Facebook and Twitter Censorship Is Pushing Users to New Platforms

For those looking to delete Facebook or Twitter in the wake of the recent, catastrophic campaign of censorship against conservatives/Trump supporters during the election, Minds.com might be worth checking out.

Minds.com has several things going for it, but one of the important ones is they have a clear track record of commitment on the issue of online Free Speech.

TNT recently had a discussion with Minds.com Chief Operations Officer (COO) and Founder Jack Ottman, specifically on his site’s Freedom of Speech stance. 

“… almost 10 years ago, [Bill] started to see some of the things that Facebook, mainly, was doing,” Jack said, discussing the motivating reason behind Minds.com CEO Bill Ottman’s (Jack’s brother) desire to create an alternative Facebook.

“Obviously since then, other platforms like Twitter and Google have kind of followed suit,” Jack continued. “[Bill] started seeing how they were essentially exploiting their users for all the value they were bringing to the network.”. 

Initially this software rolled out by the likes of Facebook and others was a way to predict, but also subtly manipulate users’ spending patterns. Not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.

However, this same type of software turned undeniably malicious during the 2020 U.S. presidential election as these sites sought to censor, ‘fact-check,’ and outright ban users and organizations that were on the conservative side of the aisle, and this is something Bill, Jack Ottman and the Minds.com founders theorized was possible around 2011.

Bill explained:

The election is highlighting the same problem with that; where people are really trusting these platforms to make certain decisions for them. Like what information is true and false? Or what posts should go to the top of my feed? And which ones should get buried. And it’s obvious to see what they’re doing to Trump’s account where every post, or every tweet is getting labeled as misleading.

We’re doing everything we can with Minds to remove ourselves from this authority position; where we’re the ones telling you what posts should go on your feed; what information is real and what’s not. We don’t want to be that person.

It’s good to hear this sentiment coming from Jack and Minds.com, but at the time it’s essential for users who’ve been betrayed by the likes of Facebook and Twitter to demand more from their social media networks. Action is needed, not just the right sounding words.

One of these sites to watch on this issue is Parler. 

Parler has gained a massive user base from disaffected conservatives, so good on them for successfully recognizing a hole in the market and providing a solution. 

But is the success visited on Parler a victory for online Freedom of Speech? That isn’t clear for reasons I’ve discussed previously in TNT. 

The key point to understand is this: when you create a Parler account, you have to sign a terms of service agreement, which if you violate, you’re kicked off the site. Period. 

Copy & paste, that is the exact same situation with Facebook and Twitter, and that isn’t giving users true freedom of speech rights.

Minds also has a terms of service agreement you have to sign and you can be kicked off if you violate it, but unlike most of their competitors, Minds.com has actually gone beyond the TOS agreement standard, in that they have created a Bill of Rights for their users, which you can read here.

The Bill of Rights’ tenants are based on something called ‘The Manila Principles of Intermediary Liability,’ which topic we closed out our conversation with Jack on. 

Regarding removal of posts on Minds Jack stated:

The thing about the Manila Principles that we really like is… the appeals shouldn’t be reviewed by the same body that made the initial decision. If I make a decision to remove somebody’s post, and then that person comes complaining to me, it’s not really fair for me to be the person who makes the decision again on whether their appeal is legit or not. So that’s why we created this whole jury system concept.

Rather than having the Minds team review the appeal, (a flagged post) gets circulated to a jury of Minds users who ultimately make the decision as to whether our team was correct or not. So it kind of puts a layer of checks and balances on our team. If we make mistakes, we have faith that our community is going to hold us to our standards and fix it.

The Minds.com jury/appeals feature is unique amongst social media network companies, and shows the clear desire of the company to uphold users’ rights, and also hold admin staff to a higher standard than currently practiced by all other social media companies. 

Minds.com certainly isn’t perfect; if you decide to set up an account, I’m sure there will be a few bumps along the way. It will be somewhat of a learning curve, although the platform has a similar layout to Facebook and Twitter. 

That being said, Minds is striving to check many of the boxes disillusioned conservatives are saying they are looking for in a social media site. Minds isn’t just talking about these things; they are tackling these issues like online Free Speech head on, and developing concrete solutions.

Minds also has a terms of service agreement you have to sign and you can be kicked off if you violate it, but unlike most of their competitors, Minds.com has actually gone beyond the TOS agreement standard, in that they have created a Bill of Rights for their users, which you can read here.

The Bill of Rights’ tenants are based on something called ‘The Manila Principles of Intermediary Liability,’ which topic we closed out our conversation with Jack on. 

Regarding removal of posts on Minds Jack stated:

The thing about the Manila Principles that we really like is… the appeals shouldn’t be reviewed by the same body that made the initial decision. If I make a decision to remove somebody’s post, and then that person comes complaining to me, it’s not really fair for me to be the person who makes the decision again on whether their appeal is legit or not. So that’s why we created this whole jury system concept.

Rather than having the Minds team review the appeal, (a flagged post) gets circulated to a jury of Minds users who ultimately make the decision as to whether our team was correct or not. So it kind of puts a layer of checks and balances on our team. If we make mistakes, we have faith that our community is going to hold us to our standards and fix it.

The Minds.com jury/appeals feature is unique amongst social media network companies, and shows the clear desire of the company to uphold users’ rights, and also hold admin staff to a higher standard than currently practiced by all other social media companies. 

Minds.com certainly isn’t perfect; if you decide to set up an account, I’m sure there will be a few bumps along the way. It will be somewhat of a learning curve, although the platform has a similar layout to Facebook and Twitter. 

That being said, Minds is striving to check many of the boxes disillusioned conservatives are saying they are looking for in a social media site. Minds isn’t just talking about these things; they are tackling these issues like online Free Speech head on, and developing concrete solutions.