Trump's new platform is called "Truth Social" - a name that, in its brevity and pointedness, once again demonstrates the excellent propaganda skills of the platform originator.
The name cultivates a moral contrast between the classic media branded as “fake news” and a supposed sphere of “truth” that will, of course, be Trump's truth.
And he underscores the idea of a “social truth” whose validity rests less on its factual coverage than simply on certain collectives believing in it.
Such a “perceived truth” could be that Trump and not Biden won the presidential election.
According to this logic, information is justified as "true" as soon as a large number of people believe it to be true: "Truth Social".
This concept of truth fits perfectly with the mantra Trump frequently shrugged off when confronted with his lies during his presidency: "Many people in this country feel like I do."
"Truth Social" also claims ethical superiority in that it offers users - according to the propagandistic narrative - the opportunity to express their opinions uncensored.
After being locked out by Twitter and Facebook, Trump himself provides “proof” that anti-freedom “censorship” is raging on the established platforms.
With his own platform, he can perfectly follow his self-stylization as a victim (the "witch hunt").
Claiming this superiority is not specific to "Truth Social", but connects many new platforms that spread right-wing extremist positions - such as Parler, Gettr, gab, MeWe, Telegram and so on.
The anarchist utopias of the net activists
There is a great danger that liberal and left-wing intellectual groups will dismiss such self-portrayal of the "alt-tech" platforms as thigh-slapping or "impudence".
Because they are far more sophisticated and malicious, precisely because they take advantage of the Internet politics as they are traditionally represented by liberal and left-wing intellectuals.
Network activists, of all people, have been advocating unlimited freedom on the Internet for decades, which they see as a place that is free from paternalism and restrictions by state institutions.
The "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace" published in 1996 addressed the "governments of the industrial world" thus: "Where we meet you have no power".
She promised: "We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere, is allowed to express his or her beliefs, however individual, without fear of being forced into silence or conformity." This once-bold, anarchist colored utopia explains why the political discussion about possible regulations of the internet triggers violent reactions to this day.
It is not surprising that the platforms have taken up these ideologies of the net utopians.
This was hardly a problem in the past, since nobody could foresee the future colonization of our media system by digital monopolies.
The digital corporations cleverly used the ideals of the Internet activists on their way to power for their own purposes and owe this a unique liability privilege, which incidentally stands in open contradiction to the otherwise usual legal norm of equal treatment.