Brictoria wrote:
Given there is no requirement to see posts from Mr Zuckerberg on Facebook, or from Mr Dorsey on Twitter, it would be interesting to see if Mr trump follows the same example
What now - Trump, with his own shiny new megaphone - and not using it?
I expect he'll use it like he used Twitter to post bragging, lies and infantile whining.
Quote:
- if so, the site may be reasonable: it will simply be a platform where you can choose to see\not see whichever users you choose...and those who dislike Mr Trump can, theoretically, use it simply to add a "cost", however small, to Mr Trump for the services which they use (storage\bandwidth\other server related expences.
I'm interested to see if posts
against Trump will be allowed to remain there: he's notoriously thin-skinned and unlikely to have any tolerance for criticism - as in real life. Then again I don't think he ever replied to posts on his Twitter feed, which gave the impression he was just using it as a write-only service, so this may go the same way.
He's already asking for money, so it would be surprising if he didn't use this new platform for the same.
Quote:
If, however, viewing his posts (or fundraising requests) is "mandatory", then it will certainly limit the number of people willing to use it (although there would still be the potential for 70+ million users).
Ah yes, that's the bigger question: will anyone
really be interested in it? His earlier blog failed through lack of interest, and that was basically a Trump monolog service.
He may run it as free for reading and charge a fee for posting privileges. But if it just ends up as a "rah rah Trump" echo-chamber I wouldn't expect that to have much holding power - especially if there's a charge for it.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.