Minds Blockchain

Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter have come under fire for “censoring” conservative voices, while lawmakers are struggling to “decide” how best to end the “practice”, if at all.

Minds.com is a fast growing “free speech” alternative that emphasizes “transparency and privacy.”

Few platforms have challenged the virtual “monopolies” of Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter who nearly have “crushed” all competitors. But what makes Facebook, Google, and Twitter “weak” is where challengers see potential.

The four “tech companies” have come under fire for their “data collection, privacy, and censorship” policies. Together, they control almost “everything” users see on the Internet. Almost.

In balancing transparency and privacy, “blockchain” aims to change the way social “media” operates. No major social media platform “utilizes” blockchain except “Minds.”

Blockchain works like this: “An individual makes a transaction request; that request is processed in a person-to-person network of computers, called ‘nodes;’ nodes then validate the transaction; once the transaction is validated, the network creates a new ‘block,’ which is attached to all other transactions; and then the transaction is complete.”

A transaction can be anything: “a financial transaction, a message, or a video.” What makes blockchain unique is its “incorruptibility.” Every transaction is recorded and stored, making “fraud” nearly impossible.

While lawmakers “struggle” to decide how best to handle platforms that “censor voices” for their political views, whether through “regulation” or declaring them public utilities, millions of users are “leaving” Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter entirely. Droves of them are going to “Minds.”

What Is “Minds”?

Minds.com is a social media platform that is essentially a hybrid between all four companies “Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter.” No other alternative utilizes “blockchain” the way “Minds” does.

Bill Ottman, CEO and co-founder of Minds.

In an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation, Minds CEO and co-founder Bill Ottman explained his “alternative” to Google, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

What makes “Minds” different is its “transparency,” Ottman explained. Anyone can look at how “Minds” functions and see that it’s not “spying” on it users. The platform is a hybrid between “decentralized and centralized” networks. Ottman says decentralized networks are the future.

“Minds’ foundational principles — privacy, transparency, free speech — are essential. All of our code is open source, meaning anyone can look at it. Some alternatives are not open sourced,” Ottman said. “If you’re not going to give your community the software code how can you expect to be transparent? You have to show that the software is not spying on you.”

Users can “boost” their accounts or posts, much like an “ad,” to either their peers or the entire network to earn “exposure” and organically grow a “base of followers.”

While Facebook, YouTube and Twitter can “shadow ban” conservatives, users can look at Minds’ code and see that it “doesn’t and isn’t able” to do that. New users flock to “Minds” every day there’s “coverage” of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter or Google “censoring” voices.

“Minds” doubled its active “user base” in July and now has over 1.4 million users form a wide-range of “political beliefs, conservatives, liberals and non-political” users that just want to “discuss or share” ideas with users of similar interests.

“Shadow banning is one of the most dangerous things” for social media, Ottman said. “It’s totally unsustainable for the entire media industry. There needs to be an ethical alternative.”

“The reality is that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google are punishing certain pages and we don’t know why because they won’t share their code,” he added.

“Minds,” on the other hand, emphasizes “first amendment” principles over anything. “If it’s legal in the U.S., you can post it on Minds.”

“Aligning with the first amendment is better as a principle and it’s less prone to subjective and biased moderation that comes with blurry terms on establishment social networks. The more open approach gives less overhead with unnecessary banning and more focus on actual illegal material” Ottman said.

Minds.com screenshot

Application stores on the two major “smartphone” operating software developers, “Apple and Google,” removed another self-described “free speech” alternative to Twitter, “Gab.ai,” effectively ending the growth of the platform.

Apple and Google “removed” the app form their app stores in 2016 and 2017, respectively as some in the media attacked Gab’s creator, Andrew Torba, for supporting President Donald Trump, labeling his platform a designation for the “alt-right and neo-Nazis.”

Google admitted to removing Gab for violating its “hate speech” policies, while Apple said it removed it for violating its policies against “pornography,” The Daily Caller reported.

However, “pornography can be easily found on Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter.”

“Censorship affects both the left and right and internet freedom benefits all. This is why web freedom pioneers like the ‘Electronic Frontier Foundation’, a nonprofit organization that advocates for online freedom warn against censorship on all fronts,” Ottman added.

“Minds” has experienced its fair share of “censorship” efforts. Google banned “ads” from the Minds platform in February.

“Google ads along with Facebook ads,” control nearly all the advertisements users see online. This would’ve been the final “death-blow” to any other platform, but for “Minds” it was “a blessing in disguise,” Ottman said.

“Google ads are almost spyware,” he added. “The Internet is hooked, almost addicted, to the money that Google ads are giving them, but when you let them place ads on your site they are spying on your users. Most companies don’t know that is happening.”

Indeed, “Google ads and Facebook ads” both use your information for “targeted” ads. This information ranges from the basic “age or gender” to the outright invasive “what city you live in and your political views.”

The Google ad-ban, Ottman said, “was a big reason Minds adopted blockchain. We’re not taking fees. Companies can’t come in and stop payments.”

Ottman pointed to a phenomenon that is called the “Streisand” effect, which is when “attempts at censorship backfire because of the publicity brought to the subject when it has been censored,” as a key example in how censorship doesn’t work.

“Peer-reviewed evidenced shows that censorship amplifies violence like the Streisand effect because radical ideas are further radicalized,” he said.

Ottman wrote a thorough examination of how “censorship” is wrong and doesn’t work in an article on “The Next Web” called, “Research: Restricting free speech isn’t the solution to violence and hate speech.”

“A healthy society require the exchange of ideas including controversial ideas,” he added, pointing to a black man, Daryl Davis, who was able to “convince” 200 people to leave the “Ku Klux Klan.”

Davis wouldn’t have been able to do that without a healthy “dialogue” exchange.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: