Far-Right Superstars Are Failing on Rumble. Who’s Winning?

I find it remarkable the way relatively subtle differences in tech can make for a large difference in appeal to difference audiences. I didn't (and still don't completely) understand what makes Facebook different from Twitter, but the users make them rather different places. Radio works well for right-wing content, but not left wing, and no left-wing news channel is anywhere close to Fox News. But Fox News tried and failed to do a version of The Daily Show; the format somehow just doesn't work for them.

Some of this is surely just the vagaries of celebrity, and you never know what works and what doesn't. But one thing I think Rumble misses is the kind of performances that get one kicked off of a major social media site don't actually translate well to a different site even with the same schtick and a nearly identical tech. Those performances work in part because they feel transgressive on that site. They require people to be outraged by them, and their fans appreciate that they outrage people.

A "free speech" site doesn't provide the same feeling because it doesn't provide anything new. They're not breaking any boundaries, or any news. It's harder to claim that they're bringing you suppressed information if it's right there and at no risk of being banned.

It's seemingly impossible to guess what's going to click for an audience. Movies, singers, etc. seem to come out of nowhere to defy the conventional wisdom. So it doesn't really mean anything for me to explain anything after the fact; even if correct it doesn't mean that the risk wasn't worth taking.

But I believe it's important to take note of the way social media is performative: people go to be seen, not just by their friends by also by an imagined broader audience. It may be hard to get traction with "free speech" if it's not pushing against some kind of boundary.