Cornflake wrote:
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.
There's no doubt he'll be posting there, but I'm not sure he'll be making it compulsary to see those posts unless you "follow" him there, or go to the specific post.
Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
- 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.
I doubt there would be any issue with posts against him (as a site-wide policy), instead relying on an his individual ability to remove posts to\replys on his personal page (or block users from accessing\posting to it), although even then some may remain under an "I don't mind what they say, it's more important that they are talking about me" approach, showing he is still "relevent" to people - Judging by their posts, he is very "relevent" to some on this site...
As to asking for money - were the requests for money related to running the site (understandable, given it is another organisation, rather than him personally, who owns\operates it, and would need funds until advertising (or some other source of funds) commences to help cover costs, or was the fundraising for him\political reasons (which, if connected to this new site would be questionable)?
Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
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.
I'm not expecting it to be subscription based, nor have any requirement to see his posts (worst case I would expect is that new accounts may "follow" his by default, but that this can be stopped by a user, and I don't think the site would even have that)... More likely, it will be a case of taking his favourite features of other platforms and trying to combine them into one platform in order to draw users from those platforms onto this. How well that works out will be interesting to see, given many people may create accounts there, but primarily\solely use the previous sites rather than this new one due to their "contacts" (and history, etc.) already being there...