> then I think someone will do so.

Yes, but, would they be any where near the level of what FB achieved? Take Truth Social as an example. It started because people wanted a place they get out of the larger group to dedicate to like minded. In this Philip K Dick style rewriting of history where FB was created by those behind Truth, would it have ever achieved critical mass?

Just because someone else attempts to fill in the vacuum of something else not being there does not mean that it will succeed in filling the void. Truth only survives on the cult of personality, not because people really want to be using it or because it's like a good product

▲

kergonath 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Take Truth Social as an example. It started because people wanted a place they get out of the larger group to dedicate to like minded.

Not at all. It started because Trump was banned from Twitter. That’s it. The whole point was to give Trump a platform. There is nothing organic or natural about Truth Social and if it is the symptom of anything, it’s that some people just have too much money.

▲

dylan604 3 days ago | parent [-]

I kind of disagree in that the giving him a platform is just the cover for the actual purpose which is a way for anyone to shovel him money through a "legitimate" means to avoid any sense of bribe or quid pro quo. Very similar into how certain countries that wanted to curry favor made long term rental agreements for property owned by Trump. It was only slightly less obvious than dropping of bags in the oval office with $ marked on them.

	▲	kergonath 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed. Good point.