5 ms·

It can't possibly cost that much to operate a mediocre mastodon server with under a million monthly users? What are they spending all that money on?

davedx 3y ago
It's a Trump enterprise, so probably whatever Trump wants to spend money on, judging by how his other companies are run. Edit: Attempt to answer unsarcastically (last 3 months): Regulatory settlement: $10,000,000 Legal investigations expense: $388,652 Franchise tax expense: $50,000 So the majority of their losses are (one time?) legal expenses. Whoah. For 6 months ended June 30, "Legal investigations expense" is $11M. Is Truth Social basically paying Trump's ongoing legal costs?
- Munksgaard 3y ago
  > Is Truth Social basically paying Trump's ongoing legal costs? Would that surprise anyone, Truth users included?
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Given Truth Social brought in something like 2.3M during that time, it’s more that their investors are paying his legal fees. I get to thinking, “who is stupid enough to be doing this?” And admittedly without any evidence, I then wonder if this is what “being funded by foreign interests” looks like.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    There's quite a large number of people who were close to Trump in his previous campaign who were convicted of offenses related to "unregistered foreign agents", around Manafort. This does not hurt his chances of re-election. At this point I think even a conviction wouldn't hurt him more than a fraction of a percent.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      If Trump loses only a fraction of a percent in 2024 he still loses.
  - dashundchen 3y ago
    I still want to know the full extent of Jared Kushner's work in Saudi Arabia, acting as a senior policy advisor hired by Trump. We know about the $100 billion dollar Saudi arms deal that Kushner inserted himself in after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. We know he personally backed Saudi Arabi in their conflict with Qatar. We know Kushner failed to disclose he owed around a billion dollars on failed investments in real estate. Now after Kushner leaves government, MBS overrode his advisors to hand over $2 billion of state investment to Kushner's newly established fund. What happened there?
    - onetokeoverthe 3y ago
      [dead]
    - polski-g 3y ago
      Like father, like son: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2020/12/23/prosecuted-chris-christie-charles-kushner-pardoned-donald-trump/4034767001/ https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2020/12/23...
  - thworp 3y ago
    As a European the "X is a foreign Y" trope in your politics has always amused me. Both of your parties are constantly involved in corrupt foreign dealings (that would be decade-defining scandals in some other countries) and there are never any real consequences. Nixon and Kissigner went behind the back of the sitting president to torpedo his peace talks with North Vietnam. Basically they commited high treason (secretly conferring with the enemy) and Nixon admitted as much. Decades later Kissinger is still considered a role model of a diplomat in some circles. That example was picked so as not to kick off a political discussion. I'm
    - Waterluvian 3y ago
      1. Completely 100% agree. The United States has a significant history of destroying governments and meddling in murderous ways purely because they believed the ends justified the means. 2. But that doesn't mean "X is a foreign Y" isn't still significant or also wrong. 3. And just for the record, I'm actually a Disenfranchised American without the right to vote, aka. Canadian.
    - rewmie 3y ago
      > Decades later Kissinger is still considered a role model of a diplomat in some circles. Honestly, why wouldn't he be? I think the mistake you're making is presuming that a role model of a diplomat is determined by your notion of morality. The definition of "diplomacy" is "spoken or written communication by representatives of states (such as leaders and diplomats) intended to influence events in the international system", and the job description of a diplomat is "a person appointed by a state or an intergovernmental institution (...) to conduct diplomacy." Knowing this, and knowing a bit of Kissinger's legacy, it's hard to disagree that he's one of the most successful and influential diplomats in history. He's been directly involved in all the critical events that determined the course of humanity during the 20th century, and he personally influenced or determined their outcome. You might argue over your views on morality and Kissinger's legacy, but it is not possible to reject the fact that Kissinger is perhaps the top diplomat of the 20th century.
      - thworp 3y ago
  - atkailash 3y ago
    [dead]
- rewmie 3y ago
  > Is Truth Social basically paying Trump's ongoing legal costs? Would it be possible for Truth Social to be just a very public money laundering front?
  - rco8786 3y ago
    Based on the founder's history, I'd say it's probable and not just possible. Especially now that he's unbanned from Twitter, where he has a significantly larger audience...but continues to post on TS where he is more or less the only thing keeping it active at all.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  Trump's SPAC was entirely a grift from start to finish, and Truth Social was just one attempt at legitimizing it. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/spac-returns-remaining-533-mln-raise-trump-social-media-deal-2023-10-12/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/spac-returns-remaining...
  - yoav 3y ago
    * all SPACS
rsynnott 3y ago
Look, hand extension surgery isn't cheap. But yeah, seriously, it's a _Trump_ company. Where do you _think_ the money is going?
onetimeuse92304 3y ago
Same could be said about Twitter. Listen, you add a bunch of employees, some of them executives and a nice office with a caffeteria and you get easily over this number. I think what people get wrong is what is profit for Truth Social. People who own and operate it do not think about profit as the money they get from the platform directly or through advertising, the profit is in having an alternative social circle where they can gather their follower base and reach them without being impeded by "censorship" from a platform like Twitter (sorry, X is just a ridiculous name). In times past billionaires would keep their own newspapers even if unprofitable on paper just because they could create their own spin on the current events. That ability to control the narrative can be worth more than the cost of propping up a failing enterprise. If you understand this, you might find that this thing actually is quite profitable.
- Forgeties79 3y ago
  I just don’t think they need truth social/to burn $76mill to rile up their base anymore than they have successfully done on other platforms. Besides that, what is it accomplishing for them?

davedx 3y ago

It's a Trump enterprise, so probably whatever Trump wants to spend money on, judging by how his other companies are run. Edit: Attempt to answer unsarcastically (last 3 months): Regulatory settlement: $10,000,000 Legal investigations expense: $388,652 Franchise tax expense: $50,000 So the majority of their losses are (one time?) legal expenses. Whoah. For 6 months ended June 30, "Legal investigations expense" is $11M. Is Truth Social basically paying Trump's ongoing legal costs?

Munksgaard 3y ago
> Is Truth Social basically paying Trump's ongoing legal costs? Would that surprise anyone, Truth users included?
Waterluvian 3y ago
Given Truth Social brought in something like 2.3M during that time, it’s more that their investors are paying his legal fees. I get to thinking, “who is stupid enough to be doing this?” And admittedly without any evidence, I then wonder if this is what “being funded by foreign interests” looks like.
- pjc50 3y ago
  There's quite a large number of people who were close to Trump in his previous campaign who were convicted of offenses related to "unregistered foreign agents", around Manafort. This does not hurt his chances of re-election. At this point I think even a conviction wouldn't hurt him more than a fraction of a percent.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    If Trump loses only a fraction of a percent in 2024 he still loses.
- dashundchen 3y ago
  I still want to know the full extent of Jared Kushner's work in Saudi Arabia, acting as a senior policy advisor hired by Trump. We know about the $100 billion dollar Saudi arms deal that Kushner inserted himself in after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. We know he personally backed Saudi Arabi in their conflict with Qatar. We know Kushner failed to disclose he owed around a billion dollars on failed investments in real estate. Now after Kushner leaves government, MBS overrode his advisors to hand over $2 billion of state investment to Kushner's newly established fund. What happened there?
  - onetokeoverthe 3y ago
    [dead]
  - polski-g 3y ago
    Like father, like son: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2020/12/23/prosecuted-chris-christie-charles-kushner-pardoned-donald-trump/4034767001/ https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2020/12/23...
- thworp 3y ago
  As a European the "X is a foreign Y" trope in your politics has always amused me. Both of your parties are constantly involved in corrupt foreign dealings (that would be decade-defining scandals in some other countries) and there are never any real consequences. Nixon and Kissigner went behind the back of the sitting president to torpedo his peace talks with North Vietnam. Basically they commited high treason (secretly conferring with the enemy) and Nixon admitted as much. Decades later Kissinger is still considered a role model of a diplomat in some circles. That example was picked so as not to kick off a political discussion. I'm
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    1. Completely 100% agree. The United States has a significant history of destroying governments and meddling in murderous ways purely because they believed the ends justified the means. 2. But that doesn't mean "X is a foreign Y" isn't still significant or also wrong. 3. And just for the record, I'm actually a Disenfranchised American without the right to vote, aka. Canadian.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > Decades later Kissinger is still considered a role model of a diplomat in some circles. Honestly, why wouldn't he be? I think the mistake you're making is presuming that a role model of a diplomat is determined by your notion of morality. The definition of "diplomacy" is "spoken or written communication by representatives of states (such as leaders and diplomats) intended to influence events in the international system", and the job description of a diplomat is "a person appointed by a state or an intergovernmental institution (...) to conduct diplomacy." Knowing this, and knowing a bit of Kissinger's legacy, it's hard to disagree that he's one of the most successful and influential diplomats in history. He's been directly involved in all the critical events that determined the course of humanity during the 20th century, and he personally influenced or determined their outcome. You might argue over your views on morality and Kissinger's legacy, but it is not possible to reject the fact that Kissinger is perhaps the top diplomat of the 20th century.
    - thworp 3y ago
- atkailash 3y ago
  [dead]
rewmie 3y ago
> Is Truth Social basically paying Trump's ongoing legal costs? Would it be possible for Truth Social to be just a very public money laundering front?
- rco8786 3y ago
  Based on the founder's history, I'd say it's probable and not just possible. Especially now that he's unbanned from Twitter, where he has a significantly larger audience...but continues to post on TS where he is more or less the only thing keeping it active at all.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
soulofmischief 3y ago
Trump's SPAC was entirely a grift from start to finish, and Truth Social was just one attempt at legitimizing it. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/spac-returns-remaining-533-mln-raise-trump-social-media-deal-2023-10-12/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/spac-returns-remaining...
- yoav 3y ago
  * all SPACS

rsynnott 3y ago

Look, hand extension surgery isn't cheap. But yeah, seriously, it's a _Trump_ company. Where do you _think_ the money is going?

onetimeuse92304 3y ago

Same could be said about Twitter. Listen, you add a bunch of employees, some of them executives and a nice office with a caffeteria and you get easily over this number. I think what people get wrong is what is profit for Truth Social. People who own and operate it do not think about profit as the money they get from the platform directly or through advertising, the profit is in having an alternative social circle where they can gather their follower base and reach them without being impeded by "censorship" from a platform like Twitter (sorry, X is just a ridiculous name). In times past billionaires would keep their own newspapers even if unprofitable on paper just because they could create their own spin on the current events. That ability to control the narrative can be worth more than the cost of propping up a failing enterprise. If you understand this, you might find that this thing actually is quite profitable.

Forgeties79 3y ago
I just don’t think they need truth social/to burn $76mill to rile up their base anymore than they have successfully done on other platforms. Besides that, what is it accomplishing for them?