Donald Trump's social network set to arrive in "two to three months"

[midian182]

Recap: Despite his previous predilection for Twitter as an announcement platform, Donald Trump had a strained relationship with social media during his time in office. Having recently been banned from Facebook and Twitter, the former president may soon start a social network of his own.

Senior Trump adviser Jason Miller told Fox News' Mediabuzz that the 45th president would be returning to social media "in probably about two or three months" with "his own platform." Miller never went into detail about the service, such as whether it would be more akin to Twitter or Facebook, but he did say it would "redefine the game" and attract tens of millions of users.

"This is something that I think will be the hottest ticket in social media," Miller said. "It's going to completely redefine the game and everybody is going to be waiting and watching to see what President Trump does, but it will be his own platform."

Big social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat blocked Trump from posting on their sites following the Capitol riots in January, claiming he was using the accounts to incite violence.

While Twitter alternatives such as Parler and Gab have shown there is an audience for conservative-leaning platforms, the biggest problem could be the actual creation of Donald Trump's social network. Apple, Google, and Amazon previously banned Parler, and it's unlikely that the latter two, along with Microsoft, would welcome Trump onto their cloud services. He could, however, turn to foreign alternatives.

Deadline notes that Stripe and Shopify have cut ties with Trump and stores affiliated with him, so finding a payment processor for his new platform may also prove problematic.

Trump may also have to deal with limitations on the Communications Decency Act's Section 230 that he pushed for during his tenure, a response to Twitter slapping fact-checking labels on some of his tweets. Section 230 prevents internet companies from being responsible for user content. If this is repealed, Trump may face lawsuits for the posts, videos, and images users share on his site.

Center image - CNN

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/88994-donald-trump-social-network-set-arrive-two-three.html

 

[noel24]

More like D'umpLitter.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

He has every right to create his own social media.

In fact: I’ve constantly said that I was tired of hearing conservatives complaining about how they were being censored by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. and that they should create their own social media services.

Some of my content for example gets censored by YouTube/Facebook and I need an alternative.

And this is exactly how the free market works.

When the people are not getting the goods or the services that they want from one private company, their option is to stop patronizing that company and leave and go to another company. If no other company exists that produces what they want then either someone can create a new company that will service their needs or they have them selves can create that new company.

It’s like shopping for a car.

But the real underlying issues are:

#1 the social media services are data mining operationsthey don’t want any competition because when people spread their information out it makes it harder for it all to be in one place – one convenient place.

#2. These people want to be in your face with their beliefs and ideologies and they don’t want you to sideline or marginalized them elsewhere. If Trump does have his on social media, most of Trump’s opposition is not going to join it and they are going to stay on Facebook and Twitter in their own echo chamber while only his followers are going to join his social media service. It leads to more division and tribalism/encampment..

I say: this is the best way to solve the issue. In the long run it will create more opportunity for aspiring content creators.

The Free Market is ALWAYS Right.

And just in case Apple and Google decide that they won’t carry his apps: I’m sure that there are more than enough conservatives with money, technical skills and app making abilities to create their own phones, their own tablets and their own computers if necessary.

If the free market deems their product and their service is viable than they will absolutely succeed in the long run and we will have more products, goods and services to choose from.

Frankly: I hate Facebook and their censorship nonsense and I would love to see them suddenly lose billions of dollars and millions of their supporters to the alternatives.

I think Twitter is stupid and I would love to see the same thing happened to them as well.

I’d also like an alternative to YouTube where I can be a content creator creating conservative style content and get paid without having to worry about being censored. Especially for my videos that have to do with the second amendment. Why should I automatically be censored for having a video about my A.R. 15 rifles or my Desert Eagle or my Kimber?

The answer is: that I shouldn’t be.

 

[Lozzy]

Twatter

 

[envirovore]

I can only hope security is as hilariously poor as it was on Gab or...what was that other loony right-wing one...

 

[Puiu]

Clownbook

 

[envirovore]

The Free Market is ALWAYS Right.

This right here conflicts hard with your stance that congress should do something about bitcoin mining and scalpers so gamers can get GPU's instead of botters, that right there is the free market in action, baby!

/is not pro mining or scalping

 

[fl21289]

Sign me up.

He has every right to create his own social media.

In fact: I’ve constantly said that I was tired of hearing conservatives complaining about how they were being censored by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. and that they should create their own social media services.

Some of my content for example gets censored by YouTube/Facebook and I need an alternative.

And this is exactly how the free market works.

When the people are not getting the goods or the services that they want from one private company, their option is to stop patronizing that company and leave and go to another company. If no other company exists that produces what they want then either someone can create a new company that will service their needs or they have them selves can create that new company.

It’s like shopping for a car.

But the real underlying issues are:

#1 the social media services are data mining operationsthey don’t want any competition because when people spread their information out it makes it harder for it all to be in one place – one convenient place.

#2. These people want to be in your face with their beliefs and ideologies and they don’t want you to sideline or marginalized them elsewhere. If Trump does have his on social media, most of Trump’s opposition is not going to join it and they are going to stay on Facebook and Twitter in their own echo chamber while only his followers are going to join his social media service. It leads to more division and tribalism/encampment..

I say: this is the best way to solve the issue. In the long run it will create more opportunity for aspiring content creators.

The Free Market is ALWAYS Right.

And just in case Apple and Google decide that they won’t carry his apps: I’m sure that there are more than enough conservatives with money, technical skills and app making abilities to create their own phones, their own tablets and their own computers if necessary.

If the free market deems their product and their service is viable than they will absolutely succeed in the long run and we will have more products, goods and services to choose from.

Frankly: I hate Facebook and their censorship nonsense and I would love to see them suddenly lose billions of dollars and millions of their supporters to the alternatives.

I think Twitter is stupid and I would love to see the same thing happened to them as well.

I’d also like an alternative to YouTube where I can be a content creator creating conservative style content and get paid without having to worry about being censored. Especially for my videos that have to do with the second amendment. Why should I automatically be censored for having a video about my A.R. 15 rifles or my Desert Eagle or my Kimber?

The answer is: that I shouldn’t be.

I agree 100%! Sign me up

 

[duckofdeath]

He has every right to create his own social media.

In fact: I’ve constantly said that I was tired of hearing conservatives complaining about how they were being censored by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. and that they should create their own social media services.

Some of my content for example gets censored by YouTube/Facebook and I need an alternative.

And this is exactly how the free market works.

When the people are not getting the goods or the services that they want from one private company, their option is to stop patronizing that company and leave and go to another company. If no other company exists that produces what they want then either someone can create a new company that will service their needs or they have them selves can create that new company.

It’s like shopping for a car.

But the real underlying issues are:

#1 the social media services are data mining operationsthey don’t want any competition because when people spread their information out it makes it harder for it all to be in one place – one convenient place.

#2. These people want to be in your face with their beliefs and ideologies and they don’t want you to sideline or marginalized them elsewhere. If Trump does have his on social media, most of Trump’s opposition is not going to join it and they are going to stay on Facebook and Twitter in their own echo chamber while only his followers are going to join his social media service. It leads to more division and tribalism/encampment..

I say: this is the best way to solve the issue. In the long run it will create more opportunity for aspiring content creators.

The Free Market is ALWAYS Right.

And just in case Apple and Google decide that they won’t carry his apps: I’m sure that there are more than enough conservatives with money, technical skills and app making abilities to create their own phones, their own tablets and their own computers if necessary.

If the free market deems their product and their service is viable than they will absolutely succeed in the long run and we will have more products, goods and services to choose from.

Frankly: I hate Facebook and their censorship nonsense and I would love to see them suddenly lose billions of dollars and millions of their supporters to the alternatives.

I think Twitter is stupid and I would love to see the same thing happened to them as well.

I’d also like an alternative to YouTube where I can be a content creator creating conservative style content and get paid without having to worry about being censored. Especially for my videos that have to do with the second amendment. Why should I automatically be censored for having a video about my A.R. 15 rifles or my Desert Eagle or my Kimber?

The answer is: that I shouldn’t be.

Starting a fascist "social media" page doesn't automatically move billions from other services. That is not how any market works.

Good luck, with your little whiny hate page, though. Would be great if you'd stay off the sane part of the internet once that "supreme" network goes live. We won't miss you if you'd go away.

 

[VitalyT]

One thing certain about his social platform - it will be extremely anti-social.

And it will be the first social network to ban common sense as criminal.

 

[JKnight]

Will this come with his infrastructure and health care plan?

 

[McMurdeR]

"we think your platform is an echo chamber so we're going to build our own"

 

[wiyosaya]

As I see it, Dottard's Nest will absolutely censor posts that are not consistent with its views. He tried that on the existing media platforms and was told, since he was a public figure, he could not block users just because he wanted to. He will have that ability because it will be a private platform, and if he is not just a bag of hot air (IMO, not that he isn't anyway) in establishing the platform, the platform will censor things they do not agree with. I then hope that Congress passes the law he said he wanted where social media platforms cannot censor posts, and Dottard's Nest will be right back where it started.

Will this come with his infrastructure and health care plan?

Hey, better late than never!

Personally, I wonder if it will include instructions on how to steal an election.

 

[wiyosaya]

I can't form a complete sentence book?

 

[wiyosaya]

Blather

 

[OneSpeed]

It going to be one BIG troll pit.

 

[antiproduct]

I'm sure the Russians are working around the clock to get this setup for him.

 

[netman]

It will be dead upon arrival...! Who will kill it...?! Trump himself...!

 

[Neojt]

Do you think he will fence out Mexican Ip's ! lol

 

[terzaerian]

I'm sure their dedication to the principle of freedom of speech will be as deep as Parler's

 

[Tantor]

"The Free Market is ALWAYS Right..."

Not quite correct.

- A free market cannot exist when the primary corporations conspire to manipulate the public. It's called a monopoly. It's a federal crime. The public really has no defense unless the government steps in and either breaks up or otherwise throttles the corporations. That's what the Anti-Trust laws are for.

- The attacks on Trump were purely driven by vicious Leftist hatred. They had absolutely nothing to do with the free market or increasing profits for Amazon, Google, Facebook.

- Big Social Media is a public forum. Driving people out of a public forum is an extremely serious federal crime.

- Leftist Media has been heavily involved in suppressing the massive evidence of fraud during the recent election. This is what's called 'election tampering' and is an extremely serious crime.

 

[wiyosaya]

Not quite correct.

- A free market cannot exist when the primary corporations conspire to manipulate the public. It's called a monopoly. It's a federal crime. The public really has no defense unless the government steps in and either breaks up or otherwise throttles the corporations. That's what the Anti-Trust laws are for.

- The attacks on Trump were purely driven by vicious Leftist hatred. They had absolutely nothing to do with the free market or increasing profits for Amazon, Google, Facebook.

- Big Social Media is a public forum. Driving people out of a public forum is an extremely serious federal crime.

- Leftist Media has been heavily involved in suppressing the massive evidence of fraud during the recent election. This is what's called 'election tampering' and is an extremely serious crime.

Leftists, Leftists, Leftists. As if those on the right are perfect and have nothing to do with the situation. And, as if Trumpy's daily twitter fits were not driven by pure hatred.

And I assume you have incontrovertible evidence that 1.) The media suppressed evidence of Voter Fraud or 2.) Voter Fraud itself. Without either, there is no evidence. In fact, 60+ court cases were decided on the basis of no evidence; and beyond that, even Trumpy's lawyers said, in court, under oath, they had no evidence of voter fraud https://www.phillymag.com/news/2020/11/11/voter-fraud-pennsylvania-lawsuits/ yet expected that the courts would rule in their favor based on hearsay evidence. Talk about living in an alternate reality. Given Trumpy's lawyers' admission of having no evidence of voter fraud in court, I wonder what it will take to convince Trumpy's followers of the obvious: There was no evidence of voter fraud. Hint: Because Trumpy said so is not evidence.

 

[terzaerian]

- Big Social Media is a public forum. Driving people out of a public forum is an extremely serious federal crime.

I really don't see how the "it's a private website that sets its own policy" argument holds up, when Trump gets successfully sued because he blocked other users while President.

Trump sued again for blocking people on Twitter

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed a new lawsuit against Trump for keeping several Twitter users blocked on his @RealDonaldTrump account.

www.politico.com

Which is it? If he's a private user on a private platform, he should have been able to block anyone he wanted.

 

[psycros]

Leftists, Leftists, Leftists. As if those on the right are perfect and have nothing to do with the situation. And, as if Trumpy's daily twitter fits were not driven by pure hatred.

And I assume you have incontrovertible evidence that 1.) The media suppressed evidence of Voter Fraud or 2.) Voter Fraud itself. Without either, there is no evidence. In fact, 60+ court cases were decided on the basis of no evidence; and beyond that, even Trumpy's lawyers said, in court, under oath, they had no evidence of voter fraud https://www.phillymag.com/news/2020/11/11/voter-fraud-pennsylvania-lawsuits/ yet expected that the courts would rule in their favor based on hearsay evidence. Talk about living in an alternate reality. Given Trumpy's lawyers' admission of having no evidence of voter fraud in court, I wonder what it will take to convince Trumpy's followers of the obvious: There was no evidence of voter fraud. Hint: Because Trumpy said so is not evidence.

There was tons of evidence. The courts, which were bought off by Facebook, simply refused to hear that evidence. Time Magazine already exposed the entire conspiracy to steal the election..what rock have you been under?

 

[wiyosaya]

I really don't see how the "it's a private website that sets its own policy" argument holds up, when Trump gets successfully sued because he blocked other users while President.

Trump sued again for blocking people on Twitter

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed a new lawsuit against Trump for keeping several Twitter users blocked on his @RealDonaldTrump account.

www.politico.com

Which is it? If he's a private user on a private platform, he should have been able to block anyone he wanted.

The thing is, the ruling was not against twitter. It was against Trump, as President, for blocking the user(s) - he was a public official. I think the basis for the ruling was that Trump could not, as a public official, do something that amounted to a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of user(s) he wanted to block.