Trump-backed Truth Social tops Apple's app store charts
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
I assume the disparity has to do with bots trying to futz with numbers in the mobile stores because I legitimately do not understand how a human might purposefully download an app but never open it on their device. That said, articles like these lack this context, are generally disingenuous, and don't track anything but a single point in time.
Let's have a chat in 9-12 months and see where it's at.
While I'm an outlier at 3 devices, I expect a few people are in a similar situation. Others even share the ID with family to avoid paying apps more than once (yes, I know family sharing exists, I'm not the one who's doing that).
I wonder what the over/under will be on how soon after launch it'll need to ban its first user. My bet is 3 months after launch, but maybe this will become Al Qaeda's new platform de jour!
Now there will be platforms where conservative speech wont be censored.
And worse (lol) is that blue circle people might get tired of the spoonfed stuff and go for a look. There is currently no where for isolated leftists to go to see what the right is about.
In the end, the echo chamber dies. But it might be like fiat currency.... It can go a very long time, lifetimes even maybe.
Trump himself wasn't even banned until he crossed a line that had nothing to do with his conservative beliefs.
I don't see absolutes in reality very often either (if ever, if anywhere).
That's not the issue - which you may not know if your information sources air gap you from exposure to what gets banned by safely boxing it up as mis/dis/mal-information and move on - "nothing to see here, just fringe lunatics".
It's less a "conservative" issue, but can get painted that way because it's circumstantially adjacent at present, but may not be in the future. But more like banning anything opposed to orthodoxy as established/coordinated between government and private institutions. Look at how much speech about COVID was banned that is now reluctantly accepted, and how much is still banned. We all look at this and say disease shouldn't be politicized, but here politics is just a proxy for a core issue of censorship. It's hard to understand how people can call it anything other than censorship as it's mechanically exactly that. See note [1], etc. This classification of mis/dis/mal info also affects political (policy) opinions that are considered "unacceptable", hence the overlap with conservative politics.
[1] https://archive.is/PwIQr (https://www.wsj.com/articles/censorship-coordination-deepens...)
Classifying misinformation is not a partisan activity, just because one of the two US political parties engages more freely in lies and deceit.
The GOP does not hold a monopoly on conservative views and values, it's just one group of people making collective decisions that are objectively bad for everyone.
What’ll be funny is when that stark reality hits home, and the only uniquely allowed speech will be actual hate speech, that unambiguously evil stuff that pulls the mask off too far and gets banned for it.
Best thing you can do is zoom out and stop playing tribal politics because as soon as you do, you'll realize both sides are equally disgusting. The left happens to have the weight of the establishment and institutions so they have more power/influence so I can see why you think the right is nastier. Giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
I've voted for presidents from both parties. Have you?
> both sides
Sure.
> are equally disgusting
I disagree.
We must be on different internets, because where I am, it's definitely more than one political group, and it certainly is not limited to any particular area of the political spectrum. Everyone likes to think they're fighting the fight of the righteous, but very few actually are. Hell, if you look at a history of Trump and AOC's twitter feeds (back when Trump was on Twitter obviously), the tone is practically identical which is disturbing on a number of levels.
Already happened (assuming this isn't fake): https://twitter.com/MattOrtega/status/1496006497389666306
Some excerpts from the Terms of Service [0] (in no particular order):
> you may not post any false, unlawful, threatening, defamatory, harassing or misleading statements;
> your Interactive Content should not contain discriminatory references based on religion, race, gender, national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or disability;
> your Interactive Content should not contain profanity, or abusive or racist, language;
> your Contributions do not advocate or incite, encourage, or threaten physical harm against another.
> your Contributions are not false, inaccurate, or misleading.
> your Contributions are not obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing, libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable.
> your Contributions do not otherwise violate, or link to material that violates, any provision of these Terms of Service, or any applicable laws, rules or regulations.
> in our sole discretion and without limitation, refuse, restrict access to, limit the availability of, or disable (to the extent technologically feasible) any of your Contributions or any portion thereof;
...it's going to be a ghost town if they enforce these, and it'll get deplatformed if they don't.
Not just the government, but collusion with institutional and social media creates a profit incentive to sow discord, divisiveness. I was alive in the eighties and remember the religious right - the attitudinal support from mainstream media, etc. Today's politics look like a secular religious left. Not much different in the dynamic of the followers/leaders, the social glare they cast, the censorship. We really do learn nothing from the past - we all think we're living in 'unprecedented times' but I see more of the same, every year.
Oh, I think the media understands this quite well. What they understand even better is that: Trump = Rage = Eyeballs = Ad $$$
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/when-politicians...
The target group is likely banned from other social networks. But they aren't illegal.
Hate him or love him. He has identified a good market, and he has the competitive advantage.
Assuming he doesn't fuck up the technical details, this might have a chance.
What the users of this app really want, is somewhere they can write their complaints, ie vent their angst, without being cross examined.
Tell that to Parler. Or news stories censored as "misinformation" during an election (e.g. Biden laptop). Or people talking about COVID origins/therapeutics. Or specific criticism of China (e.g. Daryl Morey). Regardless of your alignment politically, the mechanics of censorship are what they are. The "target group" is a wildcard - any position that competently challenges/threatens the established order, even if that established order is the appearance of control. Today there may be a common thread between the issues above, but I tend to think that's one of convenience. Several decades ago, it wasn't conservatives complaining about censorship. The parties will revolve according to the orthodoxy of the day. Fundamentally it's a question of political principles (which should transcend - that is to say, stay consistent regardless of - parties, contemporary crises). What do you really believe in, politically, otherwise? The Party?
It was somewhat funny to watch them completely blow their one moment in time due to sheer incompetence.
Back to the original point, there you go. That is the market trump's social network targets.
I think the "funny" you express may be schadenfreude based on your political alignment, but there are some transcendent and substantive issues of political principles that are worth examining (and I feel, criticizing) regardless of one's blue team/red team alignment. By transcendent, I mean these problems come back to bite both the red team and the blue team in time. This is classic "Cast it into the fire" type stuff.
Correction: users with certain political beliefs.
I don't agree with those beliefs but these users certainly exist