Talk:Truth Social

Truth Social

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Truth Social is just a means for trump and others to spread his lies, point of view and outright false statements. This was Trumps be all to end all censorship. However when his false claims are fact check with reliable evidence, I have found my account banned or suspended. Free speech is not a thing on truth social if you have a differing opinion, fact check or call out the clearly false and misleading information from trump and other MAGA. I don't know how the republican party allowed this to happen. For a minority of unhinged people to spread hate, and constant threats of violence. This site should be passed over for a legitimate truth social site as it clearly isn't. Matt131267 (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"I don't know how the republican party allowed this to happen." I do. The Republican Party has no control over Donald Trump's actions and business decisions, and no particular ability to influence the administration of Trump's companies. Dimadick (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So it's the same as with Twitter under Musk - don't come with facts correcting Musk or you get quickly banned. How surprising.--Denniss (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick How could they elect such an idiot and also an FSB agent as president of the USA? I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!! 2001:861:51C2:BF60:C043:DCDD:2535:514F (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there something that you are asking to be done with this article in WP? If so please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format  • Bobsd •  (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Alt-tech????

Why does an app has to referred to as its ostensible political affiliation?

Obviously the sources describing it as such can be described as "progressive" news sites, by the same logic.

Not to mention, one or two journalists' biases does not make this declaration a fact backed by "sources." These citations aren't news, they are opinion pieces. Aman7goyal (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If reliable sources broadly characterize Truth Social as "alt tech", Wikipedia does as well. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 12:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The application does not ban people outside the alt-right circle from signing up. Hence, your "reliable sources" are wrong.

I'm sure Wikipedia "aims" fair and proportionate representation, but that goal could still be achieved without peddling same-old resources' same-old biased rewriting of a narrative (you obviously know what I mean here).

Removing "alt-tech" from the article's introductory line alone wouldn't render the article itself unfair, would it? If anything, it's superfluous currently to even assign a political affiliation to something like an internet application. Aman7goyal (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If these reliable sources are wrong, you are welcome to find others that directly contradict the claim that the platform is alt tech, and we can introduce language stating that reliable sources disagree on the characterization. However, your own evaluation of whether the platform qualifies, and whether or not the sources are accurate, is not usable per WP:OR. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

1) I don't think anyone with diverse viewpoints is "welcome" to do anything when a page has been covered with multiple protection layers.

2) There needs not be a contradictory source to establish the absence of the word "alt-tech." The burden of proving something lies on the side that advocates it, and only three editorials from years ago are carrying that burden here. I could say that those same sources, alongside hundreds others, have not used the term "alt tech" in relation to Truth Social besides these 3 sources. So there lies the proof. I'm not sure how to incorporate those millions of citations here, though. Aman7goyal (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• It doesn't actually matter, but only the NYT source was an RS. See WP:STATISTA, and stylus.com is some small firm trying to sell crap.

I do get a few other hits for "Truth Social" "alt-tech" on Google News. Reliable sources usually aren't describing it as alt-tech because it isn't even really much of a social media site at this point, it's mostly just Trump's personal blog, and that is the context reliable sources are discussing it in 99% of the time. So, it's not obvious to me that should be the most defining characteristic given in the first sentence, but certainly there is absolutely plenty of sourcing for us to state it as fact.

Relatedly, alt-tech means "alt-right tech", which Wikipedia defines as white nationalism (of the 2010s). Which does seem to imply that Wikipedia is saying Trump runs a white nationalist blog. I don't think we're trying to say that, but I get why the categorisation might make people uncomfortable. Endwise (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Needs more cleanup

Too much use of social media (mainly Truth Social,) sill some unreliable sources

Lead is dreadful, see WP:LEAD. It's all about the money, nothing about "notable activity". I am guessing most readers would be more interested in the latter. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Intentional obfuscation of usage statistics

The article claims "Estimates in early 2025 suggested 6.3 million monthly active users—small compared with major rivals" and "Estimated 6.3 million monthly active users (as of January 2025)" in the infobox, but the website used to cite this claim is an AI SEO generation site and doesn't share sources of information.

What we do know for a fact is that Truth Social intentionally doesn't federate with the rest of the Mastodon network, which blocks us from getting stats about users through traditional statistic gathering APIs, and that in SEC filings TMTG very explicitly does not share "Key Operating Metrics" such as daily or monthly users or number of signups (see below). In short, Truth Social is intentionally obfuscating the number of users on the platform, and I think that any stats on the Wiki should reflect that there is no real consensus on these numbers as well as the reasons for why that is the case.

"Since its inception, TMTG has focused on developing Truth Social by enhancing features and user interface rather than relying on traditional performance metrics like average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts, including monthly and daily active users. While many industry peers may gather and report on these or similar metrics, given the early development stage of the Truth Social platform, TMTG’s management and board has not relied on any particular key performance metric to make business or operating decisions. TMTG believes that this evaluation is critical and in line with its commitment to implement a robust business plan that may involve introducing innovative features and potentially incorporating new technologies. At this juncture in its development, TMTG believes that adhering to traditional key performance indicators, such as signups, average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts including monthly and daily active users, could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business. TMTG believes that focusing on these KPIs might not align with the best interests of TMTG or its shareholders, as it could lead to short-term decision-making at the expense of long-term innovation and value creation. Therefore, TMTG believes that this strategic evaluation is critical and aligns with its commitment to a robust business plan that includes introducing innovative features and new technologies." SUNJIR0 (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)