A few days ago, I wrote an article on the #YouTubeIsOverParty which was related to free expression on YouTube. I concluded it was mainly an over exaggeration caused by poor communication on the part of YouTube. In this article, I will review a similar problem Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) faces. In this case, I do think it will hurt the platform in the long term. Twitter's problems with censorship have led to the creation of a competitor called Gab. At the end of the article, I have a mini interview I did with the founder and CEO of Gab.
Gab's creation is a reaction to Twitter's policies. Because it is a creation prompted by an event, it created a cult following of those who feel similarly. This gives it a viral appeal. Gab isn't a social network which principally aims to have better features than Twitter; it aims to promote free expression. It emphasizes this mission by promoting the hashtag #speakfreely as you can see in the logo below. This goal is what makes the platform worth looking at as a competitive threat to Twitter opposed to some other start-up.
Reasons Gab Was Created: Where Twitter Messed Up
There's two main reasons for this free expression counter-reaction against Twitter. The first was the banning of Milo Yiannopoulos. Twitter handled the situation poorly. The goal for Twitter should be to have the most users welcome on the platform while maintaining a sense of order where there aren't 'witch hunts' geared towards users. I'll explain what happened and what Twitter did wrong.
Milo has a history of, in his words, "being catty." He pokes fun at various users and sometimes his followers gang up on his targets and it gets out of hand. Twitter took the approach that his taunting of Leslie Jones was the 'straw that broke the camel's back', so it banned him. On the surface level, this doesn't seem like a bad decision, but it didn't end well. The goal for Twitter should have been to appeal to Leslie Jones' concerns, while being a fair arbiter of the situation.
The best solution would have been to tell Leslie Jones to stop quote retweeting the vile attacks. She unknowingly (or knowingly) was inspiring the attacks she was trying to stop. As anyone on the internet should know, giving trolls attention makes them troll more. Secondly, banning Milo created the "Streisand effect" where even more trolls came after Leslie. This time they had a reason to troll her as she was the catalyst for getting their favorite commentator banned.
Twitter's banning of Milo gave him fuel to fill the narrative that Twitter isn't friendly to conservatives. Given that he is a writer for the widely popular Brietbart, this narrative has been amplified, thus hurting Twitter's image as a platform of free expression. Once again Twitter fed the troll and actually helped him as now he seems to be a regular guest on CNBC where he constantly bashes Twitter.
In summary, Twitter had a double whammy of making Leslie receive more hate and amplifying the critics of its free expression policy. Twitter felt it was doing the right thing by ending trolling, but wielding too heavy of a hand makes the troll look like the victim. This is the first piece to the reason why Gab was formed. It wants to allow those who have been banned on Twitter to #speakfreely.
The second reason why Gab was created was the reaction to Twitter's censorship of trending topics which it doesn't like. I have seen this firsthand with it stopping the autocompletion of some offensive hashtags. There needs to be a balance between keeping Twitter safe, while allowing users to say what they want.
Wikileaks' Twitter account which has 3.48 million followers, has accused Twitter of censoring hashtags as you can see in this tweet. It shows a video which shows the #DNCLeaks hashtag not showing up as a trending hashtag for logged out users. This doesn't necessarily prove Twitter is censoring that hashtag because trending topics are tailored to the specific user. However, the conservatives on Twitter mostly believe Twitter is censoring them (otherwise known as shadow banning) which is a problem as Twitter wants to be inclusive to all users. It can't afford to alienate a specific sect of people. Twitter should be more open about its policy towards censorship. Gab doesn't believe in censoring as it doesn't tamper with the trending hashtags on its platform.
Gab's Results Thus Far
I have used Gab for 3 weeks. It is in beta form, so some obvious features like the ability to watch a video within a post and direct messages are absent. However, it does have the ability to edit posts, has a folder separating out spam notifications, and has a stream feature to see what the accounts you're following are doing (like Instagram). It is impressive that a beta website which launched less than a month ago has some features Twitter doesn't have. I also like the 300 character count. Twitter seems to have flirted with 10,000 characters and then decided to stay with the 140 after it had blowback. Maybe it could have made a small increase to allow for better conversations like Gab has.
The CEO posted the initial traffic results after the first three weeks of launching the beta. There have been 246,000 posts, 11,000 accounts, 32,000 waiting in line to get an account, 22.3 posts per user, average session duration of 12 minutes and 35 seconds, and 2.83 million page views. This is small relative to Twitter, but if the growth rate continues, then it will start effecting Twitter in a few quarters. The most important thing to emphasize is Gab users are on the platform because they believe in free speech. This makes usage stickier than a similar viral social app.
Takeaway For Twitter Investors
Gab is attempting to service users who feel slighted by Twitter. The fact that there is such a group is Twitter's own fault as it has used too heavy of a hand when dealing with trolls. Jack Dorsey decided to, once again, listen to the people who aren't on Twitter and ignore the users. The people who have stopped using Twitter say it is too vile. Twitter is banning actual users in an attempt to get those who deleted Twitter years ago back onto the platform; it's illogical. There needs to be a balance. Accounts promoting violence need to be removed, but Twitter should encourage users to block and mute the trolls instead of banning them. The less expressive someone can be, the less they will want to tweet.
Interview With Andrew Torba: CEO Of Gab
This is the three question interview I did with the CEO of Gab, ironically through a Twitter direct message conversation.
Q: How are you going to avoid the possibility that the social network becomes the equivalent of a Breitbart comment section?
A: If users don't want to see certain types of comments one would find in a Breitbart comment section, they can mute words that would likely be included and not see those.
The difference with Gab is the user shapes and creates their own Gab experience. For example, I don't really like sports so I mute many different sports terms, and don't see that content in my Gab feed. Do the same for politics or Trump or whatever.
Q: What is the sales pitch given to non-Trump supporters on why they should join?
A: There's no sales pitch. Gab is a people powered social network. Our goal is to empower people and promote free speech and expression online, and off. All are welcome.
We have no ads. Our model is a bit different. Soon Gabbers will be able to monetize their time, content, and audience on Gab with tips, donations, and subscriptions for exclusive content.
Q: What percentage of your users aren't political in nature or at least aren't part of the alt right?
A: Gab is not for any particular group of people, political leaning, race, beliefs, or anything. Anybody is welcome to express themselves on Gab so that we can provide a platform that ANYBODY can use to connect to their audiences, bring their ideas to life, and enjoy the recognition they deserve for doing so.
We let the community decide what is great content and what isn't with upvote/downvotes. We will let the community finely tune their content feeds over time, in order to make each Gab user's experience as comfortable and convenient as possible.
We are the free market version of social media, built by the people, for the people, and we are going to make social media great again, for everyone.
Final Thoughts
Gab has had some coverage in other media outlets. It has been branded as an alt-right website. This is sloppy journalism as Gab is not an alt-right social network. As a libertarian, who isn't an al-right person, I am an example of this. Twitter should rectify its situation by changing its stance on censorship. This isn't going to happen as Jack Dorsey is trying to make Twitter a safer place, so he is going in the opposite direction. I don't think there has been a meaningful effect on the website yet, but in the long-term this policy will hurt user growth. As I said, Twitter empowered the Milo troll by banning him as he's now on CNBC attacking Twitter every chance he gets. This situation blew up in Twitter's face.
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: Follow me on Gab.ai @AlexPitti
