9 ms·

It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. They’re not offering freer speech, they

It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. They’re not offering freer speech, they’re offering a safe space. Maybe that’s a seller, maybe it’s not, but it’s an important distinction. This is really just /r/conservative taken to its logical conclusion.

hntossaccount12 6y ago
I suspect we will continue to see services that unbundle social media's hottest topics. Social media may have created an outrage economy -- a subset of the attention economy. But like ebay, craigslist, etc, the social media platforms' broad focus means their product can't specialize when strong trends emerge. The outrage will be unbundled by niche companies. I actually think this is a good thing. Seeing conspiracy theories on the same platform as your cousin's family photos, or nobel winners, has a legitimacy-building effect on the outrage content. Maybe on its own platform it will look more like what it actually is. Nobody mistakes the tabloids in the checkout aisle for a legitimate newspaper.
- entropea 6y ago
  >I suspect we will continue to see services that unbundle social media's hottest topics. I'd love to see people go back to early 2000's PHPBB-similar specific topic/hobby/interest forums with tens to hundreds, maybe a couple thousand members. The good days.
  - jrnichols 6y ago
    I wouldn't even mind seeing more actual usenet groups again. but then the same problems will creep up again. and spam. relentless spam. in my view, spam and spammers are the worst thing that happened to forums. a constant arms race against spammers and then script kiddie types trying to break into forums, often so they could spam even more ads. but I like the sentiment. there are still plenty of phpBB type forums out there, and I like them. It's much better than having everything hidden away behind the barbed wire wall of Facebook Groups.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, I agree there is a positive to isolating the worst of social media off on a separate site. On the other hand, we're (maybe) just starting to see Facebook etc take some action on the worst elements of social media. This subverts that and makes it harder for Facebook to take further action in the future: shareholders will rightfully ask "what if you lose even more users by banning <socially negative thing>". Also, the bad thing about fb etc is that they just want to sell you advertising. But that's also the good thing, Facebook don't care about your politics, they don't particularly want to influence you as a person, they just want you to click on ads for shit you don't need. I wonder about other social networks, eventually someone will weaponise one, and sell votes rather than clicks. Is this the start of that? An expressly Conservative social network is much better placed to sell souls than clicks...
  - faitswulff 6y ago
    Inevitably these kinds of safe spaces for hate speech lead to hate crimes: https://www.wired.com/story/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-gab-tree-of-life/ https://www.wired.com/story/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-ga... As long as the FBI are aware and can prevent these things, I suppose it's a nice honeypot, but if not then it's a literal weaponization of social media.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I actually hadn't thought of that side of it but you're right. This must be a good source to see what groups and where on the spectrum of "unhappy to planning sedition"...
    - ch4s3 6y ago
      I'm not sure that we can provably say that they LEAD to crimes. I think there's a strong case to be made that people interested in carrying out these crimes find like minded people online and engage in meme culture. You can probably make a good case that things like 8chan encourage copy-cat elements in these attacks. I'm just not quite sure the case has been convincingly made that internet cess pools generate crime that would't otherwise happen. I could probably be convinced otherwise, but I'm not sure.
- npsimons 6y ago
  > Nobody mistakes the tabloids in the checkout aisle for a legitimate newspaper. This is the first good argument I've heard for the alt-right abandoning platforms with some standards of veracity, and it's an excellent idea. Sort of like how everyone knows what 4chan is about, and the moment you hear someone repeat some Qanon stuff you know you can stop listening.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    'Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Qanon the wise? I thought not. It's not a story the Liberal Media would tell you. It's a Conservative legend.' (Please note, I'm not equating Conservatives with the Sith, here. I'm making the point that a story being censored can make it seem more interesting and more credible, even if it is heard from a source that is deemed disreputable by some).
- joezydeco 6y ago
  I suspect we will continue to see services that unbundle social media's hottest topics. I've seen this before with Usenet groups that got too bogged down with infighting and trolls, so splinter groups formed off on handmade vBulletin/phpbb sites or wherever. They always imploded shortly afterward. A safe space eventually falls to the same splintering, just in more fractal detail. Some of them survive the implosion and come out of the wreckage in okay condition, but a lot never come back. Clay called it right, 17 years ago. https://www.gwern.net/docs/technology/2005-shirky-agroupisitsownworstenemy.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/technology/2005-shirky-agroupisit...
  - zzzeek 6y ago
    thanks for sharing what a great read! "And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, because they were being overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn’t defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying, “No, that’s not the kind of free speech we meant.” But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn’t have, and in the end, they simply shut the site down."
  - chillacy 6y ago
    That was an awesome article, I really wish I read it sooner. So many of today’s problems are predicted within. My favorite parts: 1. Designing Social software is as different from UX design as UX is from bare functionality. 2. Tech groups are not immune from using “vilification of external enemies” to increase group cohesion, where enemies included Microsoft in the 90s, it’s probably surveillance capitalism today. 3. Unrestrained social software can lead to constitutional crisis: the tension between individuals and group, the rights and responsibilities of each, what’s the social contract for an online community? That’s more political science than computer science.
refurb 6y ago
Do you have an example of what was censored? Was it "I disagree with Trump's approach to foreign policy..." or was it thousands of spam messages?
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  They banned anyone parodying Conservatives and also anyone voicing support for antifa. https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-it https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-... They also banned fake accounts pretending to be well known people and accounts engaged in illegal activity (death threats etc). I'm fine with that personally, I don't expect them to operate a totally "free" speech service and somehow weather all the lawsuits that brings. I think this is a nice case study in how free speech inevitably conflicts with keeping majority opinions happy. The fact that they folded on freedom to get/keep people with such thin skin so sort of tells you what their business model really is imho. Cest la vie.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Huh. Well I guess that's the problem. It's hard to have a forum with productive conversations if you aren't willing to filter out "noise", but not everyone agrees with what the noise is. But one could argue (and I'm not arguing that it's the case here), one could have different rules around what's allowed versus Twitter, and it could be a more open forum, but still censored (trolls, deaths threats, "fk you" posts).
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I'm happy enough with banning things you have to ban legally and banning pointless comments. But banning anyone supporting antifa is a pretty clear breach. The parody ban (especially the selective application) is another clear breach of free speech. I'd be content enough if they were upfront and said this is a place for "Conservative opinions only" rather than "free speech". I'd even agree that's their right and that they might get more open and productive discussion that way at least in some cases. But it's just not free speech. I think that's what frustrates me about this: it's the hypocrisy. I actually hold a few Conservative opinions myself. But i wouldn't ban people from disagreeing with me AND claim to support free speech...
spacemanmatt 6y ago
That is exactly what I would expect from a social media platform with Mercers investing in it. (flush)
gameswithgo 6y ago
I was banned from r/conservative in a discussion about trump handling the coronavirus seriously. I posted a timeline of quotes from him "only 15 cases soon to be none etc" indicating he had not taken it seriously early. Banned after that. Which is fine, I feel that people should be free to form any clubs/groups they want.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I agree broadly though I'd add two caveats: They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. I think people should be able to form their groups as they like. But that doesn't mean that that group is a healthy place or that it doesn't harm wider society. I'm also not clear whether this is a group of people forming under their own initiative (as is their democratic right). Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. That second option is much less democractic and would (imho at least) be open to investigation and regulation like any other campaign activity. Hopefully it's not that, it's just someone trying to launch twitter 2.0 and make some cash. What a mess! :)
  - singemonkey 6y ago
    > They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. Sorry, but they can and do. This is a group of people that will happily shut down your speech while proclaiming themselves to be the defenders of free speech and liberty. They will happily insult you, but are quick to play victim and complain about being oppressed and harassed and insulted.
  - npsimons 6y ago
    > Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. Let's not jump to conclusions, otherwise we are as guilty of the credulity we are casting on them (Soros bucks, anyone?). Until there is hard evidence of this, please don't bandy it about.
    - cowmoo728 6y ago
smbullet 6y ago
Do you have a source for this? Genuinely curious and couldn't find anything searching myself.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-it https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-... To be clear, it makes sense to ban fake accounts proporting to be well known people and people breaking the law. Banning anyone with views you dislike and anyone paroding conservatives is where it gets censourous.
  - smbullet 6y ago
    > It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. Thanks for the link but nothing in that article supports this comment. The only mention of content not allowed is: 1. Matze's post about spam, NSFW content, and death threats not being allowed (https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/2020-07/parler.jpg?itok=nnm7hUKq https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public...) and 2. Matze's post about banning the accounts of a group of ANTIFA supporters (https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn). This image was linked without any context (perhaps because Matze posted this without any context) so we don't know why these accounts were banned.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      >A seeming blanket ban of Antifa supporters
  - orblivion 6y ago
    One possible take is that there's a fundamental difference between banning opinions and banning presentation. You could ban spam, impersonations, doxxing, all harassment and insults, posting fecal matter, porn, racial and other epithets, and so forth, but still be able to discuss the related crazy ideas (holocaust denial, child porn legalization, etc). I think this preserves the most important part of free speech.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Source: https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-it https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-...
- sundarurfriend 6y ago
  Relevant parts (reply to add if I left anything out): > Trolls hoping to test the boundaries of Parler’s commitment to free speech and get a rise out of its users began, often vulgarly, impersonating prominent Trump supporters and conservative publications. > Parler responded by banning the impersonating accounts, including some inoffensive parodies. (The linked article seems to have some bias towards supporting Parler, so they may be giving Parler the benefit of doubt and framing it as a reasonable measure. BTW, kudos to parent comment for linking to a source like this - because of the article's bias towards Parler, there's no doubt to a random reader like me that these bans happened, as opposed to if it was reported by a politically opposed source. ) > A seeming[1] blanket ban of Antifa supporters from the platform, announced by founder John Matze, might be similarly understood as an antiharassment measure. (Here the linked image seems to be implying that planned brigading was going on, to prompt the ban.) [1] https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn
  - iooi 6y ago
    Obviously the cato institute would be biased in favor of Parler.
    - sundarurfriend 6y ago
      Not to me - where it says "random reader" in my comment above, replace that with "clueless outsider".
orblivion 6y ago
This may be the best we can get. Different places banning different things. But they need to be honest so people know what they're getting into. Twitter is a progressive space. I'm curious if Gab bans support of antifa. They couldn't claim it's about indirectly inciting violence, because they come close to the line when it comes to Nazi opinions. They do ban porn, which is fine with me. There's plenty of porn and it doesn't benefit from a network effect the same way. And I'm glad every place bans spam.
baby 6y ago
I remember the same happening to reddit conservatives floating to voat
- sonotathrowaway 6y ago
  That happened after /r/DonaldTrump began calling for the murder of police officers in Democrat controlled areas and reddit held that calls for violence violated their TOS.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
This sounds like fake news. I doubt the first thing that Parler did was censor anyone, they probably first sent out advertisements to tell people of their existence.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  No, they probably came up with the name before that, and had discussions about starting a twitter competitor even earlier. I can pretend to miss the point by an even wider mark without even trying.
zarkov99 6y ago
Can you elaborate? How did they do this?
BuzzwordBingo 6y ago
So it’s a walled cess pool.

hntossaccount12 6y ago

I suspect we will continue to see services that unbundle social media's hottest topics. Social media may have created an outrage economy -- a subset of the attention economy. But like ebay, craigslist, etc, the social media platforms' broad focus means their product can't specialize when strong trends emerge. The outrage will be unbundled by niche companies. I actually think this is a good thing. Seeing conspiracy theories on the same platform as your cousin's family photos, or nobel winners, has a legitimacy-building effect on the outrage content. Maybe on its own platform it will look more like what it actually is. Nobody mistakes the tabloids in the checkout aisle for a legitimate newspaper.

entropea 6y ago
>I suspect we will continue to see services that unbundle social media's hottest topics. I'd love to see people go back to early 2000's PHPBB-similar specific topic/hobby/interest forums with tens to hundreds, maybe a couple thousand members. The good days.
- jrnichols 6y ago
  I wouldn't even mind seeing more actual usenet groups again. but then the same problems will creep up again. and spam. relentless spam. in my view, spam and spammers are the worst thing that happened to forums. a constant arms race against spammers and then script kiddie types trying to break into forums, often so they could spam even more ads. but I like the sentiment. there are still plenty of phpBB type forums out there, and I like them. It's much better than having everything hidden away behind the barbed wire wall of Facebook Groups.
LatteLazy 6y ago
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, I agree there is a positive to isolating the worst of social media off on a separate site. On the other hand, we're (maybe) just starting to see Facebook etc take some action on the worst elements of social media. This subverts that and makes it harder for Facebook to take further action in the future: shareholders will rightfully ask "what if you lose even more users by banning <socially negative thing>". Also, the bad thing about fb etc is that they just want to sell you advertising. But that's also the good thing, Facebook don't care about your politics, they don't particularly want to influence you as a person, they just want you to click on ads for shit you don't need. I wonder about other social networks, eventually someone will weaponise one, and sell votes rather than clicks. Is this the start of that? An expressly Conservative social network is much better placed to sell souls than clicks...
- faitswulff 6y ago
  Inevitably these kinds of safe spaces for hate speech lead to hate crimes: https://www.wired.com/story/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-gab-tree-of-life/ https://www.wired.com/story/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-ga... As long as the FBI are aware and can prevent these things, I suppose it's a nice honeypot, but if not then it's a literal weaponization of social media.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I actually hadn't thought of that side of it but you're right. This must be a good source to see what groups and where on the spectrum of "unhappy to planning sedition"...
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    I'm not sure that we can provably say that they LEAD to crimes. I think there's a strong case to be made that people interested in carrying out these crimes find like minded people online and engage in meme culture. You can probably make a good case that things like 8chan encourage copy-cat elements in these attacks. I'm just not quite sure the case has been convincingly made that internet cess pools generate crime that would't otherwise happen. I could probably be convinced otherwise, but I'm not sure.
npsimons 6y ago
> Nobody mistakes the tabloids in the checkout aisle for a legitimate newspaper. This is the first good argument I've heard for the alt-right abandoning platforms with some standards of veracity, and it's an excellent idea. Sort of like how everyone knows what 4chan is about, and the moment you hear someone repeat some Qanon stuff you know you can stop listening.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  'Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Qanon the wise? I thought not. It's not a story the Liberal Media would tell you. It's a Conservative legend.' (Please note, I'm not equating Conservatives with the Sith, here. I'm making the point that a story being censored can make it seem more interesting and more credible, even if it is heard from a source that is deemed disreputable by some).
joezydeco 6y ago
I suspect we will continue to see services that unbundle social media's hottest topics. I've seen this before with Usenet groups that got too bogged down with infighting and trolls, so splinter groups formed off on handmade vBulletin/phpbb sites or wherever. They always imploded shortly afterward. A safe space eventually falls to the same splintering, just in more fractal detail. Some of them survive the implosion and come out of the wreckage in okay condition, but a lot never come back. Clay called it right, 17 years ago. https://www.gwern.net/docs/technology/2005-shirky-agroupisitsownworstenemy.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/technology/2005-shirky-agroupisit...
- zzzeek 6y ago
  thanks for sharing what a great read! "And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, because they were being overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn’t defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying, “No, that’s not the kind of free speech we meant.” But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn’t have, and in the end, they simply shut the site down."
- chillacy 6y ago
  That was an awesome article, I really wish I read it sooner. So many of today’s problems are predicted within. My favorite parts: 1. Designing Social software is as different from UX design as UX is from bare functionality. 2. Tech groups are not immune from using “vilification of external enemies” to increase group cohesion, where enemies included Microsoft in the 90s, it’s probably surveillance capitalism today. 3. Unrestrained social software can lead to constitutional crisis: the tension between individuals and group, the rights and responsibilities of each, what’s the social contract for an online community? That’s more political science than computer science.

refurb 6y ago

Do you have an example of what was censored? Was it "I disagree with Trump's approach to foreign policy..." or was it thousands of spam messages?

LatteLazy 6y ago
They banned anyone parodying Conservatives and also anyone voicing support for antifa. https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-it https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-... They also banned fake accounts pretending to be well known people and accounts engaged in illegal activity (death threats etc). I'm fine with that personally, I don't expect them to operate a totally "free" speech service and somehow weather all the lawsuits that brings. I think this is a nice case study in how free speech inevitably conflicts with keeping majority opinions happy. The fact that they folded on freedom to get/keep people with such thin skin so sort of tells you what their business model really is imho. Cest la vie.
- refurb 6y ago
  Huh. Well I guess that's the problem. It's hard to have a forum with productive conversations if you aren't willing to filter out "noise", but not everyone agrees with what the noise is. But one could argue (and I'm not arguing that it's the case here), one could have different rules around what's allowed versus Twitter, and it could be a more open forum, but still censored (trolls, deaths threats, "fk you" posts).
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I'm happy enough with banning things you have to ban legally and banning pointless comments. But banning anyone supporting antifa is a pretty clear breach. The parody ban (especially the selective application) is another clear breach of free speech. I'd be content enough if they were upfront and said this is a place for "Conservative opinions only" rather than "free speech". I'd even agree that's their right and that they might get more open and productive discussion that way at least in some cases. But it's just not free speech. I think that's what frustrates me about this: it's the hypocrisy. I actually hold a few Conservative opinions myself. But i wouldn't ban people from disagreeing with me AND claim to support free speech...

spacemanmatt 6y ago

That is exactly what I would expect from a social media platform with Mercers investing in it. (flush)

gameswithgo 6y ago

I was banned from r/conservative in a discussion about trump handling the coronavirus seriously. I posted a timeline of quotes from him "only 15 cases soon to be none etc" indicating he had not taken it seriously early. Banned after that. Which is fine, I feel that people should be free to form any clubs/groups they want.

LatteLazy 6y ago
I agree broadly though I'd add two caveats: They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. I think people should be able to form their groups as they like. But that doesn't mean that that group is a healthy place or that it doesn't harm wider society. I'm also not clear whether this is a group of people forming under their own initiative (as is their democratic right). Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. That second option is much less democractic and would (imho at least) be open to investigation and regulation like any other campaign activity. Hopefully it's not that, it's just someone trying to launch twitter 2.0 and make some cash. What a mess! :)
- singemonkey 6y ago
  > They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. Sorry, but they can and do. This is a group of people that will happily shut down your speech while proclaiming themselves to be the defenders of free speech and liberty. They will happily insult you, but are quick to play victim and complain about being oppressed and harassed and insulted.
- npsimons 6y ago
  > Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. Let's not jump to conclusions, otherwise we are as guilty of the credulity we are casting on them (Soros bucks, anyone?). Until there is hard evidence of this, please don't bandy it about.
  - cowmoo728 6y ago

smbullet 6y ago

Do you have a source for this? Genuinely curious and couldn't find anything searching myself.

LatteLazy 6y ago
https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-it https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-... To be clear, it makes sense to ban fake accounts proporting to be well known people and people breaking the law. Banning anyone with views you dislike and anyone paroding conservatives is where it gets censourous.
- smbullet 6y ago
  > It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. Thanks for the link but nothing in that article supports this comment. The only mention of content not allowed is: 1. Matze's post about spam, NSFW content, and death threats not being allowed (https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/2020-07/parler.jpg?itok=nnm7hUKq https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public...) and 2. Matze's post about banning the accounts of a group of ANTIFA supporters (https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn). This image was linked without any context (perhaps because Matze posted this without any context) so we don't know why these accounts were banned.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    >A seeming blanket ban of Antifa supporters
- orblivion 6y ago
  One possible take is that there's a fundamental difference between banning opinions and banning presentation. You could ban spam, impersonations, doxxing, all harassment and insults, posting fecal matter, porn, racial and other epithets, and so forth, but still be able to discuss the related crazy ideas (holocaust denial, child porn legalization, etc). I think this preserves the most important part of free speech.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Source: https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-it https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-...

sundarurfriend 6y ago
Relevant parts (reply to add if I left anything out): > Trolls hoping to test the boundaries of Parler’s commitment to free speech and get a rise out of its users began, often vulgarly, impersonating prominent Trump supporters and conservative publications. > Parler responded by banning the impersonating accounts, including some inoffensive parodies. (The linked article seems to have some bias towards supporting Parler, so they may be giving Parler the benefit of doubt and framing it as a reasonable measure. BTW, kudos to parent comment for linking to a source like this - because of the article's bias towards Parler, there's no doubt to a random reader like me that these bans happened, as opposed to if it was reported by a politically opposed source. ) > A seeming[1] blanket ban of Antifa supporters from the platform, announced by founder John Matze, might be similarly understood as an antiharassment measure. (Here the linked image seems to be implying that planned brigading was going on, to prompt the ban.) [1] https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn
- iooi 6y ago
  Obviously the cato institute would be biased in favor of Parler.
  - sundarurfriend 6y ago
    Not to me - where it says "random reader" in my comment above, replace that with "clueless outsider".

orblivion 6y ago

This may be the best we can get. Different places banning different things. But they need to be honest so people know what they're getting into. Twitter is a progressive space. I'm curious if Gab bans support of antifa. They couldn't claim it's about indirectly inciting violence, because they come close to the line when it comes to Nazi opinions. They do ban porn, which is fine with me. There's plenty of porn and it doesn't benefit from a network effect the same way. And I'm glad every place bans spam.

baby 6y ago

I remember the same happening to reddit conservatives floating to voat

sonotathrowaway 6y ago
That happened after /r/DonaldTrump began calling for the murder of police officers in Democrat controlled areas and reddit held that calls for violence violated their TOS.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

This sounds like fake news. I doubt the first thing that Parler did was censor anyone, they probably first sent out advertisements to tell people of their existence.

pessimizer 6y ago
No, they probably came up with the name before that, and had discussions about starting a twitter competitor even earlier. I can pretend to miss the point by an even wider mark without even trying.

zarkov99 6y ago

Can you elaborate? How did they do this?

BuzzwordBingo 6y ago

So it’s a walled cess pool.