get that idea? There are conservative forums. They are constantly being attacked by liberals who don't recognise their right to exist at all, with these attacks varying in form but generally falling under the heading of "no platforming". Where do you see conservatives doing the reverse? I've never seen it.
they are free to create their own social media companies where they can voice their opinions
Yes, you can do that, as long as you don't mind any infrastructure that has liberal owners from trying to no-platform you to death, including things like blocking mobile apps, depeering ISPs and trying to get you blocked from credit card networks.
You're making it out like conservatives just have to make some popular websites. They have done, and what we see is liberals viciously attacking anyone who associates with them in any way, including even linking to them. That includes nasty personal attacks on anyone who reads them. I've seen this first hand: someone tried to get me in trouble at work for merely linking to an article on a conservative news website.
There's also the workforce to contend with. If you look at the recent story about Kickstarter, their workforce has now unionised because management asked them to take down a project that was raising money to encourage violence against conservatives. That project violated their own ToS so it should have been a no-brainer, but the company became a victim of its own employee's hatred.
I worked at Google in the early years and there was a strongly libertarian streak to the firm, as was true of many tech firms back then. Trying to manipulate or control the userbase was an unspeakable taboo. Not tampering with the "organic" output of the algorithms was a strongly held value. But the company didn't try to hire people who shared those values: anyone who could pass a coding test would do and the old timers slowly moved on. The culture war had a clear loser in that case and it wasn't the side that respected the userbase or valued free speech. So it's not enough to merely create a popular website and grow, despite infrastructure firms trying to extinguish you.
To create a social media firm that doesn't befall the same fate, you're going to have to take a clear pro-free speech stance from day one, and that will result in being very much slandered and attacked by liberals who see you as an evil to be extinguished. It's wildly extreme and it's well past the point of "free to create your own websites". That freedom is very much hanging by a thread at this point. A major role of government is to stop people within its jurisdiction attacking each other and implementing mob rule. That isn't happening in this case.
Aren’t conservatives also pro Gun? I thought the reason they were running around in the woods pretending to be a “militia” was to protect themselves from the government? You mean now they want “big government” to step in?
As far as mobile, I have yet to hear with Apple or Google block any website on their devices. Do you really need an app to create a forum?
And if liberals attack and verbally say bad things, is that really going to hurt you? I thought it was the conservatives that owned all of the guns, what they are afraid that the skinny jean wearing liberals are going to attack you with their flyers made of recycled paper?
Where did guns come from? I didn't mention those. I'm not American and no, "conservatives" do not see the solution as shooting people. What a non-sequitur.
You're doing what liberals always seem to do in these situations: justify attacks, censorship and discrimination on the grounds that if you aren't a liberal you must be an anarchist who deserves whatever they get. That's a straw man argument.
I'm curious if you have a link for that latter claim. I'm not saying you're wrong, it sounds like the kind of thing he would say, but I can't find any reference to him saying that with a few obvious search queries. Claims that supporters said it maybe, but in a population of 350 million you can find "supporters" who say anything. Bernie supporters have also made such claims, it didn't really affect my view of him as a person.
At any rate Trump is not exactly a model conservative. He is uninterested in any sort of fiscal conservatism, he's in favour of trade wars and his social policy stops at "illegal immigration is bad" which is practically a tautology for the head of a government (i.e. breaking the law is always considered bad).
In fact there's really very little about him that's conservative at all, by traditional measures. Pretending the average conservative has much in common with Trump is like pretending the average Democrat voter has much in common with Lenin.
Heck, even anarcho-capitalists recognise some limited role of government in contract enforcement. But anarcho-capitalism isn't mainstream.
aren’t capable of doing something much easier like creating a forum.
Where did you get that idea? There are conservative forums. They are constantly being attacked by liberals who don't recognise their right to exist at all, with these attacks varying in form but generally falling under the heading of "no platforming". Where do you see conservatives doing the reverse? I've never seen it.
they are free to create their own social media companies where they can voice their opinions
Yes, you can do that, as long as you don't mind any infrastructure that has liberal owners from trying to no-platform you to death, including things like blocking mobile apps, depeering ISPs and trying to get you blocked from credit card networks.
You're making it out like conservatives just have to make some popular websites. They have done, and what we see is liberals viciously attacking anyone who associates with them in any way, including even linking to them. That includes nasty personal attacks on anyone who reads them. I've seen this first hand: someone tried to get me in trouble at work for merely linking to an article on a conservative news website.
There's also the workforce to contend with. If you look at the recent story about Kickstarter, their workforce has now unionised because management asked them to take down a project that was raising money to encourage violence against conservatives. That project violated their own ToS so it should have been a no-brainer, but the company became a victim of its own employee's hatred.
I worked at Google in the early years and there was a strongly libertarian streak to the firm, as was true of many tech firms back then. Trying to manipulate or control the userbase was an unspeakable taboo. Not tampering with the "organic" output of the algorithms was a strongly held value. But the company didn't try to hire people who shared those values: anyone who could pass a coding test would do and the old timers slowly moved on. The culture war had a clear loser in that case and it wasn't the side that respected the userbase or valued free speech. So it's not enough to merely create a popular website and grow, despite infrastructure firms trying to extinguish you.
To create a social media firm that doesn't befall the same fate, you're going to have to take a clear pro-free speech stance from day one, and that will result in being very much slandered and attacked by liberals who see you as an evil to be extinguished. It's wildly extreme and it's well past the point of "free to create your own websites". That freedom is very much hanging by a thread at this point. A major role of government is to stop people within its jurisdiction attacking each other and implementing mob rule. That isn't happening in this case.