7 ms·

Trump-backed Truth Social tops Apple's app store charts

36 points by beefman 5y ago

TameAntelope 5y ago
Honestly, my expectations for this are that it will either completely flounder and never reach a steady operational state, or if it does, it will do nothing to quell the incessant chattering about free speech that seems to live rent free in the heads of one specific political group. 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!
- ipspam 5y ago
  Not the point. All platforms are going to have restrictions. The issue is they all have the exact same anti-conservative bias (or leftist hateful reporting overrepresentation that makes it easier to just throw up hands and issue bans) 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.
  - krapp 5y ago
    I see plenty of conservative speech on every social media platform I use (Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and HN.) I don't know where people get this idea that all social media platforms globally ban all conservative speech, and that it can only exist on Trump's platform. It's ridiculous, and demonstrably untrue. Trump himself wasn't even banned until he crossed a line that had nothing to do with his conservative beliefs.
    - aksss 5y ago
      > ban all conservative speech 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://archive.is/PwIQr (https://www.wsj.com/articles/censorship-coordination-deepens-11626474643 https://www.wsj.com/articles/censorship-coordination-deepens...)
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        It's not an intellectually honest argument to try and claim that scientific debate should or could be conducted on public social media, and once you accept the fact that public social media is violently harmful for that kind of discussion, you can see much more readily how non-partisan it is to remove all of it, with a prejudice towards the more proactively dangerous content (e.g. anti-vaxx promotion). 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.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Conservative speech didn’t get censored on other platforms… 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.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  One specific political group derives a lot of their personal identity from being nasty on social media and making it worse for everybody else. I think that's why this alternative platform will fail. I also think it's why they are crying about free speech: their biggest bullshit tool is social media and they don't want to lose that.
  - president 5y ago
    > "they" 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.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      > stop playing tribal politics I've voted for presidents from both parties. Have you? > both sides Sure. > are equally disgusting I disagree.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > One specific political group derives a lot of their personal identity from being nasty on social media and making it worse for everybody else. 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.
    - TrumpRapedWomen 5y ago
  - bitlax 5y ago
    Oh you're not so nice.
- kccoder 5y ago
  > 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! Already happened (assuming this isn't fake): https://twitter.com/MattOrtega/status/1496006497389666306 https://twitter.com/MattOrtega/status/1496006497389666306
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Oh no, guess I should have taken the under! 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. [0] https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/ https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  3 months after launch? I think 3 hours would be an optimistic time frame for first ban. On the one hand you have people who hate Trump from the left trolling, and on the other you have white supremacists and antisemitic people who must think they will be welcome on the platform.
michelb 5y ago
Pretty sure all the media attention for it gave it this status.
- api 5y ago
  People are still unable to understand this about Trump. When he makes you mad and you cover him, you are giving him publicity and that's what he wants.
  - kkoncevicius 5y ago
    Feeding on anger so that readers engage with you seems to be one the principle ways modern media operates. They cover Trump because their viewers get mad which translates into clicks which translates into ad revenue. I think making people hate Trump and at the same time keep talking about Trump is the business strategy here.
    - aksss 5y ago
      "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken 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.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > People are still unable to understand this about Trump. When he makes you mad and you cover him, you are giving him publicity and that's what he wants. Oh, I think the media understands this quite well. What they understand even better is that: Trump = Rage = Eyeballs = Ad $$$
garciasn 5y ago
Install -> First Open rates are less than 30%. 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.
- brnt 5y ago
  In the various leaks earlier, we already learned this is a heavily bottled "community". We should really not look at numbers so easily faked, and not let such actors so easily dictate our news.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Where did you find ‘First Open’ rates? I don’t think Apple tracks this?
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  From where to get this data for android or ios platform? Interested to find out about other apps and their open rates.
- irthomasthomas 5y ago
  I do that a lot. Normally it's because I see some interesting app pop up while I am looking for some other type of app, so I install that advertised app but carry on searching the app store for the thing I am after at the time. And sometimes I forget I installed it and never open it. So if this has been up for only a day or so then I dont think that tells us much.
- gruturo 5y ago
  I have 2 iphones and an ipad sharing the same Apple ID. If I install an app on my main phone, it will be installed on the other 2 devices automatically. 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).
ergocoder 5y ago
Trump is a top influencer. He was literally a US president. 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.
- leonk 5y ago
  No target group is “banned”. This is a narrative that exists in peoples minds only. What the users of this app really want, is somewhere they can write their complaints, ie vent their angst, without being cross examined.
  - aksss 5y ago
    > in people's minds only 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?
    - wutwut5521 5y ago
      The Parler situation was shoddy engineering, nothing else. They chose a hosting provider with a completely incompatible ToS for their application. There are thousands of “free speech” providers out there. To make an analogy, they tried to publish porn on their Disney.com profile. It was somewhat funny to watch them completely blow their one moment in time due to sheer incompetence.
tr_user 5y ago
It'll be yet another way to funnel money into the Trump organization. Ever wonder why politicians buy their own books? https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/when-politicians-buy-their-own-books https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/when-politicians...
jsnodlin 5y ago

36 points by beefman 5y ago

Honestly, my expectations for this are that it will either completely flounder and never reach a steady operational state, or if it does, it will do nothing to quell the incessant chattering about free speech that seems to live rent free in the heads of one specific political group. 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!

ipspam 5y ago
Not the point. All platforms are going to have restrictions. The issue is they all have the exact same anti-conservative bias (or leftist hateful reporting overrepresentation that makes it easier to just throw up hands and issue bans) 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.
- krapp 5y ago
  I see plenty of conservative speech on every social media platform I use (Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and HN.) I don't know where people get this idea that all social media platforms globally ban all conservative speech, and that it can only exist on Trump's platform. It's ridiculous, and demonstrably untrue. Trump himself wasn't even banned until he crossed a line that had nothing to do with his conservative beliefs.
  - aksss 5y ago
    > ban all conservative speech 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://archive.is/PwIQr (https://www.wsj.com/articles/censorship-coordination-deepens-11626474643 https://www.wsj.com/articles/censorship-coordination-deepens...)
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      It's not an intellectually honest argument to try and claim that scientific debate should or could be conducted on public social media, and once you accept the fact that public social media is violently harmful for that kind of discussion, you can see much more readily how non-partisan it is to remove all of it, with a prejudice towards the more proactively dangerous content (e.g. anti-vaxx promotion). 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.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Conservative speech didn’t get censored on other platforms… 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.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
One specific political group derives a lot of their personal identity from being nasty on social media and making it worse for everybody else. I think that's why this alternative platform will fail. I also think it's why they are crying about free speech: their biggest bullshit tool is social media and they don't want to lose that.
- president 5y ago
  > "they" 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.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    > stop playing tribal politics I've voted for presidents from both parties. Have you? > both sides Sure. > are equally disgusting I disagree.
- tharne 5y ago
  > One specific political group derives a lot of their personal identity from being nasty on social media and making it worse for everybody else. 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.
  - TrumpRapedWomen 5y ago
- bitlax 5y ago
  Oh you're not so nice.
kccoder 5y ago
> 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! Already happened (assuming this isn't fake): https://twitter.com/MattOrtega/status/1496006497389666306 https://twitter.com/MattOrtega/status/1496006497389666306
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Oh no, guess I should have taken the under! 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. [0] https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/ https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/
ALittleLight 5y ago
3 months after launch? I think 3 hours would be an optimistic time frame for first ban. On the one hand you have people who hate Trump from the left trolling, and on the other you have white supremacists and antisemitic people who must think they will be welcome on the platform.

michelb 5y ago

Pretty sure all the media attention for it gave it this status.

api 5y ago
People are still unable to understand this about Trump. When he makes you mad and you cover him, you are giving him publicity and that's what he wants.
- kkoncevicius 5y ago
  Feeding on anger so that readers engage with you seems to be one the principle ways modern media operates. They cover Trump because their viewers get mad which translates into clicks which translates into ad revenue. I think making people hate Trump and at the same time keep talking about Trump is the business strategy here.
  - aksss 5y ago
    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken 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.
- tharne 5y ago
  > People are still unable to understand this about Trump. When he makes you mad and you cover him, you are giving him publicity and that's what he wants. Oh, I think the media understands this quite well. What they understand even better is that: Trump = Rage = Eyeballs = Ad $$$

garciasn 5y ago

Install -> First Open rates are less than 30%. 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.

brnt 5y ago
In the various leaks earlier, we already learned this is a heavily bottled "community". We should really not look at numbers so easily faked, and not let such actors so easily dictate our news.
tinus_hn 5y ago
Where did you find ‘First Open’ rates? I don’t think Apple tracks this?
Dma54rhs 5y ago
From where to get this data for android or ios platform? Interested to find out about other apps and their open rates.
irthomasthomas 5y ago
I do that a lot. Normally it's because I see some interesting app pop up while I am looking for some other type of app, so I install that advertised app but carry on searching the app store for the thing I am after at the time. And sometimes I forget I installed it and never open it. So if this has been up for only a day or so then I dont think that tells us much.
gruturo 5y ago
I have 2 iphones and an ipad sharing the same Apple ID. If I install an app on my main phone, it will be installed on the other 2 devices automatically. 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).

ergocoder 5y ago

Trump is a top influencer. He was literally a US president. 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.

leonk 5y ago
No target group is “banned”. This is a narrative that exists in peoples minds only. What the users of this app really want, is somewhere they can write their complaints, ie vent their angst, without being cross examined.
- aksss 5y ago
  > in people's minds only 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?
  - wutwut5521 5y ago
    The Parler situation was shoddy engineering, nothing else. They chose a hosting provider with a completely incompatible ToS for their application. There are thousands of “free speech” providers out there. To make an analogy, they tried to publish porn on their Disney.com profile. It was somewhat funny to watch them completely blow their one moment in time due to sheer incompetence.

tr_user 5y ago

It'll be yet another way to funnel money into the Trump organization. Ever wonder why politicians buy their own books? https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/when-politicians-buy-their-own-books https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/when-politicians...

jsnodlin 5y ago