Sean T.

My hot take is that this is a “good thing”.

The issue to me is that the echo chambers were allowed to form in the main platforms. “Free speech” applies primarily to public platforms, as I understand it. Commercial entities are freer to regulate what they deem acceptable and no one has a “right” to access a commercial platform (as I see it).

The danger as I saw with content on the “main” platforms is how easy it leaked (or was optimized) into random people’s streams because they were (however distantly) associated with people who found it “relevant”.

The challenge with moderating any content is that users are smart and will adapt their language to parallel norms or similar “code” if pressured with moderation.

By splintering the network, in many ways it could dilute the effect of the content. Niche message boards, etc. always existed, but they weren’t directly connected to the hives of all our other conversations. This naturally limited their growth as discoverability and accessibility were more cumbersome.

Facebook is “powerful” because of its scale. Gab, GETTR, TRUTH or whatever the liberal/progressive equivalent might be will never rival Facebook in size simply because they’re intentionally designed to appeal to a niche population and (more than likely) the nature of the conversations will deter many from joining. This is, of course, ignoring the factionalism that will no doubt form between audiences on similar platforms (Gab vs. GETTR vs. TRUTH, etc.).. You could be on all platforms, but outside journalists, celebrities and super users, most people don’t seem to have the energy or desire to nurture infinite accounts.

If the conversation moves off Twitter or Facebook and becomes “contained” on a niche platform, on any topic, do you agree the effect could be diluted?

Of course, such a network needs to exist and scale first. In our day and age, that’s no sure thing as fates can change quickly (see Parler). An app doesn’t exist on its own and needs many business partners to host and sustain it. In the case of TRUTH, the collaborative nature of the Internet may well present obstacles they did not anticipate.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/22/22740354/trump-truth-social-network-spac-mastodon-license-software-freedom-conservancy

I share your concerns that niche social media platforms like TRUTH could exacerbate the echo chamber problem, but at the same time, are the people who join fringe channels open to hearing the other side anyway? I think Greg makes a great point that there are limits to how impactful a non-major social platform can be.
I also don’t think TRUTH is likely to take off. Trump’s blog lasted 29 days, and the reasons given were that it wasn’t getting as many views as Trump’s team had hoped (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/02/donald-trump-blog-fail-491667)… Even though a social channel is more likely to drive engagement, is it really going to be enough to satisfy egos, advertisers, business partners, etc.? I suppose whether TRUTH succeeds or fails depends on what its intended goal is, but if it’s to influence others, isolating your voices on a contained platform is a questionable way of doing that.

Great post Sean! I have actually been looking into this new social media platform for awhile now. I just read an article the other day saying that this social media platform was actually going to be put on hold. Something that really caught my eye when reading your post is the part about pre-ordering. Social media platforms are free so I wonder if he is going to be charging to be on this platform?

I don’t blame him for starting his own platform. Social media was mainly created to give people a place to talk and share their opinions but now “Cancel Culture” has become a thing and these large platforms think they can ban people from their platforms. I don’t think it is right at all. Everyone has an opinion, you can agree or disagree but that doesn’t give you the right to take someone off a social platform.

I am interested to see how this new platform shakes up the other top dogs in social media platforms.

The site looks almost like a Twitter clone: A user can post Truths, like tweets, or Re-Truths, aka retweets. There’s also a news feed, called the Truth Feed, a notification system so users can know “who’s interacting with your TRUTH’s,” the social network’s App Store profile states. However, the site’s technical woes and uninspired design might not deter new users because Trump isn’t trying to win over the market by creating a unique media experience. Whether his base finds the site to be a tolerable experience remains an open question.

Social media outlets to me is all about intent. What are their intentions? Is their intentions really to keep in impartial or to try to suppress the popular or least popular viewpoint?

Facebook now shows you what you want to see in a bubble of information which can grow perception bias’s. What scary algorithmic back-end will TRUTH develop to keep what you want to see on it? I find it hard to believe the intent of TRUTH will be to keep progressive viewpoints when the audience will be geared for more conservative or even “Trumper” perspectives.

I have heard about this and it is definitely an interesting concept. To echo what some already said, social media is for everyone to share opinions and exchange ideas whether they agree/disagree with those ideas. However, some might feel better posting when they are among a group of like minded people. This is where an app like this can be beneficial. To Dan’s point, it will be interesting to see if this will be another Facebook where the algorithms are made to be divisive.

In the future, this same concept may come to fruition for other audiences. For example, this app essentially serves as an exclusive group or messaging board. Moving forward, there may be something similar for people who solely follow homeopathic medicine or have a vegan lifestyle among other niche groups. It will be interesting to see what will set the app apart from already existing sites, groups and boards for niche topics.

Omg, this would be so frustrating! I would be calling Sling and complaining if I was your friend.

This kind of reminds me of how I feel about Hulu’s commercials. To my understanding, they don’t cut anything out. But, for some ungodly reason, the volume of the commercials is entirely on a different level than the shows you are watching. It almost startles you with how LOUD they are. I get why Hulu does this – they are trying to get you to pay more attention to their advertisers. However, the change disrupts my whole mood while watching the show and makes me DESPISE the commercials and brands with these spots. Even as a marketer, ads are annoying enough without being extremely loud.

How do we think brands should go about choosing where their ads are? I think as a baseline, they should ensure that customers aren’t having a negative experience when they see them.

Before your post, I didn’t know what Sling was. I’d heard of it, but I didn’t care to look into it. I was under the impression it was just another cable streaming service, and that’s irrelevant to me as someone who cut the cable cord years ago. Now, after reading your post, I’m feeling (mildly) validated and glad that I did cut that cable cord years ago. I’m perfectly happy with my Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ subscriptions, because even if they all have their own problems, they’re still not cutting off the programming I’m paying to watch. I’m angry on behalf of your friend, who’s paying so much for this service. I agree with Kathy, I’d be on the phone with Sling complaining. That’s just ridiculous.

You do bring up an interesting point, how this bad perception of sling has now brought about a negative association with the ads – even though it’s not their fault. If your friend does complain to Sling, that would be a really good point to bring up to them!

Thanks for bringing up story, Sean. It really highlights the importance of deliverance when it comes to advertisements. As marketers we understand that this is a key step in the marketing process, but I think a lot of stakeholders may not recognize this, as they simply push for more and more platforms for their brand. On a local scale there is a realtor in my area who aggressively advertises on billboards. Portraying a large photo of himself with his name. This advertisement is so prevalent that it is regularly mocked by all locals. As a realtor, he is not only representing himself but also the company he works for. This drives home a concept I have been told for years, and whether we like it or not our actions and portrayal of ourselves definitely have an impact much larger based on association with organizations, companies, and other individuals.