About five months ago, a public relations firm reached out to me. They wanted to know if I would be interested in interviewing Bill Ottman, the creator and CEO of Minds.com.
Because I contribute to Townhall.com, the firm thought they could
Minds is a new social media platform to combat the lack of transparency and the essentially liberal bias of Facebook.
I interviewed Ottman for an hour, learning about his background, his investment in the program, his interest in effective competition against the current social media giants who are shutting down conservatives and limiting free speech of all kinds.
There were a few things that I took away from our interview, with the larger portions of the article which I had intended to submit:
——————————–
private information. Different sites block, suspend, or shut down opposing
views. Milo lost his Twitter account.
supporters across the country induced me to come back. I went live a number of
times on my restored Facebook account, along with my back-up account. Then I
kept getting banned for months at a time.
happened. Social media is taking up people’s time and resources like never
before, and it’s not good.
forced vacation from Facebook.
been losing users by the multi-millions over the last three months.
Post-Millennials are generally turned off to social media. More studies suggest
that
Ottman, who attend the University of Vermont. During his undergrad years, he
developed a different social media platform: Minds.
social media site which respects your privacy.
Ottman.
powered social network.”
explain “open source”:
and used. It also has to do with content to be shareable.” Ottman also prides
his program as seeking ideas from other people. I had suggesting reaching out
to Buffer and Hootsuite so that users can share their content on Minds along
with other platforms.
proprietary software “they give no access to the public what their code is
doing. It’s a major privacy issue. Transparency of the software is essential
for user freedom and user rights. Otherwise, they could be doing anything to
you. Any number of things.”
become notoriously well-known for.
transparent, encrypted for privacy, reward users instead of exploiting them.”
add time to expand the reach of posts and information, Ottman’s program created
a points system. Visitors and users to the platform get points, which they can
spend to increase the algorithms to share their content.
is forcing innovation, and bringing in much needed competition against Google,
Facebook, Twitter, and the other titans of Silicon Valley. Ottman wants to
disrupt the Facebook monopoly.
industry.
system industry.
Zuckerberg, comparing their tyranny to the Robber Barons of Gilded Age Post
Civil War America. Although the progressive accounts of these corporate firms have
been debunked, it is quite true that social media titans have become
anti-social in their tyranny. Is the answer more regulation?
boost your post for a thousand views. We will share that through the community.
your followers. We want to reward people with more exposure instead of taking
it away.
our versions. It’s a form of promotion
Peterson. He is on Minds. We are dedicated to free speech. There are lots of
censorship issues. A lot of content creators are getting banned or demonetized.
This has happened.”
to ban people for their political views. If people are malicious or harassment
on the site, but we have a much more free-speech oriented policy. Probably the
most liberal free speech content policies out there.
Tucker Carlson, Ottman is getting more traction simply because of
the purges and refugees from other platforms.
had to say.
really important to not politicize. We are certainly a freedom-oriented
network. A number of labels could apply to me.” He cited more populist,
anti-Establishment types like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
since platform founders have created problems for themselves precisely because
of their driven agendas.
platform that free speech advocates on both sides of the platform can coexist.
A lot of social media platforms are not able to maintain any sense of balance.
That’s any specific organization.”
tech titans:
are politicizing their platforms.”
original problems I noticed was the negative impact on people’s psychology.
They never came off as any kind of transparent. They didn't seem like a
down-to-earth company. They wanted to extract value out of users get people
addicted. They were conducting psychological experiments on the users. They did
a secret mood study. The would inject happy or sad articles into people’s
newsfeeds.”
disillusionment among Millennials?
posits: “They are turned off to the narrative, they are getting abused, they
don’t resonate with that. They want real connections with people, especially
for Millennials, because they don’t know a time without the Internet. They have
no experience with being away from the screen. It’s not about being pro- or
anti-social media. Most millennials are pro-social media.= — it’s how people
communicate, it’s part of the fabric of our society.
working from the ground up. Emerging tech companies need to have that
conversation with their communities.
personal currencies emerging. More freedom based platforms. There’s a lot of
heat that Silicon Valley is getting. IT’s a similar tone with what’s happening
to Facebook and Google, acting in weird group think.”
public commodity, just as Tucker Carlson has suggested.
solutions as opposed to more government regulations, but it may be a
possibility to consider. I think the conversation needs to be had, like with
Microsoft. I don’t know the answer on that.”
people off them as opposed to worrying about.
companies are engaging in. Surveillance, for example. to array of abuses of
power. One of the biggest ones was how they drew everyone to their platform, telling
everyone that you would be able to reach your target audience. They told all
the news sources that they would. These companies paid Facebook millions of
dollars, but every six months, they change their algorithm. Now the companies
are only reaching 3% of those fans organically. Facebook wants you to pay more
to reach the very fan base that your created. They changed the platform all of
a sudden. That’s false advertising.
issue that we will be facing – international law, dealing with laws in
countries based on what they think about data privacy. It’s a big regulation in
other countries. Then you have speech laws in other countries that are much
worse than in the US. They have gone down the rabbit hole of censorship. They
have started censoring other people’s content like mad.
more severe speech codes, like in Germany and China, the question remains up in
the air. Should social media sites comply with the speech codes in a country,
especially social media platforms based in freer countries. Perhaps these
social media platforms should not provide their apps in those countries to
begin with.
fundamental basis for your commitment to freedom of speech?
show that censorship actually makes hate speech worse. There as a study done by
Reddit – started censoring their contented. They analyzed 1 million reddit
posts. By censoring content, you can sort of slow down hate speech or racism.
But, it makes the larger global problem worse. It will just pop up somewhere
else.
effect—and it becomes more popular. People want to know more about it. It
infuriates the people getting censored. Our approach – someone needs to be
mature enough to deal with this more extreme content, so that in the battle of
ideas, the good ideas win on the basis of their own merit.
blocking and filtering tools
extremism worse.
line – she made a big fuss about it – and then everyone was talking about it!
She wanted to get rid of the content. This is exactly what happens when people
get banned on Facebook – they go to other accounts.
actually making it worse.
it’s a classic liberal, libertarian, common ground issue. Even if the Left is
being dominated by the censorship narrative. Not everyone on the left really
wants this. They are bullying their own side into thinking this.
speech and inclusion are exclusive, I think that you can in a sense that you
are being MORE inclusive by supporting freedom of speech.
getting into making these subjective decisions about content, that sort of a never-ending
rabbit hole that these kind time after time getting social media.
free speech party. There are lots of internal struggle in Twitter. A lot of
people who wanted to maintain their committee. Twitter has become so
inconsistent with their policy, even though there is violent speech coming from
the left and right – they only ban certain people. You have to have a
principle, whether certain content is offensive to some people.
help maintain a healthy community, but I don’t think that requires censoring
legal content. A lot of the feedback that you get – you are not taking responsibility
for the content on your site.
legal line in the US, that is consistent that people can hold onto. The other
sites do not have a consistent policy.
— of potentially being able to get corrected by those subjective decisions We
are moving toward cryptocurrency, which is less subject to censorship.
networks are not taking any cues, getting worse, and we grow more. They are not
learning from the consumer feedback. Facebook just had another loss of millions
of users.