Politically Hot Shotting Alternate Social Media Going As Well As You Might Expect
Ever notice how every time there is some big-name banning of a personality from a social media platform, there is a loud and public cry for there to be an exodus from Twitter, Facebook, or whatever other platform to new, friendlier, alternative platforms? But those folks who are not outright banned never seem to really go away from those said evil platforms they supposedly left for the green fields and total freedom of Gab, Gettr, Rumble, Parler (Hey! Remember Parler?), or whatever the next alternative social media is going to be?
Well, we got some data on that, and it tells us exactly what we expected: for the most part, it is the same herd of folks moving back and forth. Large spikes in users initially, then the long, slow decline as no one else ever seems to join up.
The data helps strengthen the case for supporters of “deplatforming,” who argue that banning the accounts of people known for distributing lies can have a powerful impact on their ability to win mainstream attention or political influence.
It also calls into question whether this new and polarized online ecosystem — possibly to be joined soon by Trump’s long-promised social network, Truth Social — can build a sustainable business solely by catering to a radicalized right.
The niche sites continue to pull in Republican leaders and right-wing flamethrowers who could lift the sites’ online prospects. But for most of the deplatformed accounts, their brief jump after Trump’s ban accounted for more than 80 percent of their followers for the entire year, the analysis found. While some saw tepid growth in recent months, others watched their follower counts shrink — an indication that some fans might have decided to tune them out.
Darren Linvill, the lead researcher at Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub, said the sites have struggled to gain attention because their focus on right-wing rabble-rousers has pigeonholed them into one side of the American political debate. So much of social media, he added, isn’t political at all: The biggest platforms are loaded with jokes, pop culture, cute photos and other distractions that make up most people’s daily media appetites.
Building a robust social media platform requires “multiple perspectives so you can have lots of different conversations happening to bring in lots of different kinds of people,” Linvill said. “Right-wing platforms are one-trick ponies. They’re only going to, by their nature, appeal to the type of person they are branded to appeal to, and there’s only so many people in that world.”
Telegram says it has more than 500 million monthly active users worldwide, nearly half of whom joined in the past two years, but that massive growth has not always translated to its right-wing users, the analysis found.
Lin Wood, the Atlanta attorney who boosted Trump’s failed legal push to invalidate his 2020 election loss, was banned on Twitter after urging his 1.2 million followers to “pledge your lives” and fight on Jan. 6. On Telegram, he gained 800,000 followers within the next month, but his audience peaked in June and has since slid to 730,000, about 60 percent of his lost Twitter audience. (Telegram deletes accounts that have been inactive for six months or more, which could contribute to the decline.) Wood still posts hundreds of Telegram messages every month.
The Twitter clones Gab and Gettr and the YouTube clone Rumble focus more directly on appealing to a conservative audience, but they also have struggled to keep the momentum for their biggest far-right stars.
On Gab, the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who joined Gab in 2016 and was banned from mainstream sites in 2018, went from gaining roughly 25,000 followers a month in the first quarter of 2021 to adding about 1,000 followers a month for the rest of the year, the analysis found. On Rumble, One America News, the video network known for its pro-Trump conspiracy theories, saw its subscriber count more than double, to roughly 750,000, in the month after Trump’s Twitter ban, but its growth has leveled off since, settling to about 900,000 subscribers today. (The network’s president didn’t respond to a request for comment. The network’s biggest distributor, DirecTV, plans to stop carrying it this spring.)
Gettr’s chief, former Trump adviser Jason Miller, said he is “not at all worried about our business long-term,” adding, “The legacy platforms have bigger user bases but they treat them with total disdain.”
Gab’s chief, Andrew Torba, said the findings are “irrelevant to Gab’s growth overall as a free speech platform for all people.” Pro-Trump commentators, he added, might be struggling on the alternative platforms because of Trump’s defense of the coronavirus vaccine. “His nonstop vaccine shilling has turned many of his supporters off completely,” Torba said.
There’s a pro wrestling term for this: hot shotting. You do something that will hit big in the short term to match a moment of opportunity and get extra attention. Thing about hot shotting is, it is almost always detrimental to your business in the long run, because you just gave away something quick and cheap instead of the longer, slower monetization and use of that same thing. The data shows that sure, the big splashy social media outrages over banings, deplatformings, or general purpose boycotting gets these platforms a spike, but that’s it. There is no carryover, no continuation, no growing of an audience. It is the same group of diehards over and over again. That’s a tough business model to work off of, especially that particular group that is not only issue specific but persnickety and petty about a multitude of things that will also make them take their social media ball and go home. Again.
Good luck herding those cats, Gettr, Rumble, Gab, and whoever else chases the audience capture of the disaffected and perpetually aggrieved social media right. You are going to need it.
Thoughts and prayers.Report
In the economics of telephony and related services, there’s a thing called “the network effect.” It says that the value of the service provided by a communications network increases more than linearly with the number of customers using the service. Early telephone companies figured out that they needed to interconnect and have a single consistent numbering plan. Enterprise-only e-mail, despite having a greater range of capabilities, lost out to foo@bar.com internet e-mail because being able to send to everyone was more valuable than those other capabilities. The value of the Facebook service is that almost everyone is on. A few people might move exclusively to Parler, but only a subset of their friends and families will. The initial surge will tend to die out.
Yesterday the Senate Judiciary passed out an antitrust bill sponsored by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that would effectively require Apple, Meta (Facebook), Amazon, and Alphabet (Google) to separate the platform and application portions of their businesses. I will be fascinated to see how far up the software stack they try to push “platform”. Eg, is Facebook a platform, or is the platform only the very large compute and storage farms it runs on? What role will forced interoperability serve (eg, Facebook must provide an open and consistent interface so that Parler users and Facebook users experience the same set of features)?
The DOJ tried this with Microsoft back in the late 1990s. In that case, they defined desktop PC operating systems as a market, Windows as a “monopoly” product in that market, and Internet Explorer an application which had been illegally integrated into Windows. Most of us thought the case would end with the judge holding that desktop OSs wasn’t a market. Once he did, Microsoft was quite clearly in violation of the antitrust laws. The DOJ went on to win the court case and then, in sequence, (a) the judge ordered the company split in two, (b) George W. Bush won the 2000 election, and (c) the new DOJ withdraw support for the split during the appeal and the judge accepted the slap on the wrist the new DOJ wanted instead.Report
The WaPo article (or at least this excerpt) doesn’t understand the dynamic involved.
To steal Jaybird’s formulation for political campaigns, right-wing outlets are looking to connect with their base and to expand into the normie market. Left-wing outlets are looking to connect with their base, expand, and shut down opposing outlets.
That said, the alternatives that spring up provide the right with an initial home base and the hope of an expanding base. A lot of righties will get on every site when it comes out, as part of their backup plans, but then not encounter anything on those sites that they can’t find anywhere else. The sites do accomplish their first goal, but not their second.
It should be noted that Joe Rogan is bigger than anything (not a rightie, but an alternative voice who isn’t afraid of the left), and many right-wing sites are doing quite well. I’m impressed with The Daily Wire, which is gearing up to be a news, sports, opinion, and entertainment outfit with direct registration, which allows them to adapt to any platform.Report
Care to expand on this? Because while I agree he loves taking on the left, he comes across as very much a rightie.Report
Rogan is willing to hear out anyone on his show, and he’ll find some common ground. He’s also not ideological. Those things make it hard to classify him. You have to be pretty far to one side to consider Rogan part of the other.Report
Joe Rogan is noncompliant. This angers many people who want authoritarian rule, including Philip.Report
Joe Rogan happily platforms people who lie regularly about COVID. That angers me. It should anger you.Report
What you consider a lie, and I consider a lie, are probably two different matters.
THISISANHTTPSLINK:www.cdc.gov/library/covid19/pdf/2020-09_08-Science-Update_FINAL_public-v2.pdf
It is not arguable that Pfizer is unprosecutable for vaccine-related injuries (due to Brandon’s imprudent administration). Judges are kind of upset about this, as you might imagine.Report
Nope.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10584Report
Please, read what I have to say. Then recognize that you’re not disagreeing with me.
Pfizer’s decision-making changed because they were no longer able to be sued, by Americans. CICP/VICP are governmental programs.
Pfizer didn’t want to see an asbestos situation, and lobbied Brandon hard to get liability waivers.
After they did so, they changed their product delivery to go with the “less safe” but also “much cheaper” delivery method. In other words, “The Jab!”
This is because of their fiduciary loyalty to their stockholders. They could no longer make the argument that “this costs more, but in the long run…”
**Conflict of Interest Disclosure.**
IANAL.Report
a) Pfizer submitted the NDA and received approval during the Trump administration so I’m not sure what Biden had to do with this, unless you’re suggesting that there was some evil secret quid-pro-quo happening, perhaps in a booth at some pizza place outside Walkerton Indiana
b) you do your argument no favors by saying “Brandon”, and yes, sweetie, I know, You’re Just Poasting, but surely there are video games to play that would be more fun for you than this?Report
“noncompliant” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, hoss. but so is calling him a “rightie” which doesn’t really capture the lack of ideological depth (or depth in general).
it’s more like he’s random, which is not great if you’re into consistency or really want others to be consistent.
he’ll let anyone blather on, which has produced some intriguing moments (bernie, hamilton morris, some of the anti-scientology guests, many of the comedians, etc) and far less good with snapperheads like alex jones and related cranks and frauds.
his randomness is a lot like the population at large, frankly. a lot of tendencies and impulses, not a lot of theory or consistency underpinning said tendencies and impulses. there’s a bernie sympatico-ness there, a sort of populist-ish routine.Report
He is a reminder that out there, beyond the black mirror, there is a much more heterodox but also kind of ho-hum world. More people still live there than anywhere else.Report
Heterodox is kind. I prefer inconsistent or all over the map. Inchoate also works.Report
That’s fair. I don’t listen to the guy. But a lot of people do and I don’t get the sense that they all think of what they’re hearing in super hard ideological terms. It’s possible to find something interesting or appealing in some way without buying all of it hook line and sinker.
It’s worth remembering that the population is, to use your words, kind of inchoate and all over the map. I think it’s a mistake to view that as inherently threatening. At best it makes enemies of people who don’t need to be and at worst resembles a sort of ‘everyone who listens to Ozzy Osbourne is going to turn into a baby eating satanist’ kind of thinking.Report
RIP Trevor Moore. Your death was useless and futile.Report
I had no idea. I loved WKUK. How does his death tie into the topic, though?Report
Joe Rogan was a proud anti-vaccination voice.
Trevor Moore’s death was ordered in order to “send a message” to Rogan.Report
That’s nuts.Report
Nah, its just the other side of the issue. Which MUST be presented in a fair and balanced manner. Or so Fox News tells us.Report
You’re just tearing down straw men as fast as you can put them up, aren’t you?Report
Are you accusing Philip of sock-puppetry?Report
Of course he is. Its all he has . . . .Report
Strawmanning and sock puppetry are two different things.Report
Jaybird is right. The term “sock-puppetry” has a meaning, and it’s not the thing I accused Philip of. I believe that Philip is a real person, or rather that “Philip H” is a persona created by one person who posts here with only one name.Report
Is it really a strawman?
I don’t listen to Joe Rogan, and have no clue who Trevor Moore is or what it refers to, so I am wondering-
Is this referring to some bizarre conspiracy theory?
Just how bizarre does a theory have to be where Joe Rogan, the guy who entertains all sorts of theories, will refuse to entertain it?
Seriously, where are the boundaries of where the IDW/ Quillette/ Just Asking Questions crowd will Stop Asking Questions?Report
The straw man (men?) is the lumping together of Fox News and its slogan “fair and balanced”, Joe Rogan, and Dopefish’s conspiracy. To be a viewer of Fox News, or the kind of person that Philip associates with Fox News, is to be lumped in (there’s a better word but I’m drawing a blank on it) with every extremist.
A lot of people watch Fox News for the news. A lot watch for the opinion, and a lot of those disagree with each other. A lot of people listen to Rogan. Some probably agree with every guest, no matter how contradictory they might be from the last one. I’d guess that most enjoy his style and the variety, and are neither offended by opinions that differ from theirs nor afraid of turning off the podcast if the guest is kooky without being entertaining.
Philip has no knowledge of this, by his own admission. But he saw an opportunity to lump things together (conflate! that’s the word!) and took it. No matter that he threw the idea of listening to different opinions overboard, but I don’t think he was ever too wedded to that idea anyway.Report
Honest question, if Dopefish were a prominent pundit or author, would he be the sort that would be invited on Rogan’s show and allowed to expound?
Maybe? Maybe not? Like I said, I don’t listen to Rogan, but what I do know is he hosted Alex Berenson, who is every bit as deranged as any internet commenter.
I’m reminded of that quote, something about how if you host a site safe from witchhunts, you end up with a few free speech advocates and a hundred witches.
Joe Rogan is no different than any other talk show host where he and his producers set boundaries and limits to what they consider acceptable viewpoints and refuse to invite anyone from outside those boundaries.
And we know that a deranged anti-vaxx nut is safely within those acceptable boundaries, so why not Dopefish, or Holocaust deniers or NAMBLA advocates for that matter?Report
I don’t know enough about Dopefish or Rogan to answer that. Even if the answer is “yes”, though, it wouldn’t justify what Philip did by conflating an outlandish internet comment and anyone who tries to look at both sides of an issue.Report
He conflated Fox News and Joe Rogan which seems fair since they both present openly anti-vax nuts and crank conspiracists under the claim of presenting both sides in a “fair and balanced manner.”Report
The fallacy of “everybody who doesn’t agree with me can be assumed to agree with each other” is showing up more and more.
It’s a mistake.Report
Heh, I could see Fox becoming more Roganish over time as they move on younger demographics…Not the other way ’round, though. But I wouldn’t conflate Fox and Rogan now. Rogan might be bigger and has a much larger cross-over… he’s in already in the Dem base killin ur doodz.Report
Your average Fox viewer is Medicare eligible. Your average Rogan listener is less than 5 years removed from taking bong rips in a dorm room at state college. In fact they might still be taking bong rips in a crummy house or apartment with the 3 other dudes they live with.Report
I think we’ve already established that I don’t agree with your conflations of opponents. I personally don’t know if Fox News has anti-vax nuts and crank conspiracists; nor is Joe Rogan strictly an anti-vax and conspiracy show. I’d venture that JS isn’t the only one who considers this site to be a home of anti-vax and conspiracy talk.Report
I personally don’t know if Fox News has anti-vax nuts and crank conspiracists
Yes you do.Report
This is the kind of error I was trying to get at above with Saul. Maybe there’s some overlapping content, but the Joe Rogan demographic is men in their 20s. The Fox News demographic is people over 60.
That alone I would say makes them pretty distinct groups and distinct media. This is easy stuff to figure out and I really don’t get the mentality that insists they must be the same.Report
How did age enter the discussion?
Both Rogan and Fox are hosts of anti-vax and conspiracy nuts.Report
Sure, and in a way both Saving Private Ryan and the GI Joe cartoon are about intrepid American soldiers saving the world. Yet if we were comparing them I think we can agree it would be foolish not to notice some important differences, not least of which is the intended audience. That’s particularly the case if how the audience reacts to the content is an important part of the discussion.Report
Why is the audience demographic more important than the fact that both are promoting a similar viewpoint of anti-vax and conspiracist nuttery?
The original contention was that it was unfair to conflate Fox and Rogan, in the context of Dopefish tossing out some conspiracy nuttery.
The conflation about viewpoint nuttery seems entirely on point and fair, while the objection about demographics seems entirely irrelevant.Report
Because it suggests you might not know what you’re talking about?Report
Who are these Young Turks people anyway?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8nbZZx6nu4
Rogan is so weird on so many issues, that picking one thing and saying everyone is therefore on team Rogan? It doesn’t even pass the Young Turk test.Report
Which is why I didn’t say that.
I’m just saying that if two groups promote nuttery the differences between them are less important than what they share.Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOCdIY_HKM4Report
As a proponent of crank ideologies like CRT and socialism, you really have no basis for smugness here. You’re sneering into a mirror.Report
I’ve noticed a real influx of crazies or trolls lately.
At one point we had one person posting under multiple shifting IDs, and I’m pretty sure there’s another that posts under two or three.
Where’s the noise coming from?Report
I have some theories . . .Report
Trolls seem to be invading lots of spaces but OT has always been a bit too high minded when deciding what is and is not trollish.Report
The management is posting links on Twitter, so you’re starting to get more drive-bys.Report