12 ms·

I absolutely detest Trump and fully supported his removal from any and all platforms run by private companies much earlier than it happened, HOWEVER this is yet

I absolutely detest Trump and fully supported his removal from any and all platforms run by private companies much earlier than it happened, HOWEVER this is yet another indicator that our world runs through monopolies. They're holding back everything, including shareholders. Break. Them. Up.

krapp 5y ago
>HOWEVER this is yet another indicator that our world runs through monopolies. It indicates nothing of the sort. His site was on the public web, freely accessible to anyone with a browser. It was being shared on social media. There were no "monopolies" holding him back, rather, he's no longer politically relevant, so his garbage content isn't worth covering, and his base has all but lost interest in him.
- DrBenCarson 5y ago
  You’re telling me that if his posts had been on his Twitter, they would received the same amount of attention?
  - krapp 5y ago
    Possibly a bit more, but not much more. Certainly not the kind of attention they did prior. Being President was the reason for his popularity, not being on Twitter. He was tweeting from a personal account that he had prior to running, which no one cared about until he got into office and decided to make it his primary means of communication with the public. His content on Twitter was no better than on his blog, but when your shitposting can start a riot or maybe a war, people have to care. Yes, I do believe that, contrary to the narrative, Donald Trump no longer being President has more of an effect on his messaging power than his site not being hosted on one of the social media silos.
    - redis_mlc 5y ago
      You obviously have TDS: - Trump is still immensely popular, and in fact is the Republican party - Pelosi failing to provide additional Capitol security on Jan. 6 caused the riot, not the other way around - what you believe doesn't match reality.
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    What Sarah Palin thought was a thing for about 6 months after that election and then the media found something that trended better.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

krapp 5y ago

>HOWEVER this is yet another indicator that our world runs through monopolies. It indicates nothing of the sort. His site was on the public web, freely accessible to anyone with a browser. It was being shared on social media. There were no "monopolies" holding him back, rather, he's no longer politically relevant, so his garbage content isn't worth covering, and his base has all but lost interest in him.

DrBenCarson 5y ago
You’re telling me that if his posts had been on his Twitter, they would received the same amount of attention?
- krapp 5y ago
  Possibly a bit more, but not much more. Certainly not the kind of attention they did prior. Being President was the reason for his popularity, not being on Twitter. He was tweeting from a personal account that he had prior to running, which no one cared about until he got into office and decided to make it his primary means of communication with the public. His content on Twitter was no better than on his blog, but when your shitposting can start a riot or maybe a war, people have to care. Yes, I do believe that, contrary to the narrative, Donald Trump no longer being President has more of an effect on his messaging power than his site not being hosted on one of the social media silos.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    You obviously have TDS: - Trump is still immensely popular, and in fact is the Republican party - Pelosi failing to provide additional Capitol security on Jan. 6 caused the riot, not the other way around - what you believe doesn't match reality.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  What Sarah Palin thought was a thing for about 6 months after that election and then the media found something that trended better.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]