Some Truth About Truth Social 🌐
March 31, 2022
How We Got Here
Twitter permanently suspended Donald Trump's account on January 8th, 2021. Up until that point, Donald's favorite method to propagate messages directly to his millions of followers was via Tweet. Once permanently suspended from Twitter, he searched for new mediums to spread his rhetoric. His attempts to blog sputtered out. He tried Press Releases but soon stopped those, too. He hosted a few rallies but those eventually stopped. Finally, he announced he would launch his own alternative to Twitter, Facebook, Parler and Gab Social.
Trump claimed his new social network would allow anything on his new conservative town square. Trump claimed he would allow "free speech" and “stand up to the tyranny of Big Tech”. For Trump, his supporters seemed to love the idea, perhaps even willing to pay a monthly subscription service for his new endeavor -- Truth Social.
Should citizens really trust Donald Trump to govern their free speech on Truth Social?
Free Speech & Content Moderation
Our natural human reaction to solve problems is to quickly remove them. Whether a mouse in the house, weeds in the garden, or rotten apple in the pantry; the default is to remove the problem, quickly. Content moderation on the internet, still in its infancy, is no different.
Unless one has spent years working inside the world of content moderation, it's easy to underestimate the immense pressure to remove content. Our natural human reaction defaults to remove content fist and, if possible/necessary reinstate the content later. Most people do not want to think about all the bloody footage of accidents, war, violence, nudity which needs to stay up in some form on the internet. Most people will quickly remove mere allegations of pedophelia and adultery, corruption, drug sales, counterfeit items, and so forth.
Furthermore, when the report / request to remove content arrives from a high priced law firm on behalf of a client or when the requesting party is a celebrity or political official, the pressure to remove content rises exponentially. Lawsuits are not fun or fast or cheap; and it only takes a second to click a button and remove a 'bad' post and make a potential lawsuit or investigation go away. To keep content online, one must be willing to endure legal exposure for the benefit of another, likely a complete stranger, likely in another Country, likely at a financial cost, often without so much as a 'Thanks'.
So, when someone like Donald Trump, having zero experience with content moderation and notorious for maximizing his own financial incentives, claims he will be a free speech maximalist, one should raise an eyebrow and red flags. Why should we believe the man who still peddles conspiracy theories about election coverups? How can we measure the underpinnings of Truth Social today and in 1-2 years?
The answer is rather simple: read the fine print.
The Fine Print
If you want to learn truths about a social network, then grab a drink and read the fine print. All the various legal considerations regarding data collection and content moderation which are required to function in accordance with laws around the world are encapsulated and available in the fine print of the Terms of Service (TOS) and Community Guidelines; generally glossed-over during the sign-up process. Yet, they are a contractual agreement by which Users are bound. In fact, that is the very purpose of this initial work. The following are some of my initial findings and red flags from Truth Social’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines.
Circus Maximus
For starters, let’s acknowledge what Truth Social considers itself to be. Twitter once proclaimed itself the global town hall. Facebook aims to build the Metaverse. Truth Social, on the other hand, fancies itself the "Big Tent' of social networks. Yes, like the circus; it expects to be a social network circus. The jokes practically write themselves.
And yet, while our inclination may be to writeoff Truth Social as just some joke network, let us remember Trump's own 2016 Presidential campgian -- unlikely and ridiculous right up until the surreal moment on election night where it suddenly was no longer funny. He became the 45th President for four years and almost indefinitely. So, let's place jokes aside, dive-in, and understand the implications of Truth Social.
Lawsuit Waiver
One of the most fascinating parts in Truth’s TOS includes the unusual 'Waiver' clause. Setting aside for a moment the fact that such a class action waiver in consumer web agreements is legally dubious, it’s notable that neither Twitter or Facebook nor Parler's Terms of Service / User Agreement includes any equivalent 'waive your rights' clause. On those platforms, disputes are routinely handled in a Court within the jurisdiction of the company.
Below is the peculiar language that Truth’s User’s agree to upon signup:
“(Users) must AGREE TO ABSOLUTELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVE ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN OR TO BE INCLUDED IN ANY CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS OR INCLUSION IN ANY MULTI-PARTY ACTIONS OR SUITS AGAINST US, ANY OF OUR AFFILIATES, SPONSORS, SUBSIDIARIES, VENDORS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY ASSOCIATED THEREWITH.”
Truth Social intentionally includes this specific language in an attempt to distance itself from any, perhaps inevitable, circus fire(s) in the future. It's no secret that Donald is currently subject to over a dozen civil lawsuits and Federal investigations. This clause could be the easiest way for Don to attempt to have his millions of supporters waive their collective legal rights and remedies without them fully aware of their doing so; sort of like the Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) for which he is infamous. See also: Stormy Daniels. Again, these waivers are legally dubious. Still, I am equal parts horrified and fascinated by the boldness of this clause’s existence. It remains to be seen whether or not he intends to weaponize / invoke it in future legal proceedings.
Prohibited Content
So, once Users waive some legal rights, and get onto the platform, they'll be free to post anything and everything, right? Well, no.
Here's what you can’t post on Truth Social...
Illegal Content: ALL social networks are bound to prohibit content which is illegal under Federal law, including Truth Social. ALL social networks, including Truth Social, therefore include language such as: no illegal activity, no fraud, no prositution, no counterfeit items, no child exploitation content, no violations of intellectual property, and so forth. Truth Social includes this language, too, Nothing unique there.
However,...
Capital Letters: As previously reported, Truth Social prohibited "excessive use of Capital letters." on Day 1." Inevitably, this ridiculous policy will soon be rescinded.
Sexual Content: Truth’s TOS prohibits “Sexual content or language” and “Sexually suggestive (explicit or vague) texts or phrases.”. This is where things get interesting. No sexually suggestive texts or phrases? On a supposed ‘free speech’ network? Why?
Perhaps the legal / community teams are simply covering their respective behinds. After all, inclusion of such language and enforcement thereof are separate matters. Yet, theoretically, this is bad news for free speech advocates. For example, if one attempted to share text-based yet descriptively graphic pro-gun erotica, Truth Social absolutely reserves the right to ban you. The question is -- Would it?
LGBTQ Considerations: If Truth Social is the free speech platform it claims to be, then it naturally follows to allow users to promote LGBTQ viewpoints. However, this poses a potential issue with conservative republican viewpoints (and legislation) which embody Truth's foundation and core user demographic. So, is it Okay to Say Gay on Truth Social? One basic experiment to test Truth's policy enforcement would be to slowly (in order to avoid spamming) post the screenplays for Brokeback Mountain and Eyes Wide Shut on separate accounts. If only one account is allowed to exist after several complaints by site users, then Truth opens itself up to a potential discrimination problem in enforcement. Other social networks, including V Kontakte (VK) in Russia, have a lengthy history of banning LGBTQ content. It remains to be seen whether Truth plans to follow in VK's shoes.
Violence: Truth prohibits Violence, which it defines as, "content that depicts violence or threat of violence”. This is the same for all other social networks. However, it's important to consider whether the insurrection on January 6th 2021 could have happened on Truth Social or would the content be removed under its ‘Violence’ policy? Further, will war imagery in Ukraine be banned? This is precisely why Trump’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin becomes critical. Let’s call it a mere coincidence that Truth launched the same day/weekend that Russia invaded Ukraine. Fine, but, if images of human rights abuse and war crimes begin to disappear from the platform due to triggering Truth’s ‘Violence’ policy, then not only do we not have truth, but potentially a coverup of truth. If so, then it would appear Truth Social functions more in practice like the American version of V Kontakte, which has a history of abdicating to State censorship pressures.
Furthermore, Truth Social has no known plans to publish a Transparency Report. So any wiping of content, whether it be from the Ukraine war, pro LGBTQ content, or even critical race theory content which disappears is gone forever. Quite the antithesis of free speech and accountability.
Finally, consider the history of social network content moderation policy. The list of content considered ‘prohibited’ tends to expand over time. In other words, content which would likely be allowed to exist on day one might have a policy precluding its existence after year one, two or three. If this trend holds true with Truth Social, then we should expect to see more prohibited content over time, not less. Factor in the points mentioned above and Truth Social is therefore already on track to censor more content than traditional social media companies, not less, and it likely arrived at censorship significantly sooner than Facebook, YouTube or Twitter. Not great news for the first amendment crowd out there.
Withholdings
Truth Social's Withholding and Notice Policy, theoretically, appears sound. Truth Social claims (emphasis on claims) it will promptly provide notice to users upon receipt of a request to remove content, unless prohibited from doing so.
However, in practice, we know at least one unflattering parody account directed toward a Republican member of Congress was promptly banned from Truth Social, without receipt of legal process (that we are aware of). The account, a parody of a Cow, was removed from Truth Social yet still available on Twitter. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to assume similar content that is critical of politicians will likely be banned.
Whether this content moderation extends to both political parties, whether foreign government officials have already contacted Truth Social to remove similar content, and whether affected users do, in fact, actually receive a notice from the company -- all remains unknown.
Law Enforcement
The door is wide open for Truth Social to hand over user data to law enforcement. In fact, they appear to be in the process of building a dedicated Law Enforcement online request form. However, the form is currently not ready and the copywriter for Truth Social might have been tired during editing. For now, the site has erroneous placeholder language where the link to the law enforcement form should be found: "([Email or website link here]{.underline})".
Warrant Canary
I was surprised to find the warrant canary section. For those unaware, a warrant canary is a colloquial term for a regularly published statement by a service provider to signal it has not received legal process, often for user data in the form of a National Security Letter (NSL) along with a gag order, that it would otherwise be prohibited from disclosing. Given the events of January 6th and Trump's supporters, Truth Social is clever to hint at the strong possibility of eventually receiving a NSL related to an ongoing or future investigations of users and/or content on its platform.
Summary
It would be prudent to remain cautious about Truth Social. The platform is currently ripe to censor more content faster than other platforms. Worse yet, Truth Social might not even be a simple conservative town square, but potentially something far more nefarious. Based on the Waiver clause, potential for future U.S. government requests seeking user data, and potential for foreign adversaries to collect data, the risks significantly outweigh any potential benefits from its social network experience. Those looking to troll in an echo chamber of likeminded individuals will likely find themselves bored quickly and return to Twitter. As of March 31, 2022, Truth has seen a 93% decrease in traffic.
A Word of Caution
One must note that in one bizarre, yet possible, timeline wherein Donald Trump (or even a close GOP ally) wins the 2024 Presidential election, Truth Social could easily re-emerge with explosive growth and adoption. In such a timeline, one could foresee certain individual(s) advocate, even if just for publicity and trolling, that Truth Social be the one and only social network permitted in America. This 'American VK' scenario would pave the way for Truth Social to become America's State-sponsored, State-regulated social network. Thankfully, I don't believe we'll arrive there.
I previously wrote about (allowing for) the organic failure of conservative social networks in The Curious Case to Restore Parler.