Social Media

Crossfit Deletes Facebook and Instagram After User Group Is Deplatformed

In the best of all possible worlds, such actions wouldn't be necessary. In the current climate, boycotting social media might spark a return to a robust marketplace of ideas.

|

For all the the talk of arbitrary, capricious, or ideologically motivated deplatforming of people, publications, and groups by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media platforms, there's been less discussion about high-profile individuals and companies deleting their accounts in response to what they see as unfair, unethical, or misguided behavior.

That might change now that CrossFit, the immensely popular exercise and nutrition enterprise, has announced that it is permanently pulling its Facebook and Instagram accounts. According to an official statement published yesterday:

Facebook deleted without warning or explanation the Banting7DayMealPlan user group. The group has 1.65 million users who post testimonials and other information regarding the efficacy of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. While the site has subsequently been reinstated (also without warning or explanation), Facebook's action should give any serious person reason to pause, especially those of us engaged in activities contrary to prevailing opinion….

Facebook…serves as a de facto authority over the public square, arbitrating a worldwide exchange of information as well as overseeing the security of the individuals and communities who entrust their ideas, work, and private data to this platform. This mandates a certain responsibility and assurance of good faith, transparency, and due process.

CrossFit, Inc., as a voluntary user of and contributor to this marketplace, can and must remove itself from this particular manifestation of the public square when it becomes clear that such responsibilities are betrayed or reneged upon to the detriment of our community.

The statement lists eight additional complaints about Facebook (which owns Instagram), These include the platform's willingness to censor certain accounts or pages at the insistence of governments, its "weak intellectual property protections," and its alleged willingness to act "in the service of food and beverage industry interests" by removing "accounts of communities that have identified the corrupted nutritional science responsible for unchecked global chronic disease." Despite CrossFit's strong condemnation—at one point, the statement declares that by purging dissenting views about low-carb, high-protein diets, "Facebook is complicit in the global chronic disease crisis"—the company does hold open the possibility of returning if Facebook and Instagram restore "good faith, transparency, and due process."

This is one way that marketplaces—whether for goods and services or for ideas—are supposed to work. In the parlance of political economist Albert O. Hirschman, CrossFit is not simply exercising its right of "exit" by leaving Facebook but also its right of "voice" by complaining publicly.

In the best of all worlds, such actions wouldn't be necessary. Instead of taking it upon themselves to police more than true threats and instead of calling for government regulation of expression, Facebook and other social media services would treat their platforms as free-speech zones and focus instead on providing users with tools to personalize their experiences.

But that isn't the world we live in, so CrossFit's public excoriation of Facebook serves an important corrective function. If more high-profile individuals, companies, content creators, and accounts take similar action, it'll be a more libertarian outcome than the government regulation increasingly supported by both liberals and conservatives.

Bonus video: Six years ago, Reason interviewed CrossFit founder Greg Glassman, who talked about being "a rabid libertarian" and a contrarian when it comes to workouts, diets, and more:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

72 responses to “Crossfit Deletes Facebook and Instagram After User Group Is Deplatformed

  1. Waiting for ENB to call Crossfit group “snowflakes”.

    Social media that presumes to police its content creators for correctness is incompatible with being an open forum, since so much of those judgments are controversial at best.

    1. That’s Panicky Snowflakes to you, Mister

      (or maybe only the Republican Crossfitters)

    2. Someone should ask her if she thinks Lindsay Shepherd is a ‘snowflake’ too.

      1. Probably it’s time to find another word to make fun of the overly sensitive. “Snowflake” is clearly played out.

        1. I prefer the phrase “fucking pussies”.

          It’s also triggering, which is the whole point.

          1. I love it

  2. goddam it’s about fucking time humanity started walking away from Zuckerberg … the slavery to FB everyone in around me was palpable

  3. “Facebook and other social media services would treat their platforms as free-speech zones and focus instead on providing users with tools to personalize their experiences.”

    How do you serve a targeted ad in a way that isn’t offensive to a social justice warrior watching an alt-right rally? The problem is that targeted advertising targets the individual (not the content), and individuals sometimes like to read and watch things they hate. Meanwhile, they associate the advertising they see as support for the things they hate–and advertisers aren’t willing to pay for that.

    It may be that Facebook’s individual content creator model cannot support the kind of advertising growth a publicly traded company needs to justify the kind of multiple they want on their stock. Advertising driven models only work when the advertisers can control the content–like they do with television, radio, print publications, etc. Once the people creating the content are no longer beholden to the advertisers, the content almost invariably becomes something that advertisers don’t want to subsidize.

    The FCC was always a fig leaf. Advertising was always what was driving the squeaky clean content we’d get on television and radio. If you want to get raunchy, you have to go to a subscriber model. Yeah, you can see tits and monsters on TV, but you have to buy a subscription to HBO or rent a DVD or go buy a ticket to the movies. Generally speaking, advertisers don’t want any part of that shit.

    Incidentally, if advertising constrains social media so that it can never be what it wants to be–clean enough for advertisers but sufficiently dirty for all those viewers–then that isn’t really a problem for government or libertarians to solve with arguments about free speech. That’s Facebook’s problem! So what if their model is limited and can’t continue to grow in a free market? Fuck them.

    What we need is subscription models for social media like you get with HBO instead of broadcast television. Either that, or maybe there are better smaller social media like applications people can use–like Slack. I’ve got my friends and family using Slack now for stuff they used to do with Facebook. Stop worrying about the solutions to Facebook’s problems–and start thinking about your own problems. You want to do Facebook stuff but hate Facebook? Get yourself a Slack account and try it out.

    1. Or at least some of these sites could be satisfied with the revenue generated by selling all that freely provided data. Probably wouldn’t work for Youtube, and certainly won’t cover what people have come to expect from Facebook, but they aren’t going to last as is anyway.

      1. Yeah, I think a lot of this is about Facebook and Google’s status as publicly traded companies. Facebook is still down hundreds of billions in market capitalization since last summer, and that isn’t because their earnings have fallen–so much as the market just isn’t willing to put such a high multiple on their earnings anymore.

        Some of that is because people aren’t spending as much time on the site as they did and some of that is because they aren’t drawing younger consumers as much anymore. Regardless, it’s largely about their advertising driven model likely not being able to drive those valuations like they did a year ago–much more so than the market is worried about them being broken up or regulated.

        I just don’t think you can get a premium for targeted advertising from premium advertisers when you can’t control the content. Social media’s real innovation was that users would generate your content for you free of charge. If advertisers can’t leverage that–even with targeted advertising–because the content that draws people’s attention over the cacophony will always be too controversial in the wrong way, then that’s just the way it is.

        Sometimes markets have natural barriers, and this may be the natural barrier for social media–advertisers can only leverage user generated content to a certain extent. Electricity suppliers can only sell as much electricity as people will buy, too. That’s okay!

        There’s a cognitive bias that makes us feel like present trends will always continue. I guess that’s what science fiction is about. In reality, every trend is only a trend so long as market forces will sustain it. Someday, China will have a real recession, too. I don’t know if it’ll be next year or twenty years from now, but this time isn’t different.

        Social media finding its top doesn’t mean we need to step in and save Facebook from natural market constraints either. If they need to burn the candle at both ends–make it clean for advertisers, keep it raunchy to keep driving readership–that’s their problem. I doubt we need to save social media from Congress, and we probably don’t need to save the First Amendment from Facebook either.

        1. This post does make me feel better about these companies. I hope you’re right about this, Ken.

        2. Facebook is like bell-bottom jeans. They won’t exist in another couple of decades.

          Social media is a one-trick pony. Its demise will come more quickly than other traditional media.

          1. While Facebook is as doomed as Myspace, social media is here to stay.

        3. I think you’re missing the point, and focusing on advertising and the desires of advertisers. The point, is why is Facebook censoring any content? There’s no legal requirement it do so, and instead I submit they do it to get in bed with government (who wants them to censor), restrict competition, and to get very personal data about individuals which they sell to politicians. Note the uproar about when they sold data to Cambridge Analytica (a conservative group) but no uproar about selling personal details about us to politicians, or the free information they gave to Democrats (a campaign violation in my book).

          Consider: Assange tells us what people in government are doing, and they want to hang him, while Zuckerberg tells politicians all about us and they like him for it, until he starts selling data to conservative groups.

          1. “I think you’re missing the point, and focusing on advertising and the desires of advertisers. The point, is why is Facebook censoring any content?”

            The reason Facebook and other social media companies are censoring content is because premium advertisers refuse to buy advertising on platforms that can make it seem like, in the wake of a mass shooing, for instance, that they endorsed AR-15 videos–helped monetize them, even!

            McDonalds, Coca Cola, and other consumer product companies spend billions to project an image of diversity and inclusion–only to have their ads show up next to comments that are bashing Muslims or gay marriage? They’re not willing to pay for that.

            And I’m not speculating. Over the last year, premium advertisers have consistently decided to cut back or eliminate advertising on social media. That means the top of the social media market is limited–unless they can cut down on controversial content and attract those advertisers.

            AT&T, Disney, and Nestle all dropped out of advertising on YouTube because of controversial comments made by users under the videos.

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2019/02/22/at-t-disney-epic-games-pull-youtube-ads-child-exploitation-concerns-pedophiles/2948825002/

            Why wouldn’t premium advertisers pulling out of social media because of a lack of censorship make social media start censoring?

          2. “Another defector is Hasbro, which said it is halting its YouTube advertising and has reached out to the website and Google (both are owned by Alphabet) “to understand what actions they are taking to address this issue and prevent such content from appearing on their platform in the future.”

            Epic Games also said, in a statement to USA TODAY, that “through our advertising agency, we have reached out to Google/YouTube to determine actions they’ll take to eliminate this type of content from their service.”

            Kellogg spokesperson Kris Bahner said the cereal maker was “pausing all advertising on YouTube as we learn how YouTube will ensure the safety of all who enjoy its platform. Kellogg is committed to responsibly marketing its brands and products so our consumers can make informed choices, and on channels that meet and enforce our global guidelines.”

            So, that’s AT&T, Disney, Hasbro, and Nestle who have cut back advertising on social media over uncensored content–and those are just the ones mentioned in the article over this incident.

            These companies spend billions to associate positive images with their brands. They do not want to associated their brands with what they consider to be negative content. This isn’t a problem on TV, print magazines, etc., where content creation is overseen by an editor who is beholden to the advertisers. In a model where the users generate the content (which is what social media is all about), that model is impossible, hence the censorship.

            This is why Zuckerberg is begging for regulation. Facebook’s advertising model probably won’t remain competitive over the long run against other social media models that aren’t limited by the concerns of advertisers. If Facebook turned away from their advertising model now, they’d be sacrificing 90% of their revenue stream–and they’re not about to do that. So, the next best thing is to use government to make it harder for other social media outlets (maybe ones that haven’t even emerged yet) to compete with Facebook. That’s why Facebook is begging for the government to do something.

            Advocating for government regulation of Facebook is carrying water for Zuckerberg in that way–regardless of whether the people who want Facebook regulated realize it.

            1. I don’t think you’re right, Ken.

              I think you’re conflating two things that appear similar but stem from wholly different places..

              First, concerns about verifiable pedo-mobbing are not what anyone’s referring to when they go on about social media’s viewpoint discrimination. So when you bring up advertisers backing away from places where their products being advertised are getting mobbed by pedophiles while in a conversation about how Big Social Media has declared the ‘ok’ sign a hate symbol, it feels not just disingenuous, but also dismissive of valid concerns.

              Pulling ones ads from sites that are frequented by pedos is logical.

              But pulling your ads from the enormously popular right of center content creators is insane.

              Content creators that are getting millions–sometimes tens of millions of views each are a hugely profitable revenue source.

              But you have no idea if Big Social Media is going to demonize them and slice off that revenue stream at a whim–which they do with alarming regularity.

              THAT is what makes advertisers jumpy–when the ‘platform’ can cut off ads they paid for on a whim. Why pay for that?

    2. “Maybe there are better smaller social media like applications people can use–like Slack.”

      Picture this:

      Slack grows to have a sufficiently large number of users, and Reason opens up a Slack interface for paying subscribers. Now Reason has what amounts to a private version of Facebook.

      I find (and my less technologically sophisticated friends and family) find Slack more useful than Facebook because of the way it integrates with outside applications people are already using like Skype, Twitter, Dropbox, all Google’s products, etc.

      Slack makes money by charging Reason for the service. Reason passes this own by selling subscriptions. Users don’t need to pay Slack anything–unless they want to keep more 200,000 independent posts without purging them.

      Now Reason has a version of Facebook that’s better than Facebook for its integration with non-Facebook apps, and it’s not advertising supported at all. It’s a subscription model. I’m just using Reason as an example, here. It could just as easily be any given organziation that interfaces with the general public. I’ve already got this set up for friends and family. My friends and family don’t need Facebook anymore.

      Slack will never generate the kind of profits that Facebook did from advertising, but that’s okay. Creative destruction does that. It takes things that used to be lucrative and makes them more accessible and less expensive than the old model. That’s the nature of progress.

  4. […] Crossfit Deletes Facebook and Instagram After User Group Is Deplatformed 6 by tappityapp | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]

  5. […] Crossfit Deletes Facebook and Instagram After User Group Is Deplatformed 6 by tappityapp | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]

  6. […] Crossfit Deletes Facebook and Instagram After User Group Is Deplatformed 6 by tappityapp | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]

  7. […] Crossfit Deletes Facebook and Instagram After User Group Is Deplatformed 6 by tappityapp | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]

  8. Separation of church (CrossFit) and state (Facebook)

    Did they say how they’re going to get out the wods now?

  9. Anti carbs is racist. Duh.

  10. Crossfit is breaking the first rule of Crossfit.

    1. not NOT talking about Crossfit?

      1. I know a bunch of Crossfitters who never talk about it, and a bunch of non-Crossfitters who never pass up a chance to talk about how much Crossfitters talk about Crossfit. I guess the first rule of being out of shape is to make fun of people who are?

        1. Sure, Greg. The team would prefer you substitute “non-elite” for “out of shape” though. [vaguely military-worshippy motto here]. Thanks, Rogue! New colorway!

    2. it’s funny because it’s true ~~fat tony

  11. What what you’re saying is, CrossFit Pounced?

  12. Instead of taking it upon themselves to police more than true threats and instead of calling for government regulation of expression, Facebook and other social media services would treat their platforms as free-speech zones and focus instead on providing users with tools to personalize their experiences.

    Thank you for posting this Nick, but with all due respect you have this exactly backwards. Facebook and the major social media networks already were largely free speech zones until local, state and national governments started whispering in their ears about problematic content. That is when the social media giants started aggressively and arbitrarily started policing content, mainly on ideological grounds. It was precisely because those governments and gadflies in social media itself complained about the overly ‘free’ nature of the speech going on there that we got to this situation in the first place.

    1. In turn this created a kind of ideological spiral for Facebook. As pundits, legislators and influencers complained about the overly free nature of their platforms, the platforms increasingly used the their power to censor people whose opinions were contrary to the pundits, legislators and influencers. As those targeted groups found themselves increasingly under fire from said platforms, their ire against the platforms increased. As their ire increased, Facebook et. al. banned more content and creators, increasing the ire and so on.

    2. Really? I thought it was the activists reaching out to advertisers that started this (“Hi Proctor & Gamble, I’m about to run a story on how your company supports white supremacy on the internet, would you like to comment?” …. “oh, but you DO support white supremacy, let me show you a screenshot of my personal Facebook feed full of alt-right material right next to your advertisement”). I thought, in true government fashion, the government was late to the party and is thinking about regulation after-the-fact.

      I don’t follow this too closely though, so maybe I’m missing something?

      1. That’s what started Youtube’s demonetization efforts. The media who was losing advertisers by the droves to Youtube started producing “stories” about ads running on problematic content. That was a push by a “media watchdog” group which was tied to the old media orgs trying to get advertisers to pivot back to traditional media. What you point out can’t be ignored entirely. But once youtube started demonetizing videos, that wasn’t enough. It was the outright banning and demonetizing on seemingly arbitrary and ideological grounds that was likely coming from people like Angela Merkel.

        Unfortunately all of this started happening around the same time so it’s hard to pin it on a single thing. I think it’s a multi-pronged attack against the tech giants from old media, government and a pervasive monolithic ideology that exists in the leadership of these companies that’s produced this perfect storm.

        1. All what you say may be true and accurate (I don’t know because I’m a rube in such matters) but I get the feeling they’re willing participants in censoring or demonetizing accounts. The CEO of youtube for crying out loud thinks Shapiro is an ‘alt-right’ extremist.

          Dorsey and Zuckerberg are punks (based on their comments and actions anyway. Dorsey was especially insufferable when interviewed by YouTube channels like Rogan and Saad) way in over their heads when it comes to the concept of free speech and expression.

          Good for CrossFit I say.

        2. I see. I knew that this all started to go down around the same time that YouTube channels started really challenging the idea that mass economic immigration into Europe is a good thing. I wouldn’t doubt that governments in Europe had the ear of various Silicon Valley CEOs on this subject.

            1. In truth, global socialist governments, tech giants, old media, advertisers – they’re all in it together.
              There is some intra party competition, but they have the same goals and work towards the same ends together. That competition even presents the appearance of conflict, when it’s really no more than factions vying for position in the hierarchy and/or cover for one sector to do what it must to further the goals of all sectors – things which are often unpopular among the masses.
              Merkel’s “threat” to Zuckerberg, like the congressional hearings, is merely one member of an organization saying to another member “take care of it”.
              We are wrong if we think there is any real opposition within the global socialist ranks.

            2. Facebook has lost hundreds of billions in market capitalization, but it isn’t even because their advertising revenues are down. Their revenues are up. It’s that investors no longer believe in the growth story anymore. They may never be able to sell user generated content to advertisers at a growth rate that will justify the p/e ratio they had a year ago. Part of the reason is because the content is keeping advertisers away.

              That’s not about what Zuckerberg said to Merkel. It’s about there being a top to their growth and the problem is fundamental to their business model–and the top is a lot lower than investors thought it was a year ago.

              Look at this chart:

              https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/FB/facebook/pe-ratio

              On June 30, 2018, Facebook’s p/e was 30. Their earnings per share has risen since then, but their p/e dropped to as low as 17.3 despite increased earnings! It’s recovered substantially since then, but that kind of swing on a stock with a market capitalization in the hundreds of billions is huge. At one point, investors valued Facebook’s earnings at significantly less than the average of the S&P 500.

              It’s cost them hundreds of billions in market cap.

              They’re not doing this to themselves because they care so much about being social justice warriors, or whatever, that they’re willing to take a beating in their stock price. Rather, I believe there are natural limits to advertisers’ appetite for platforms with user generated content. Being social justice warriors doesn’t get in the way of Facebook wanting to help the advertisers–who want them to clean up and clean out their platform–but the reason they’re cleaning out the platform is because that’s what the advertisers paying the bills want them to do and the market was kicking the shit out of their stock price.

              1. One could conclude 17 p/e is a signal to buy if EPS is rising. But I agree, if investors perceive growth is maxed out, the stock will stagnate.

              2. Its interesting to me that you seem to think Facebook’s p/e and investment outlook is based entirely upon the advertising revenue of their social media arm

                1. It’s interesting to me that people would attribute Facebook’s behavior to being social justice warriors when their behavior is also attributable to the fact that Facebook lost hundreds of billions in its stock price–with Zuckerberg personally suffering more of those losses than any other Facebook shareholder. Zuckerberg personally owns about 30% of Facebook’s shares.

                  In regards to Facebook’s sources of revenue, that’s easy enough to look up. Ad revenue and the selling of user data to advertisers makes up about 90% of Facebook’s revenue stream. This description and explanation at Forbes is pretty standard:

                  “Facebook has had many forays into building new products and services that could be monetized, but none of them have represented a significant source of revenue for the company. In these attempts, Facebook’s primary interest is in diversifying their sources of user base growth, rather than diversifying their sources of revenue. Almost all of the products and services that Facebook provides they provide at a financial loss, and these products are instead subsidized by ad revenue. As long as these new products present opportunities to grow the user base or further engage/retain existing users, all of them can serve to grow future ad revenue, so Facebook can continue to experiment with new products without having to make them profitable.

                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/04/13/why-hasnt-facebook-diversified-revenue-streams-like-microsoft-google-and-amazon-have/#322beefa4800

                  I’ve written here before about why the founders of WhatsApp left Facebook in disgust after Zuckerberg pushed them to monetize WhatsApp by selling userdata and hitting users with targeted ads. That’s why one of the two founders dumped $50 million into Signal (which is the app that users concerned about their privacy should really be using instead of anything owned by Facebook). Point being, even when Facebook diversifies their product offerings, like with Instagram or WhatsApp, it’s about gaining more ways to acquire more data and serve up more advertising.

                  1. Wasn’t Signal designed by govt spooks with some built-in backdoors? Just sayin’.

                    1. Signal is so secure that Signal itself can’t tell who is talking to whom.

                      Check this story where the user ID is stripped from the metadata.

                      https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/10/new-signal-privacy-feature-removes-sender-id-from-metadata/

                    2. “By design, Signal does not have a record of your contacts, social graph, conversation list, location, user avatar, user profile name, group memberships, group titles, or group avatars,” Joshua Lund, a Signal developer wrote. “The end-to-end encrypted contents of every message and voice/video call are protected by keys that are entirely inaccessible to us. In most cases now we don’t even have access to who is messaging whom.”

                      https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/signal-to-australia-good-luck-with-that-crypto-ban/

                      Even if the government subpoenaed signal or had a backdoor, there wouldn’t be anything to see.

                  2. It’s interesting to me that people would attribute Facebook’s behavior to being social justice warriors when their behavior ……..

                    ….always seems to benefit SJWs in some way.

    3. Blame the Hag, with her “Russians stole muh elekshun” rhetoric.

      Not that Gillespie ever would.

  13. I absolutely have to share this article on Facebook but I don’t have an account.

    1. Most of the reason staffers can post it for you.

  14. Huge event in media land.

    CrossFit, like it or hate it, is a trend setter. Specifically, a trend setter for young, urban professionals with money.

    The Great Cuck, i.e. Zuckerberg, is probably shitting himself right now.

    If CrossFit migrates to Minds.com, or a like social network, it will be a huge pickup for those platforms.

  15. Thank you,i will share this article on my facebook

  16. It would be better if companies whi have made a monetary presence based on Facebook’s previous rules were able to sue for civil monetary damages when Facebook acts in this type of manner.

    1. It’s fraud, they should be able to sue.

  17. […] Crossfit Deletes Facebook and Instagram After User Group Is Deplatformed […]

  18. Must Reason do everything in its power to make libertarianism embarrassing? Crossfit is 100% a collection of toked up hippy wackos. That they’ve decided to quit social media is great, but I’d rather not draw attention to them as libertarian example. Isn’t there some more prestigious group libertarians can stand next to?

    1. “more prestigious group libertarians”

      1. Heh. Concern troll is concerned about libertarians and their group associations.

      2. Prestigious and libertarian…not usually in the same room.

    2. They basically brought back the barbell so I don’t know you can give crossfit too much of a hard time. How many people are doing deadlifts and squats that used to just waste their time with Nautilus machines? The way they use ’em is dangerous. But CF was a game changer in fitness. I’m glad they stood up to facebook. Unfortunately, I don’t think too many businesses will follow. It would be great to watch FB go to zero because their users just moved across the street.

  19. Top social media platforms are like the Stanford prison experiment and users are the prisoners, but the doors are unlocked.

  20. There needs to be a membership based social media platform. You pay an annual / monthly fee to use the site and in exchange, you have more guaranteed rights and only other paying members can post comments on your content.

    I believe NRO requires subscription to the physical magazine to comment on their site. From what I can tell that reduced troll and TDS rantings by about 90%.

    Ideally there should be a FB alternative that’s dedicated to free expression – where you get to post anything that doesn’t amount to criminal activity or incitement of violence. Just disable or modify the sharing feature.

    1. Check out PikMobile – it’s better than your stated desire!

  21. need for good online job so please this website ….. online-3.com

  22. Books si, teevee no. Blogs and websites si, Farcebuke, Twit and pap no. Simple… no time wasted.

  23. I wish I could say I was surprised by the article about Facebook/IG, but it’s just the beginning.

    We commend Crossfit for their bold stance. It’s not right that a brand builds a community over the years and they have the power to flip a switch, judge, jury and executioner.

    Let me introduce you to the alternative, PikMobile. We developed the platform to offer an alternative approach to social networking, replacing the advertising business model that Facebook and others use. PikMobile is the first patented mobile publishing app that lets content creators turn their premium posts into a sustainable income — right from their mobile devices. Creators retain ownership of their content, set their pricing, and can connect with their communities without all the noise and advertising on other apps. Of course, you can continue to offer everything free, that’s your choice.

    PikMobile simplifies the user’s experience by bringing all of their favorite premium content creators – and all their friends and family into one app. “No ads and no algorithms and no data collection” means you see what matters most to you and your privacy is protected.

    Hope to See you on PikMobile!

  24. ReneeCoFounder
    June.3.2019 at 4:18 pm
    I wish I could say I was surprised by the article about Facebook/IG, but it’s just the beginning.

    We commend Crossfit for their bold stance. It’s not right that a brand builds a community over the years and they have the power to flip a switch, judge, jury and executioner.

    Let me introduce you to the alternative, PikMobile. We developed the platform to offer an alternative approach to social networking, replacing the advertising business model that Facebook and others use. PikMobile is the first patented mobile publishing app that lets content creators turn their premium posts into a sustainable income — right from their mobile devices. Creators retain ownership of their content, set their pricing, and can connect with their communities without all the noise and advertising on other apps. Of course, you can continue to offer everything free, that’s your choice.

    PikMobile simplifies the user’s experience by bringing all of their favorite premium content creators – and all their friends and family into one app. “No ads and no algorithms and no data collection” means you see what matters most to you and your privacy is protected.
    pikmobile.info

  25. […] but given all the gray areas that come with defining who and what is ban-worthy (should, say, radical diet groups get bounced?), the superior solution is minimal content moderation, restricted to true threats and […]

Comments are closed.