Talk:Truth Social

Request for page protection

A request for page protection has been made due to the high level of IP and SPA vandalism. --Kbabej (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The request for page protection has been granted and it will be protected for a period of one year. --Kbabej (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is debatable based on political ideology. Stogersen (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Requests for page protection or unprotection can be made at WP:RFPP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

‘So called attack.’ 2601:82:C004:9CB0:0:0:0:455B (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We are using the wording chosen at 2021 United States Capitol attack through much discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

License Violation (AGPLv3)

They're not required to distribute the source code until such time as they release the app (and even then, the requirement is they provide it if requested - not that it's "published" as such). So any talk about a license violation is speculative at this point. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Consider this retracted, because Mastodon is using AGPL not GPLv3, which seems to require modifications be made available in the case the software is used in any capacity, not just "released" in binary form. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The details of the above discussion are moot. A properly cited, strictly factual account of the potential AGPLv3 license violation has already been added by User:Perey to the History section. If the TMTG eventually complies with the license, the entire issue will be moot and perhaps of such minor consequence that it may not be worth keeping in future versions of this page.Lapabc (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Considering that even the beta version of the page has not been released yet, only a couple of test versions have been accessible to a very limited number of people, this "License Violation" discussion is nothing but blind speculations so far. While the test sites might possible have had some placeholder elements from the Mastodon code, there is no reason to assume that the official page will not be entirely based on original/proprietary code. Therefore those accusations of "license violation" shouldn't be included in the article. BreakingZews (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is that they have already violated the license with the test version - there is nothing in the AGPL about license violations applying only to production ready code. If they conform with the license by 30 days after notification, or replace it with non-Mastodon based code, then that is the time to delete that part of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CA01:B00:7A24:AFFF:FE33:66AF (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

maybe they're using the 2016 version of mastodon under gpl Slinkyw (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

The whole thing is full of errors...the site From the desk of the 45th President page is still being used and he still makes press releases on it. No hacks have occurred because while you can sign up to be one of the ones to be in the beta the system and servers are not up yet. Jan. 6th protest was not deadly by the protesters. Rabbit was complying to what an officwr told her and was shot by another officer in the back. Get rid of clowns writing fake information, sighting fake news stories. 52.144.111.247 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. "the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The anonymous commenter has a point about the blog From the desk of the 45th President. This article quoted news sources saying it was shut down, but in fact it is still operational and anyone can navigate to that site and see for oneself. I modified that sentence in question to reflect accurate June 2021 point-in-time news reports, adding an additional news source citation, but to also accurately reflect the current state of a live and active website in the Fall 2021. The other comments are not in a form that can be accurately addressed.Lapabc (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We need a secondary RS for that. @Lapabc: in case you were not already aware, the New York Post is considered a generally unreliable source (RSP entry). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Since about September 2021, the site is only updated about every 2-6 days. Even though the dates on the posts themselves SUGGEST daily updates, that is in fact not the case. Whether that qualifies as a "live and active" website thus then becomes a matter of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E422:3C01:85A:DD8A:8283:8A61 (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You are correct in reverting the sentence back to the original. The anonymous commenter apparently got spoofed, and so did I when I followed up. The source for the original complaint and subsequent edit was not a news report but the site itself: https://thedeskofdonaldtrump.com/ It's live and it's distinct from Trump's Save America website. Or so it seems. On the day of my edit, the browser I happened to be in was Edge, whose default search is Bing, and this site was a top hit. But in looking back today in Chrome whose default is Google, the same search terms fail to turn up the site in the first 90 hits before I gave up. The site's "About" section seemed superficially okay and clicking on its links takes one to Save America. But this site's URL lacks the word "From" which I didn't notice the first time. So while these posts are legitimately from Trump, the site itself appears to be a third party effort. (As for the NY Post, the only time I ever actually look at it is if I happen to be in NYC and found it left by someone on the seat of a train, and even then I flip it to the back for brash coverage of NY sports teams not for its journalism, LOL.) Lapabc (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Reception

" Chris Cillizza of CNN wrote that the platform was doomed to fail. " How can CNN possibly be considered a reliable, neutral source on anything related to Trump?? ₪ Encyclopædius 07:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I would ask why the "reception" section is here at all. It's not released. Why include rife speculation? (some people will love it, some people will hate it, shocking and encylopedia worthy!!!) 76.11.168.118 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The same goes for reference 27 from Noah Berlatsky, "Trump's 'Truth Social' could be more of a threat to democracy than it looks". Why is any credence given to one person's opinion, especially when discussing a topic like something being a threat to democracy? That's no small threat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.38 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Because all the comments here are about the article's Reception section, I changed the label here from the original "CNN" to a broader "Reception." As for addressing the actual comments, first, CNN is considered to be a reliable source. For more WP information in general, see this: Reliable Sources and this: Generally Reliable, and for CNN specifically see this: Perennial sources: CNN. Second, many WP pages have a "Reception" section and there is no reason to exclude that here. Third, it is true that there will be pros and cons, but currently the section consists of several stand alone sentences in random order. So without modifying any original statements I simply reorganized them into pro and con paragraphs to make things coherent. In my opinion, the sentence referencing Rolling Stone is superfluous and should be deleted, but I leave that to others. Lapabc (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Truth Social partners with Rumble

Shouldn't someone add in that Truth Social is doing a partnership with Rumble? 2604:CB00:136:B300:4402:FB86:1433:64EA (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

New date for full launch

In an interview with Fox News, Trump stated that the full launch will now be "first quarter of 2022". Whether coming from his own mouth on Fox News constitutes a "reliable source", I couldnt possibly say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E422:3C01:35B0:7B37:D701:9FD6 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

He's been saying the full launch would be in early 2022 ever since the TMTG press release on October 20, 2021, which we already cite in this article. In that October press release, he also said the app would enter limited beta on the Apple App store in November 2021, which still has not happened. So it seems that the company is two months behind schedule. To me, it casts doubt on whether he's going to meet his original (purported) schedule of first-quarter 2022 for the full launch. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Update lede?

The lede says: "Originally, a limited launch was planned on Apple's App Store in November 2021, and a full public launch in 2022." I suggest deleting this sentence entirely from the lede. The information is valuable, but an essentially identical sentence exists (along with the same 2 citations) in the "History" section, so I don't think we also need it in the lede. To speak frankly -- though this is clearly my own judgment intruding here -- Truth Social looks every day more like another of Trump's business failures, fakery, and lies. I don't see value in continuing to parrot Trump and cheerlead for "planned [for] November 2021[!]" when he didn't meet his own deadline. I think it would convey more useful information to state that this is an as-yet-nonexistent product that has somehow achieved an implicit valuation of $10 billion on the stock market. The unusual behavior of investors, as well as of a Congressperson resigning to become CEO, is the real story here. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and made the change to the lede. Deleted 1 sentence, added 2 different sentences. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

Truth social is not launching on February 21, 2022. It’s set to launch the end of March. 173.49.237.32 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Heavy left-wing bias in page wording

This article uses heavily left-leaning language. There is clearly a bias towards negatively portraying the topic covered. The wording should be changed to be more neutral. 76.71.105.29 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We only publish what reliable sources have said about it. This determines the wording, as well. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources might still use non-neutral wording, especially when the said reliable sources have a certain political leaning. In such a case, editors who add the content should neutralize the wording to make it conform to the core content policy WP:NPOV. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)