This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gettr article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It seems User:Bushman826 and others (including inadvertantly myself) have engaged in a edit war over linking to the 2021 United States Capitiol Attack, removing that link and replacing it with e.g "peaceful protests" (not linked) This has reached the point of breaking the 3 revert guideline by User:Bushman826 C.f https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring This should stop. Cross-linking Wikipedia articles is important, and doing so by name simply makes sense. -- Oxinabox ( talk) 23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Link in previous message has typo. Should have been 2021 United States Capitol attack. -- Oxinabox ( talk) 23:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that there is some serious bias being placed here. I had a link from Reuters removed for no reason, along with other edits with verified sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushman826 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The content featured countless racist and anti-Semitic language including the N-word and calls to kill or lynch black people. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:8F ( talk) 03:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: the name of the foundation tied to Guo Wengui. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 05:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a description of GETTR as a platform that allows for racism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism in the lead? This has been discussed in multiple reliable sources including Vox Media's Recode ( https://www.vox.com/recode/22559493/gettr-jason-miller-trump-app-social-media-facebook-twitter-free-speech-cancel-culture) which describes GETTR as "the app is in many ways a knockoff of Twitter, it doesn’t have a lot of users yet, and it’s already a home for blatantly racist posts that would be taken down on most other platforms." NeneCaretaker ( talk) 15:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
There should be space for this observation on the page, but I'm not sure it is notable enough to be included in the intro. There is only one source cited, written by one journalist. Including it in the intro is arguable, but certainly the single journalist cited does not support the claim that: "Journalists (plural) noted the prevalence..." Do you have additional noteworthy sources? 2600:6C44:427F:2101:A8C5:135B:3F27:69B6 ( talk) 00:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove - Journalists noted the prevalence of extreme content on the platform, including racism and antisemitism.[7][8] There are no facts to back it up. The best the journalist could com up with is that Gettr allows free speech. The journalist is blinded with Bias and total disregard to the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 2600:1004:B00B:723B:3813:EA70:CCDF:76C1 ( talk) 16:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add content noting that GETTR "is inundated with terrorist propaganda spread by supporters of Islamic State" and "features reams of jihadi-related material, including graphic videos of beheadings, viral memes that promote violence against the West, and even memes of a militant executing Trump in an orange jumpsuit similar to those used in Guantanamo Bay."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/02/trump-gettr-social-media-isis-502078 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjohnston42 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, for clear disclosure, stop allowing liberals from destroying Wikipedia. All I see is propaganda being sourced by the likes of Slate, Vice, Vox and Politico. All of these are super left publications. At least have a little integrity. 2601:100:8181:3880:80D0:AA57:4A86:A05A ( talk) 06:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
It seems as if to keep the criticisms and controversies better organized, a new section should be created just for that with the below text from the "History" section being moved to that new section. Thoughts?
Shelbyhoward423 ( talk) 17:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I recently tried to edit the spelling of GETTR to it's all-capitalized stylization from the way it is currently referenced in the article, which is "gettr." There's a case to be made through WP:COMMONNAME that the name should be stylized in the all-caps manner for ease of understanding by lay-readers. Are other editors willing to get on board with this? Also, because I was flagged as being associated with GETTR, I am publicly declaring that I have no conflict of interest associated with them. I am simply interested in editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upside WikiWriter ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title of the page be in all-caps per the name of the site? In this case there is then reason to make the stylization "GETTR" throughout. Upside WikiWriter ( talk) 18:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This line: "Gettr's terms of service allow but do not commit the platform to removing content that is "offensive, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, pornographic, violent, harassing, threatening, abusive, illegal, or otherwise objectionable or inappropriate", makes no sense. "Allows but does not commit the platform to remove?" Should this perchance read "disallows"?
Next line, same 'graf: "In an appearance on Newsmax, Miller touted the app as a 'place people won't be canceled', and described the site's moderation system, which he said had already identified 'left-of-center people' to 'catch them and delete some of that content'. Are the "left of center people" catching, or being caught? I had to read this line several times to form a clear idea of what it's probably trying to say. (Even without the typo I fixed.)
Could someone familiar with the subject repair these humbugs? Laodah 04:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Can we change the launch date in the sidebar to July 4th? Many reputable sources [1] list that as the date of launch, not July 4th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upside WikiWriter ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
References
I will remove the term alt-tech from the lead and move it to a section specified for criticism or opinions. And my rationale is:
I would like to add the subsection "Censorship and Moderation" to include more content around how the app works without getting it removed. Any suggestions? @GorillaWarfare Thanks for your help
Shelbyhoward423 ( talk) 17:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Shelbyhoward423 ( talk) 21:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Starts to get rambly and unencyclopedic around "According to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue" to the end of the section. Going to rework this in a bit.. Sucker for All ( talk) 23:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence says Gettr is "intended for American conservatives.[5][6][7]"
None of the three references support the claim that Gettr is intended for American conservatives. They all mention conservatives, but none of them make any mention of the site owners' *intentions* for whom it is for, which is a very different thing.
It may well be true that Gettr is intended for conservatives, but if so, the claim needs to be backed up in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denbosch ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I've changed this now as there was clear political biased involved and the links did support the claim. I have added an interview with the founder where he clearly states the site is for everyone. ( https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/gettr-ceo-youre-not-going-to-get-de-platformed-simply-for-expressing-a-political-view) -- Hontogaichiban ( talk) 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that target audience of a product is determined by the creator of the product it makes little sense to attribute the target audience through a secondary source such a news article. The app description in both major app stores doesn't mention the word "conservative" or exclusion/discouragement of anyone based on political ideology. That being said it could be argued that if a characterization must be made outside the primary source then it should be done so based on individually citable features, terms, and condition present in the product and the formulation of the characterization should stated as "appears to be" in order to clarify this is a conclusion reached by the a secondary source and not the creator of the product. In addition to this the placement of this mention is out of line to the majority of social networking services on documented on Wikipedia which makes the information seem disjointed and disorganized. 208.189.3.2 ( talk) 04:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I've changed this now, as it was clearly wrong to say the site for conservatives when there was no source and in this interview it is clearly stated by the founder himself that the site was intended for 'everyone'. ( https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/gettr-ceo-youre-not-going-to-get-de-platformed-simply-for-expressing-a-political-view). -- Hontogaichiban ( talk) 15:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Misleading claim that GETTR "following" is imported.
There are 2 notations on GETTR, one of which is just GETTR followers. Joe Rogan has 1.2 million GETTR Followers
https://www.gettr.com/user/joerogan — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.38.104.150 (
talk)
15:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There's multiple primary sources including both google and iOS stores descriptions stating the platform is intended for everyone. In addition to this the founder Jason Miller has never stated that the platform is targeting American conservatives. It seems like an unnecessary detail that is supported by sources that contradict several primary sources. In addition to this other articles for similar platforms (f.ex. Twitter) don't include target audience. 65.66.76.235 ( talk) 03:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes I agree. That part stood out to me. As you've already said, there's nothing that suggests such. I was gonna start a discussion on this. Victor obini ( talk) 15:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is currently semi-protected through December 1, 2022, which seems arbitrary and prevents significant updates, detailed below. Kindly requesting un-protection.
98.109.117.71 ( talk) 03:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Copernicus43728 currently seems to be in process of whitewashing this article. Compare oldid 1079110363 to current. The most blatant whitewashing is in the removal of The platform experienced issues shortly after launch, including internet trolls posting content that violated the terms of service, users flooding it with pornography, and the brief hacking of some high-profile accounts.[14][15][16][17][18][19] Journalists have observed the prevalence of extreme content on the platform, including racism, antisemitism, and terrorist propaganda.[20][21][22][23] Thoughts from other editors, GorillaWarfare? Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
If you contribute to a controversial article then it can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones.Now I, or any other editor, can boldy revert that string of edits, because putting the onus on us to parse through your controversial edits is unfair. Thus, according to the cycle, it is now on you to bring your edits to to the Talk Page Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, to repeat the ignored question— Copernicus43728, were you also previously the editor 98.109.117.71? Not implying any rulebreaking, just, you immediately pointed me to their section, which seems bizarre if you're not them, so as this discussion continues I want to know if 98.109.117.71's contribution to it can be read as being yours. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gettr article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It seems User:Bushman826 and others (including inadvertantly myself) have engaged in a edit war over linking to the 2021 United States Capitiol Attack, removing that link and replacing it with e.g "peaceful protests" (not linked) This has reached the point of breaking the 3 revert guideline by User:Bushman826 C.f https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring This should stop. Cross-linking Wikipedia articles is important, and doing so by name simply makes sense. -- Oxinabox ( talk) 23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Link in previous message has typo. Should have been 2021 United States Capitol attack. -- Oxinabox ( talk) 23:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that there is some serious bias being placed here. I had a link from Reuters removed for no reason, along with other edits with verified sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushman826 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The content featured countless racist and anti-Semitic language including the N-word and calls to kill or lynch black people. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:8F ( talk) 03:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: the name of the foundation tied to Guo Wengui. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 05:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a description of GETTR as a platform that allows for racism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism in the lead? This has been discussed in multiple reliable sources including Vox Media's Recode ( https://www.vox.com/recode/22559493/gettr-jason-miller-trump-app-social-media-facebook-twitter-free-speech-cancel-culture) which describes GETTR as "the app is in many ways a knockoff of Twitter, it doesn’t have a lot of users yet, and it’s already a home for blatantly racist posts that would be taken down on most other platforms." NeneCaretaker ( talk) 15:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
There should be space for this observation on the page, but I'm not sure it is notable enough to be included in the intro. There is only one source cited, written by one journalist. Including it in the intro is arguable, but certainly the single journalist cited does not support the claim that: "Journalists (plural) noted the prevalence..." Do you have additional noteworthy sources? 2600:6C44:427F:2101:A8C5:135B:3F27:69B6 ( talk) 00:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove - Journalists noted the prevalence of extreme content on the platform, including racism and antisemitism.[7][8] There are no facts to back it up. The best the journalist could com up with is that Gettr allows free speech. The journalist is blinded with Bias and total disregard to the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 2600:1004:B00B:723B:3813:EA70:CCDF:76C1 ( talk) 16:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add content noting that GETTR "is inundated with terrorist propaganda spread by supporters of Islamic State" and "features reams of jihadi-related material, including graphic videos of beheadings, viral memes that promote violence against the West, and even memes of a militant executing Trump in an orange jumpsuit similar to those used in Guantanamo Bay."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/02/trump-gettr-social-media-isis-502078 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjohnston42 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, for clear disclosure, stop allowing liberals from destroying Wikipedia. All I see is propaganda being sourced by the likes of Slate, Vice, Vox and Politico. All of these are super left publications. At least have a little integrity. 2601:100:8181:3880:80D0:AA57:4A86:A05A ( talk) 06:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
It seems as if to keep the criticisms and controversies better organized, a new section should be created just for that with the below text from the "History" section being moved to that new section. Thoughts?
Shelbyhoward423 ( talk) 17:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I recently tried to edit the spelling of GETTR to it's all-capitalized stylization from the way it is currently referenced in the article, which is "gettr." There's a case to be made through WP:COMMONNAME that the name should be stylized in the all-caps manner for ease of understanding by lay-readers. Are other editors willing to get on board with this? Also, because I was flagged as being associated with GETTR, I am publicly declaring that I have no conflict of interest associated with them. I am simply interested in editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upside WikiWriter ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title of the page be in all-caps per the name of the site? In this case there is then reason to make the stylization "GETTR" throughout. Upside WikiWriter ( talk) 18:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This line: "Gettr's terms of service allow but do not commit the platform to removing content that is "offensive, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, pornographic, violent, harassing, threatening, abusive, illegal, or otherwise objectionable or inappropriate", makes no sense. "Allows but does not commit the platform to remove?" Should this perchance read "disallows"?
Next line, same 'graf: "In an appearance on Newsmax, Miller touted the app as a 'place people won't be canceled', and described the site's moderation system, which he said had already identified 'left-of-center people' to 'catch them and delete some of that content'. Are the "left of center people" catching, or being caught? I had to read this line several times to form a clear idea of what it's probably trying to say. (Even without the typo I fixed.)
Could someone familiar with the subject repair these humbugs? Laodah 04:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Can we change the launch date in the sidebar to July 4th? Many reputable sources [1] list that as the date of launch, not July 4th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upside WikiWriter ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
References
I will remove the term alt-tech from the lead and move it to a section specified for criticism or opinions. And my rationale is:
I would like to add the subsection "Censorship and Moderation" to include more content around how the app works without getting it removed. Any suggestions? @GorillaWarfare Thanks for your help
Shelbyhoward423 ( talk) 17:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Shelbyhoward423 ( talk) 21:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Starts to get rambly and unencyclopedic around "According to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue" to the end of the section. Going to rework this in a bit.. Sucker for All ( talk) 23:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence says Gettr is "intended for American conservatives.[5][6][7]"
None of the three references support the claim that Gettr is intended for American conservatives. They all mention conservatives, but none of them make any mention of the site owners' *intentions* for whom it is for, which is a very different thing.
It may well be true that Gettr is intended for conservatives, but if so, the claim needs to be backed up in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denbosch ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I've changed this now as there was clear political biased involved and the links did support the claim. I have added an interview with the founder where he clearly states the site is for everyone. ( https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/gettr-ceo-youre-not-going-to-get-de-platformed-simply-for-expressing-a-political-view) -- Hontogaichiban ( talk) 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that target audience of a product is determined by the creator of the product it makes little sense to attribute the target audience through a secondary source such a news article. The app description in both major app stores doesn't mention the word "conservative" or exclusion/discouragement of anyone based on political ideology. That being said it could be argued that if a characterization must be made outside the primary source then it should be done so based on individually citable features, terms, and condition present in the product and the formulation of the characterization should stated as "appears to be" in order to clarify this is a conclusion reached by the a secondary source and not the creator of the product. In addition to this the placement of this mention is out of line to the majority of social networking services on documented on Wikipedia which makes the information seem disjointed and disorganized. 208.189.3.2 ( talk) 04:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I've changed this now, as it was clearly wrong to say the site for conservatives when there was no source and in this interview it is clearly stated by the founder himself that the site was intended for 'everyone'. ( https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/gettr-ceo-youre-not-going-to-get-de-platformed-simply-for-expressing-a-political-view). -- Hontogaichiban ( talk) 15:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Misleading claim that GETTR "following" is imported.
There are 2 notations on GETTR, one of which is just GETTR followers. Joe Rogan has 1.2 million GETTR Followers
https://www.gettr.com/user/joerogan — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.38.104.150 (
talk)
15:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There's multiple primary sources including both google and iOS stores descriptions stating the platform is intended for everyone. In addition to this the founder Jason Miller has never stated that the platform is targeting American conservatives. It seems like an unnecessary detail that is supported by sources that contradict several primary sources. In addition to this other articles for similar platforms (f.ex. Twitter) don't include target audience. 65.66.76.235 ( talk) 03:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes I agree. That part stood out to me. As you've already said, there's nothing that suggests such. I was gonna start a discussion on this. Victor obini ( talk) 15:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is currently semi-protected through December 1, 2022, which seems arbitrary and prevents significant updates, detailed below. Kindly requesting un-protection.
98.109.117.71 ( talk) 03:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Copernicus43728 currently seems to be in process of whitewashing this article. Compare oldid 1079110363 to current. The most blatant whitewashing is in the removal of The platform experienced issues shortly after launch, including internet trolls posting content that violated the terms of service, users flooding it with pornography, and the brief hacking of some high-profile accounts.[14][15][16][17][18][19] Journalists have observed the prevalence of extreme content on the platform, including racism, antisemitism, and terrorist propaganda.[20][21][22][23] Thoughts from other editors, GorillaWarfare? Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
If you contribute to a controversial article then it can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones.Now I, or any other editor, can boldy revert that string of edits, because putting the onus on us to parse through your controversial edits is unfair. Thus, according to the cycle, it is now on you to bring your edits to to the Talk Page Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, to repeat the ignored question— Copernicus43728, were you also previously the editor 98.109.117.71? Not implying any rulebreaking, just, you immediately pointed me to their section, which seems bizarre if you're not them, so as this discussion continues I want to know if 98.109.117.71's contribution to it can be read as being yours. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)