He’s waiting for the Android and website version to be live. Why would he start the BOOMS now before he has the app fully available for EVERY person?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (87)
sorted by:
Look at the alternative. No email address required. No verification whatsoever. Then what happens? Spam bots galore and the site loses usability. Then real users get frustrated and leave.
Requiring an email address doesn't prevent spam bots on other social media sites. Why would it prevent them on Truth Social?
Because they are being reviewed by actual people, not flawed algorithms. That's why it's taking so long.
I don't understand how using people to verify an email address would prevent bots.
Wouldn't they be doing the same thing as the algorithm? (Also, could you explain how the algorithms are flawed on other social media sites?) It's simply checking to see if an email address is real.
What are humans doing that goes above and beyond checking to see if an email address is valid?
I'm not being snarky here. I'm honestly curious as to what you believe is happening there.
I didn't say it would prevent bots, but it certainly slows them down.
But how so? What is Truth Social doing differently than other sites that would slow down bots?
If having humans verifying emails is your answer, then what are they doing beyond checking that an email is valid?
Without having to verify an email address, it's much easier to write an automated program that creates usernames. A 14 year old with some skills could create thousands of usernames in no time without much effort. Requiring a verified email makes it more difficult to automate the process.
Requiring an email address is done so that a verification email can be sent. Clicking the link in the verification email proves that a live human is requesting the account. There are probably some ways around this, but it cuts down drastically on the resources needed to filter out bots and spammers. Otherwise the site fills up with garbage and it becomes useless.
I use e-mail verification on my sites as I feel that providing a phone number is too intrusive for many.
'Some' real users, or folks who would be real users if they didn't have to allow datamining on themselves, don't ever join because datamining.
Trump can do what he likes with it, or whoever the owner is, I was merely commenting that IF he wanted all of us to hear him speak he wouldn't condition it with requiring we permit dataming against us in order to attend.
I'm not suggesting he change it to accommodate 'me', just pointing out the reality of it - Trump requires datamining to enter. As a Vet part of why I Served was to protect Free Speech, even tho most people do not want Free Speech, as we see here. Most people want 'their' version of Free Speech, but limited speech for others. Free Speech requires that all speech be allowed, good bad or ugly, no conditions.
https://files.catbox.moe/69itls.jpg
I'm as anti censorship as anyone, but where's the line at then? If you want good, bad, or ugly free speech, then would you allow users to post images of people being murdered? What about porn? How about child porn? You said no limits.
Free Speech contains such things, sure, it encompasses ALL speech.
That doesn't mean all speech has to be allowed in all venues at all times.
What line are you asking me about? A 'line' Society draws separating vile speech from more kosher speech? What's the worst form of speech you can imagine, kiddie porn? Ok, put that on one end and put the Bible on the other, just for my purpose here for this exercise.
All of the above is allowed, in the proper venue. It might not be appropriate to show images of kiddie porn in Church, or at Grandma's house. But showing hunter's laptop images as evidence of corruption is necessary to Society, it is allowed in the proper venue.
I have no use personally for a 'lot' of Speech, but it was decided by God long ago that we mere Humans would be exposed to it via satan.
Would 'I' allow it to be shown, you ask... Shown where? On social media? No, there is no reason to do so, it is illegal and so should not be done. It is offensive to many people and so should only be allowed in those venues where conditions are appropriate for it.
If a social media site offers Free Speech yet does not want kiddie porn to show up it should refuse images, allow only scripted posts.
If a social media site wishes to allow images AND be Free Speech it can have rooms, one allows images and requires dataming and is limited speech, the other is Free Speech and no images.
That's all Academic of course, very few people WANT Free Speech, not trying to antagonize you but your example is proof. Where place limits, you ask? Free Speech has no limits.
Limited Speech is what most folks want, and they all want to decide where to limit.
https://files.catbox.moe/3ggkmx.jpeg
I know you aren't trying to antagonize. Didn't take it that way fren. I guess my point was, if you want truly free speech, it doesn't exist, at least not in the United States. There are is always some limitation put in place, be it by a social media platform or by existing law(in the case of kiddie porn).
Some people think that Free Speech means anything goes, absolutely no limits whatsoever. This is a fallacy and a misunderstanding delivered to you by the Liberals. They want to destroy your free speech so they make you defend something that will naturally destroy itself. Free speech comes from the days that those words were originally written in our country. When our founding fathers forbade the encroachment on Free Speech it was to protect you from being murdered for criticizing the king, not so you can trade CP on the internet. When you served, were you willing to die so people can trade CP openly? Is that what you fought for?
Liberals would tell you that actions of protest are free speech. Therefore as long as you are doing it in the sense of a protest, you can go into the street and stab to death as many people as you want, hey, it's your free speech!
HAHAHAHA!!! Sorry but no, liberals never told me anything that stuck. I got wise to 'liberals' in 1969 when they began busing to my school.
I do not consider any pictures or images to be 'speech' at all actually, but our greater Society does. The written word is speech, the spoken word is speech, images and yeah even memes are not speech. Images and memes can convey ideas but they are not that protected Thing we define as Speech, for my nickel.
I enlisted to defend Free Speech, partly so anyhow, not images or cartoons or parodies of speech but actual Speech, good bad and ugly.
I consider that our courts and laws and Society made a mistake by including so much in the concept of 'Speech', but they all have done so and that is the Society in which we live. I swore an Oath to defend the Constitution, and I must accept the legal interpretations of that instrument even as I disagree with them.
Raise your sights, you seem to conflate violence with Speech, the two things are diametrically in opposition.
I appreciate your thoughtful answer. I see that we disagree on the more legitimate interpretation of free speech. Is Free Speech the interpretation of today, or should it be understood more in the sense of the founding fathers writings entirely free of Supreme Court Justices who can't define what a woman is?
I lean heavily toward the latter. I try to remind myself that Free Speech was originally meant to be political Free Speech, not to include obscenity, blasphemy, pornography, CP, or even disturbing the peace. I really doubt our founders sacrificed everything so that everyone can act like assholes. However they did feel strongly that each person should be able to express their political opinions without punishment.
From my point of view memes, political cartoons and the like are squarely within the traditional meaning of the First Amendment. It's a powerful form of questioning government and petitioning for redress of grievances.