Click on a question to expand its answer.
Each section has notable entries (marked ✨).
If you’re not sure where to begin, start with those.
You can use the FAQ filter to see specific sections.
FAQ filter:
General FAQs
We had an itch to scratch. We’ve grown very dissatisfied with existing social media platforms.
Matters such as a lack of responsibility handling account holders’ private data, or a lack of imagination presenting the service itself, or a lack of backbone responding to overt government coercion all left a gaping hole begging to be filled. We wanted a bona fide alternative, not another “me too” service.
We created our platform in response to the dearth of online privacy, creativity and autonomy that people deserve but do not receive.
A NetNubby is a Digital Sticky Note. They come in all different sizes, shapes, colors and designs. Web pages are the virtual bulletin boards you stick them on. See a page you really like? Post a NetNubby on it. See a page that’s just meh? Put a ‘Nubby there too. Have a favorite product or see a lousy service? Tell the world what you think—good or bad—right on the brand’s own page!
NetNubbys cultivate digital exploration. After all, why does a ham operator go searching for random contacts (CQs)? To find someone to talk to.
Communication.
Once a new contact is made, the dialog may be brief and bland or it could be a rag chew. Either way, it’s very stimulating “meeting” new people this way and discovering what they have to say.
The world is a big place, and NetNubbys let you experience the whole of it across the internet: page by page.
Imagine wearing your new pair of Air Force 1 Craft Dark Beetroots. They look great, feel great and your game has never been better! All you want is to tell everyone how awesome they are—on and off the court—but here’s the rub: You can only reach who you know. Big or small, the size of your social circle is as far as you can take it.
Now, imagine your circle with no limits.
Picture yourself telling anyone in the world about your experience… with a single Note.
Instead of posting on your “wall,” waiting for someone to eventually see the news, you can post right on Nike’s own product page. Instantly.
That’s the NetNubby experience!
Say what you think right on the brand’s own site. No middleman. For the first time, influencers can take the talk to the source in a way that makes sense.
Empowered consumers understand that what they say about a brand on its own pages has far more impact than what they could ever say about it somewhere else.
Enlightened brands realize that what is said on their own pages by customers is infinitely more significant than anything mentioned about them somewhere else.
Consider the handicap introduced by services such as Facebook and Glassdoor, or typical forums such as Reddit and Hacker News: it’s the location. It’s all wrong. Yes, conversation takes place, but discussion is divorced from product. The significance of the feedback is hijacked.
On Reddit, who cares if your product has the hardest working scrubbing bubbles in the bathroom business? But you can bet S. C. JOHNSON & SON cares. A lot. Especially when a satisfied customer posts as much on the corporate site.
NetNubbys—they empower you to take the discussion straight to the brand to say what needs said. Equally important, the brand can respond to engaged consumers.
There’s no insulation. Relevancy is restored.
If it’s just one Note, call it a NetNubby or a ‘Nubby. When discussing two or more, simply say NetNubbys. (It is incorrect to write NetNubbies.)
We’re not another “me too” copycat product. There a few things that set us apart.
The whole enchilada.
The NetNubby experience can happen on almost any webpage. This makes it location-agnostic. Other services usually require you to be on their site to fully participate. Our platform lets you read and send Notes even when you use Twitter¹ or Instagram or Pinterest. Unlike Facebook, where the action takes place on their website, we connect you to all the action taking place across the entire Internet.
No censorship games.
Services such as LinkedIn bring the information to you and put it on your wall. We’re not denying the convenience, but we question the mechanism. How does LinkedIn decide what posts I see, and who sees mine? What’s the algorithm? (You know there is one.) This approach makes the social news provider the de facto gatekeeper of content. This allows them to censor what you see (and they do).
However, there are no “gates” on the NetNubby platform. Content is not brought to you—you go to it. You choose your expected experience by choosing the topics you visit, from Sesame Street to sucrosomials. No algorithms. No gatekeepers. No more wondering if you’re seeing everything others posted. The unfiltered content of a billion virtual bulletin boards is waiting for you to visit, peruse, enjoy or critique.
Impermanence.
You have to own what you publish without edits or deletions. This helps you say what you really mean the first time because you can’t take it back. Since Notes are short-lived, more people get the chance to speak up as nobody can monopolize a location. This ephemeralness resembles SnapChat.
NetNubbys are a transient conversation layer connected to a URL, but search engines cannot index your Notes. This makes it much harder to have your words used against you in perpetuity, unlike most of the web.
Also, the built-in expiration date limits the damage that hazardous content can cause. Unchecked, a distasteful NetNubby can last about a week, but a nasty Facebook post can linger indefinitely (especially considering there’s a good chance Google will index comments left on third-party websites).
Our offering isn’t designed to replace existing social media platforms. We’re an adjunct; a top layer to augment any site or service.
¹ Most FAQs were written when X was still Twitter, and it’s possible we haven’t *cough* *cough* updated all the references. So if you see Twitter, you’ll know it’s not. It’s X, even though it says Twitter. Even though x.com redirects to twitter.com but when the website comes up it says X, not Twitter. Exactly. (Note: Redirect last verified 1 JAN 2024. Another note: Sometime before 20 MAY 2024, x.com now goes to x.com and twitter.com goes to twitter.com… whoda thunk it?)
Because it makes sense to support browser tech with the world’s largest market share. We’re not endorsing the philosophy of Google, we’re merely recognizing the ubiquity of their browser.
Since 2018, Chrome has enjoyed 65%+ usage among all browsers: That’s reason enough right there.
In January 2020, Microsoft opted to remake Edge in the image of Chrome. This opened up our service to loyal Edge and Internet Explorer users.
Further, there are popular alternatives to Chrome that are favored by privacy advocates; such as Brave, Epic and Vivaldi. All of these have the same underlying architecture and blink rendering engine. Opera is also in the game.
Combined, all of these browsers amount to at least 72% of worldwide browser market share.¹
So it isn’t that we picked Chrome to start with. We picked the most available browser to start with. Since NetNubbys run as a browser Extension we wanted to make it available to as many people as possible right from the start.
¹ https://web.archive.org/web/20220925121050/https://gs.statcounter.com/
These FAQs discuss the more specific items of our Terms of Service (TOS).
Let’s be honest: People don’t read the TOS any more than they read the Privacy Policy. You know it and we know it. Those pages are usually filled with dry prose and lawyerese that make the eyes glaze over, where relief is often sought by gratefully jabbing an icepick into the face.
For convenience, we combine the TOS and the FAQs. We think if you’re looking into the TOS for something, you should be able to find it in the FAQs. But there’s a lot of information to consider, so the data is broken up into categories for better parsing (legal, social, etc.)
As you consult the FAQs, you’ll see we define our viewpoints on a variety of topics. We speak freely, pontificate and cite our sources.
To get the whole counsel of our service, we suggest you read all the entries (even the ones that don’t look so exciting).
Not at all.
Do you agree with the Ukraine meat grinder? Do you think the U.S. should keep funding it? You might, yet there are those who don’t. Point is, that war is taking place whether you agree with it or not.
The FAQ question carries the presumption the visitor should acquiesce to the viewpoint of the makers of the software—and that’s absurd.
Do you like the politics of the store manager where you do your shopping? Do you identify with the ideology of the bank who collects your mortgage or rent payments? (Do you even know their ideology?)
We’re not offering a neutral product such as an online calculator: This is a communications service. And communications can be weaponized. It can be made very non-neutral.
The precept is simple: Either you can voice an opinion or you cannot.
You can either express support for homosexual families, or you cannot. You can either express disdain for them, or you cannot.
You can either stand for Ukraine and how America props up Zelensky against Russia, or you cannot. You can either publish your dissent, or you cannot.
You can either defend your preferred side in the Israel-Hamas war, or you cannot. You can explain that neither side has any moral high ground, or you cannot.
You are either free to discuss the peculiarities of both Trump and Biden, or you are not.
You are either at liberty to raise stark pointed reservations about the COVID-19 vaccine and, much more importantly, the perceived globalist anti-health context in which it was forcefully administered, or you are not free to question it all.
It’s down to this: You can say what you want on any topic you prefer, or you can be subject to those who will tell you what you cannot say on every topic they choose.
You don’t have to agree with us to participate. That should be obvious. That you could draw that conclusion tells us exactly the kind of social media you’ve been using. Heavy-handed. One-sided.
But if you’re the type who refuses a service unless the provider subscribes to your worldview, then you’re also the type who demands there can be no worldview but yours.
Legal FAQs
Not even close.
When a site is defaced, the webserver itself is compromised and its data altered. Afterwards, every visitor hitting the site will see the replacement data (images and text changed by the hackers). By design, this is a malicious attack, and it’s universal.
NetNubby Notes are universally available, but are not universally seen. The focus isn’t on someone’s webserver, but on your own browser. The only people who can see Notes are those who choose to, unlike a defaced website where every site visitor sees the altered data, like it or not.
A NetNubby cannot be displayed until you install software on your local computer. Further, Notes don’t automatically appear and can easily be hidden from view once displayed.
As opposed to a page in the public domain? No, it is not illegal.
It’s important to realize NetNubbys have nothing to do with the data on a webserver. The content of NetNubbys only exists in the browsing environment, just the same as thousands of other web browser programs, utilities and extensions in use today. Further, NetNubbys do not copy any of the site’s content, unlike many browser screen capture tools that replicate the full layout (text and images) of a web page.
NetNubbys modify page data after the web page has been downloaded from a server to your local machine. The content of a Note is injected into the page in your browser on your computer. Note data originates from NetNubby servers, not the origination webserver for the page under view.
A website cannot enforce TOS or AUP that restricts you from installing software on your own computer. Again, server data is not the issue here. Only the copy of the web page residing in your local browser memory is affected. It’s your business what you do with data on your computer and presumably you’ve opted to use NetNubbys since you’ve already installed the software.
Today, there are very common page editors like Google’s Chrome DevTools, which let anyone alter the HTML in one’s browser on one’s own computer (Local Overrides). If this were illegal then examining and changing a webpage would be a blatant violation of a site’s copyright. Obviously, this is not the case because nobody but you can lay claim to the copy of the website in your own browser on your own computer.
But let’s pretend a website forbids the use of NetNubby software (as ridiculous as that sounds) and you go ahead and view the site and post a Note. Courts have already ruled that merely violating a site’s TOS is not a criminal act:
The Court concludes that agreeing to such contractual restrictions [that is, the TOS], although that may have consequences for civil liability under other federal and state laws, is not sufficient to trigger criminal liability under the CFAA. In other words, terms of service do not constitute “permission requirements” that, if violated, trigger criminal liability.
— web.archive.org/web/20201209090359/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/sandvig_opinion.pdf
To be clear, violating a site’s TOS is not activity covered under The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)¹ and doing so is not a crime.² Since we have roughly 1.13 billion websites³ on the internet at the start of 2023, things would practically get out of hand if TOS violations⁴ became criminal:
Criminalizing terms-of-service violations risks turning each website into its own criminal jurisdiction and each webmaster into his own legislature.
— web.archive.org/web/20230525124824/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/court-violating-a-sites-terms-of-service-isnt-criminal-hacking/
So to wrap this up and put a bow on it, if you used NetNubby software on a website in violation of its TOS or AUP, there’s no way you could face criminal prosecution under the CFAA.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20221121022225/https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-48000-computer-fraud
² web.archive.org/web/20210823235126/https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-03/scotus-van-buren-violating-tos-not-a-federal-crime
³ web.archive.org/web/20230527183404/https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/software/website-statistics/
⁴ web.archive.org/web/20210823235126/https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-03/scotus-van-buren-violating-tos-not-a-federal-crime
Letting the world see your Note is precisely the point of posting a NetNubby.
What you can do with NetNubbys is no different than what’s already being done with current services that let you markup a page, highlight some text, copy the layout, add some notes, index the results and share it all with your friends.
Effectively, this is adding a conversation layer on top of the web that requires no website implementation. Services such as W3C Web Annotations,¹ Hypothesis,² Diigo,³ Twiddla⁴ and Scrible⁵ are already doing this (just to name a few).
NetNubbys takes the concept further. Conversations are now much more social with public and private Notes, targeted communications, information on demand and branded consoles.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20220927140200/https://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
² web.archive.org/web/20220930164201/https://web.hypothes.is/
³ web.archive.org/web/20220927214802/https://www.diigo.com/
⁴ web.archive.org/web/20220916202359/https://www.twiddla.com/
⁵ web.archive.org/web/20220907073505/https://www.scrible.com/
When you register an account, there is one piece of pre-existing information you must provide: an email address.
We use your email address to communicate official announcements and to provide usage statistics. Account warnings are sent to this address, which includes the opportunity to seek appeals. Also, it’s the only mechanism whereby you can reset your credentials if you forget your passphrase. Further, you can have The NetNubby Newsy, a newsletter chock-full of curated discounts and offers, sent to your inbox.
If you register with a throw-away email address instead of something more permanent, you jeopardize your account. If we can’t communicate with you then your account will be expired after one year of non-contact.
Absolutely none. Nada. Zilch.
Our service is used at your risk. You embrace that risk when you create an account. You endure that risk while you maintain an account.
We do not warrant that our network will be stable or free from external interference. We do not promise you’ll have an enjoyable experience or that you’ll be protected from hazardous material. We certainly don’t guarantee the availability of any content placed on our systems. In other words, you understand we will not certify anything outside of our control.
As a visitor to our platform, we have no obligations to you whatsoever. As a registered member, there is no contract between us. There exists no “protected business relationship” between you and any other community members who might be 1) interested in your content; or 2) members of your tribe.
Any legally defined relationship you may have here is with the community at large.
We have the unfettered right to modify your access, and suspend or terminate your account, including the right to delete or retain any of your content, as we see fit, at any time and for any reason or for no reason. (However, under normal circumstances we will exercise our rights pursuant to community guidelines and the rules of conduct mentioned elsewhere in these FAQs.)
As the courts have determined with other social media,¹ it is not a case of tortious interference just because someone reports your content,² even if they do so in bad faith.
Your sole remedy for a less than stellar experience on our platform is to deregister your account.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20220116174420/https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/11/notifying-twitter-of-tos-violations-isnt-tortious-interference-illoominate-v-cair.htm
² Illoominate Media, Inc. v. CAIR Foundation, 9:19-cv-81179-RAR (S.D. Fla. Nov. 11, 2019)
— web.archive.org/web/20220528231308/https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6555692/S-D-Fla-19-Cv-81179-Dckt-000033-000-Filed-2019.pdf
No.
To preface, you understand that he who controls the definition of words controls the narrative. For example, if you are a “conservative right-wing individual” then you will be red-flagged as a domestic terrorist by the FBI.¹
See the connection? Okay, good. Now, let’s determine what a “private message” actually is.
In the context of our platform (and most social media services), a private message is content not directed at the community at large. For instance, we have several mechanisms that allow you to post a Note this way. You may post to a single person (including yourself). You may also post to a group, such as your tribe, your guild or your cohort. None of these options include the entire membership.
As far as we are concerned, “private” means it is not “public” in terms of our community.
[digression] However, as far as the courts are concerned, legally it doesn’t matter. Any social media content, no matter how it’s designated, is admissible—so be careful what you post.² [/digression]
Facebook has long been suspected of spying³ on the private messages, and data, of American users and reporting them to the FBI if an expression of antigovernmental or anti-authority sentimentality exists. (This includes anyone questioning the 2020 POTUS election, for example.)
Of course, the definition of antigovernmental is controlled by the government, get it? Good.
Once reported, the government then conducts follow-up investigations on these users, Orwellian-style. “Facebook provides the FBI with private conversations which are protected by the First Amendment without any subpoena.”⁴
Effectively, this means Facebook has now become a secret co-opted tool of the government, and is an independent private enterprise in word only. This is recently recognized:
Under the First Amendment, the federal government may not police private speech nor pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is precisely what the government has done—and is still doing—on a massive scale not previously divulged. Multiple agencies’ communications demonstrate that the federal government has exerted tremendous pressure on social-media companies—pressure to which companies have repeatedly bowed.
Discovery has unveiled an army of federal censorship bureaucrats, including officials arrayed at the White House, HHS, DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Communications show these federal officials are fully aware that the pressure they exert is an effective and necessary way to induce social-media platforms to increase censorship. The head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency even griped about the need to overcome social-media companies’ “hesitation” to work with the government.
— web.archive.org/web/20220911141102/https://nclalegal.org/2022/09/ncla-suit-uncovers-army-of-federal-bureaucrats-coercing-social-media-companies-to-censor-speech/
We can now dispense with all doubt and let the lawsuit, State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., run its course with all haste against at least eleven federal agencies that have secretly communicated with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech⁵ that federal officials find disfavorable.⁶
Again, this platform does not collude with Uncle Sugar.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20221030072248/https://www.zerohedge.com/political/facebook-spied-private-messages-conservative-right-wing-individuals-then-reported-fbi
² web.archive.org/web/20220528132939/https://www.worthy.com/blog/divorce/legal/can-private-facebook-messages-be-used-in-court/
³ web.archive.org/web/20220915220519/https://nypost.com/2022/09/14/facebook-spied-on-private-messages-of-americans-who-questioned-2020-election/
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Unsurprisingly, once the Supremes heard this case they chose to protect federal government coercion activity by stating that suppression didn’t actually exist. Equally disgusting, the decision failed to even mention the First Amendment at all, ignoring the paramount distinction between “abridging” and “coercion.”
⁶ web.archive.org/web/20240615160123/https://nclalegal.org/opinion/supreme-court-must-rely-on-the-first-amendment-not-its-own-precedent-when-deciding-government-censorship-case/
We don’t have one.
We’re not Facebook: We don’t collude with the central government to suppress speech.¹
When Uncle Sugar uncovers thoughts and ideas expressed on Facebook it deems unfavorable, it uses the “content request system”² to tell the platform³ what to throttle and what to suppress. Now, Zuck is hardly alone working with the gestapo to censor our ideas, it’s just that Facebook happens to be the best bad example of it.⁴
¹ web.archive.org/web/20221031090508/https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/
² www.documentcloud.org/documents/23129270-fb-portal
³ web.archive.org/web/20221101002006/www.facebook.com/xtakedowns/login
⁴ web.archive.org/web/20221031092818/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/big-tech-met-gov-t-discuss-how-handle-election-results-n1236555
Our Privacy Policy defines the data we treat as personal identifiable information (PII). Basically, it’s any piece of information you provide us to register an account (given name, surname, username, email, passphrase and moniker).
However, PII can be so much more:
• Social Security number
• Passport number or national identification number
• Driver’s license information
• Healthcare or medical records
• Bank or financial accounts
• Educational background
• Credit & debit card numbers as well as your credit scores
• Telephone number
• Home address
• ZIP or postcode
• Gender
• Age & date of birth
• Job position, history & salary
• Criminal record
• Various online handles
• Mother’s maiden name
• Elon Musk’s Gulfstream G650ER with call sign and tail number N628TS
Understand it takes very little data to target someone. For example, it is statistically proven¹ that a mere three separate pieces of “anonymous information” such as one’s zipcode, date of birth and gender are, when taken together, unique² for 87% of the U.S. population.
PII also includes biometric data, such as…
• Fingerprints
• Retinal scans
• Facial recognition data
• Hand geometry
• Voice patterns
…none of which we use for account administration.
If you feel someone has posted, linked to or referenced your PII on our platform, please report the Note immediately. Doxxing is specifically forbidden in our community.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20230402170855/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information-theory-and-privacy
² web.archive.org/web/20221130112400/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/what-information-personally-identifiable
While we prefer not to be the defendant in a libel suit, only your attorney can answer that question.
As you know, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (written to overrule Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy) insulates us¹ from this kind of legal action. This means we are not treated as the author or speaker of the information others post on our service.
[digression]
Sometimes there’s talk about the concept of a “neutral platform,” but this is vapid political rhetoric (there’s no definition of the term). We don’t have to be found neutral, or even pretend to be that way, in order to be legally compliant.² This applies to any social media platform. Even when the platform shoots its own foot by capriciously inhibiting the speech of one political party over another, and even when the President who is a member of the affected faction reacts and threatens³ in vain to close the site down for doing so. Asking Bill Gates to help you close up the Internet against the things you don’t like on the Internet simply isn’t the appropriate response by someone who actually understands the Internet.⁴
[/digression]
If you contemplate legal action against us, please consider that if:
• It is clear we allow the posting of third-party content on our platform; and
• Your cause of action specifically alleges we published or created the content; and
• The actual provider of the content was a third-party
then you’ll have a hard time prevailing. If you proceed then your counsel is taking you to the cleaners. Might we suggest pursuing the actual party responsible for the content, the author of the Note?
Please know we won’t play referee to determine whether Notes published on our platform are defamatory. We’re not attorneys. Defamation is a legal term involving legal analysis and proof that a particular statement is unlawful.
For example, under U.S. law content may be determined to be defamatory if:
• It asserts a false statement about the plaintiff; and
• It was published or communicated to a third party; and
• It was made with at least a negligent level of intent; and
• It caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation
Notably, it’s not easy to to commit defamation⁵ using our platform, for no other reason than a third party won’t automatically see the relevant posts. Let’s examine why this is so.
To start with, content has a short lifespan. Notes typically last 5 (five) calendar days whereupon they expire from public view.
Second, Notes cannot be indexed by search engines such as Google. This is because they aren’t an intrinsic part of the website, and don’t exist at the time a web spider crawls a page.
Third, Notes aren’t publicly available like webpages by accessing a specific URL. It’s not possible to use a history service like Internet Archive to save a snapshot of a Note, or to search for one after it’s already been published.
Lastly, content is not served up to you when you log on to our platform—you must make the first move. There is no single activity “wall” on which the latest posts appear (no central repository). You must choose from millions of extant webpages to see what there is to see.
Hopefully it’s now more clear to you how our service reduces the opportunity for reputational damage that is oh-so common with other social platforms.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20230331072033/https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/22/20700099/section-230-communications-decency-act-republicans-congress-big-tech-vergecast-weeds-podcast
² www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/social-media-companies-dont-have-to-be-politically-neutral-if-they-want-to-moderate-content/
³ web.archive.org/web/20200615151601/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265601611310739456
⁴ web.archive.org/web/20201022084832/https://www.mic.com/articles/129938/donald-trump-wants-to-close-up-the-internet-because-he-doesn-t-understand-the-internet
⁵ https://web.archive.org/web/20231210130832/https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
Policy FAQs
Of course not.
As a brand owner highly conscious of your domain name’s appearance in the browser URL bar, your concern is very understandable.
The moment the Genius service prepends “genius.it” to the domain name, your name recognition and brand reputation are instantly diluted. The prefix confuses the source of your page’s authority and content because the first thing that appears in the address bar is
Our platform will never rewrite the URL bar to insert our service name next to your site address. You paid good money for your domain name in order to align it with your brand. Our service won’t dilute it or try to compete with it. With NetNubbys, your domain name will always appear unaltered, uncontested and unimpeached.
This service encourages self expression. Whether you disagree with God, the British Monarchy or the U.S. President shouldn’t matter: You should feel free to say what you think.
Now, with that amount of liberty at your fingertips the chances are awfully good you’ll post something someone finds offensive sooner or later, but you shouldn’t automatically be censored for it. If 10,000 people were to complain about your Note, that’s not a good enough reason to warrant its removal. (Read that again.)
For instance, content on Yik Yak that receives -5 total vote points is automatically whacked:
Through the upvote/downvote system, we rely on our community to help make Yik Yak a constructive venue for free and productive speech.
— web.archive.org/web/20220823203419/https://yikyak.com/community-guardrails
On that platform, there is no oversight for content deletion. It’s mob rule, a true democracy. There are no formal reviews and yet this kind of social mechanism is somehow designed to foster “free speech.” When all it takes is 5 strangers to censor your content, that’s maximum ugly in a service that claims to be a “constructive venue” for communication.
The point is this: A democracy shouldn’t be able to decide what an individual cannot say. Not in real life and not here.
That said, the service is not yours. Creating an account doesn’t make it yours. Using it doesn’t make it yours. Even if you pay for the benefit of certain features, it’s still not yours. But having established ownership, we don’t demand you acquiesce to our opinions.
Further, we are nobody’s political mouthpiece. For example, Microsoft’s LinkedIn service will restrict any account that questions the official propaganda regarding COVID-19 vaccination efficacy. Posting data that goes against the CDC’s politically manipulated position is called spreading “disinformation” and indicates you are not a trustworthy individual, per their professional community policies:
Be Trustworthy
Do not share false or misleading content: Do not share content in a way that you know is, or think may be, misleading or inaccurate, including misinformation or disinformation. We may prevent you from posting content from sites that are known to produce or contain misinformation. Do not share content that directly contradicts guidance from leading global health organizations and public health authorities; including false information about the safety or efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.— web.archive.org/web/20220729213008/www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-policies#be-trustworthy-policy
Since 1) LinkedIn staff are no more doctors than we are; and 2) health professionals across the globe do not all agree on the effectiveness of these vaccinations; and 3) toxic and lethal side-effects are attributed to vaccine usage (according to manufacturer’s data), then it’s exceptionally malicious to censor open forum discussions regarding vaccine safety.
We are not alone in this viewpoint.
“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official Covid messaging, that doubt has been erased. The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed. These bureaucrats continue to resist efforts to expose the degree of their unconstitutional actions every step of the way.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA
web.archive.org/web/20220911141102/https://nclalegal.org/2022/09/ncla-suit-uncovers-army-of-federal-bureaucrats-coercing-social-media-companies-to-censor-speech/
We are convinced Microsoft’s LinkedIn service did not make the choice to censor on its own; it was coerced by Дмεяικα’s central government. But the damage is done. It occurs when a platform suppresses competing perspectives. We keep our own counsel, but we won’t subjugate you should we discover you don’t keep ours.
If the notion of free speech is appealing then you might realize things like The First Amendment were written to prevent government from having the power to tell you what you cannot say. The Amendment limits government (it does not confer any rights; you already had the right of free speech prior to the formation of any government, whether you knew that or not).
Just as The First Amendment gives you no rights with government, it provides no legal rights for you here on this platform—a service that you may use, but which you did not create and do not own. You may have the right of free speech where you live, but what you say here is licensed. (Think about it: How else would we have the power necessary to remove bullies or silence threatening actors if speech here wasn’t regulated?)
With that out of the way, we know that everyone has differing views on what they consider to be obscene, indecent or profane, but things like 1) transmitting a threat of harm to someone, 2) bullying, or 3) doxxing will get your Note deleted and your account suspended just as fast as we can review the infraction. These are merely examples, and they should be obvious.
The bottom line is that treating someone just like you would have them treat you is just as valid today as it was when it was penned back in Luke’s Gospel.¹ When you respect yourself and approach others the same way, you’ll have no issue with content on this platform.
¹ “And according as you desire that men should do to you, you also do the same to them.” (Luke 6:31, Green’s Literal Translation).
Justice Potter Stewart is remembered for his famous nondefinition of pornography¹ in which he wrote: “I know it when I see it.”
That’s not entirely our approach. However, neither do we believe the community is always best served by a long and detailed list of rules detailing objectionable criteria. For starters, what if we missed something? Or what if you invent a novel way to be obscene? Just like Justice Stewart, we’ll know it when we see it.
We run the service on a principle: Communicate with others the same way you’d like others to communicate with you.² It’s simple, easy to follow and it works well.
However, in the event our notion of respectful and reciprocal communication seems too vague, please be aware we prohibit the following hazardous content:
• “Criminal” hate speech
• Bullying, harassment and cyberstalking
• Disclosing a person’s or organization’s private information³ without consent (“doxxing”)
• Threats or wishes of death, serious or lasting bodily harm, or serious disease (to yourself or others)
• Communication intended to make someone fear for their life or their personal safety
These prohibitions apply whether you personally commit them, threaten to commit them or incentivize others to do so.
Our platform will not knowingly or intentionally participate in these kinds of evils.
When we determine your Note contains, links to, or references this kind of material then you can expect us to 1) delete your content, and 2) schedule your account for suspension. (These actions may be appealed.) Repeat offenses will cause your account to be banned, which cannot be appealed.
However, there are certain categories of hazardous content not covered by the appeals process:
• Sexual exploitation, abuse or solicitation (child or adult); including CSAM⁴ and “hurtcore”⁵
• Human trafficking
When we determine that your Note contains, links to, or references⁶ this kind of material we will 1) delete your content; 2) ban your account; and 3) immediately coordinate your activity with law enforcement.⁷ Unlike Facebook (meta), we have no desire to determine your intent⁸ because why you posted it doesn’t matter, only that you did.
We take this seriously.
However, technically speaking, we cannot be found in violation of 18 USC § 2252, the US Federal Law⁴ that defines child pornography and abuse. Since the crime is predicated on content that contains a “visual depiction” of a minor (child under 18) and since our platform does not, in its current configuration, permit the uploading of images or video (this may change), the point is almost moot.
Almost.
If your Note links to this content (obviously on another webserver and clearly not on ours), we will take action as described above.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20200924135651/https://www.oyez.org/justices/potter_stewart
² This certainly is not our original precept. It’s based on Jesus’ teaching recorded in Luke 6:31.
³ The lines can get blurry comparing private data to public data. For example, you may consider your email address to be private even though it is more or less publicly available and searchable. While HIPAA data is certainly private, how about the tail number on your personal Gulfstream?
⁴ web.archive.org/web/20230307184513/https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2252.html
⁵ web.archive.org/web/20231212193652/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurtcore
⁶ When we use the term “references” in this context, it does not mean the topic is strictly prohibited from discussion. It means we view the topic as so heinous that we prohibit including specific detailed examples or descriptions of it. It also means discussions where this content is affirmed or expressed in a positive light are also verboten.
⁷ web.archive.org/web/20230205142012/https://jere.my/how-your-platform-can-find-report-csam/
⁸ web.archive.org/web/20231128021701/https://research.facebook.com/blog/2021/02/understanding-the-intentions-of-child-sexual-abuse-material-csam-sharers/
Necessarily, we distinguish “hate speech” from “criminal hate speech” where the former is permitted (but not encouraged) and the latter is forbidden.
There is no legal definition of “hate speech” under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of communication that people might condemn. Generally, however, hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.
In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Courts extend this protection on the grounds that the First Amendment requires the government to strictly protect robust debate on matters of public concern even when such debate devolves into distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear. (The Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.
— web.archive.org/web/20230330023915/https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate
As the citation above states, there is no legal definition of hate speech, so we offer examples of what we do and do not accept here:
#1 “I hate Elon Musk.”
This is acceptable. It’s also puerile. No reason is given for the antipathy. This is not hate speech.
#2 “I hate Musk because he clearly shows favoritism and caprice in his Twitter rule-making.”
This is acceptable, and better than above because a reason is stated. This is not hate speech.
#3 “Did you know Elon is from South Africa? His mum is a Canuck. Any white man coming out of black man’s land is detritus. He’s just the papoose wannabee of an iceback maple-sucker!”
This is acceptable. It’s also crass and tawdry hate speech. It vilifies Elon based on race, gender, national origin, heritage and ethnicity.
#4 “I can’t wait for Musk to die, slowly and painfully.”
Unacceptable. This is not hate speech, but is nevertheless prohibited by community policy as it is wishing death upon someone.
#5 “I want to kill Elon. I hope he knows it.”
Unacceptable. This is criminal hate speech as it contains the threat of violence.
#6 “We should all get together and kill the Musk Rat.”
Unacceptable. This is instigating or inciting criminal activity (murder). It is criminal hate speech.
Now, there’s a mistake: You should care what we think. After all, this is our service—not yours.
For those tempted to believe it’s all about them, we share the MacYoung’s analysis:
Entirely too many people confuse ideals, privileges, social conduct, selfishness, fear, rudeness, anti-social behavior, verbal aggression and a dogma of self-appointed superiority for rights. In other words, you think you have the incontestable “right” to behave in ways that, more often than not, are just plain rude.
Not only are your self-proclaimed rights supposed to be safe from government incursion, but everyone else on the planet should be required to step aside so you can do what you want. And of course, you shouldn’t have to suffer any consequences for your behavior because you’re merely exercising your rights.
— Marc & Diana MacYoung, web.archive.org/web/20191220004744/http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/responsibility.htm
Um, yeah. Good luck with that.
You can utter all the ethnic slurs you can imagine against Native Americans, but you likely won’t do it in front of Chuck Norris, whose father was half Cherokee.
What are your rights? You don’t have the right to communicate lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, insulting or “fighting” words without consequence here any more than you do in real life. When you post a Note like that, expect repercussions.
Notes that violate community policy are subject to removal on discovery. When this happens the account holder will receive a warning. The account can always appeal the content removal.
Decrying a product or service is not the same as criticizing a person (or even exercising critical thinking). Personal attacks are discouraged. Critiques of brands are not. Saying you don’t like someone is very different from explaining why you don’t like something they do. While the former is not prohibited, the latter is encouraged.
There’s nothing wrong with using banter or debate to make a point, no matter how lively it becomes. On the other hand, flaming invective often leads to abuse, and should be applied sparingly.
No, we don’t have the time or the patience for it, whether or not we like what you said. This is a good thing for a few reasons.
First, it’s a good thing for you. Anyone reading your Note can be assured it’s exactly what you wrote. Thus, the content is 100% attributable to you. Nobody should have to wonder if it’s your content plus our edits—alterations no one would have any way of identifying anyway. Good or bad, what others read is what you wrote. Period.
Second, it’s a good thing for us. While Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) legally permits us to redact¹ third-party content, we would risk opening ourselves to a defamation suit if we inadvertently made changes that proved to be untrue (and thus lose our immunity under the CDA). Since we don’t adjust what you post, this can never happen to us.
If you violate community policy then your content will be deleted, but it will not be revised to suit us or anyone else.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20230322170839/https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publishing-statements-and-content-others
To make sure we’re on the same sheet of music, let’s define our terms. Per Wikipedia:
Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting, is the act of blocking or partially blocking a user or their content from an online community so that it will not be readily apparent to the user that they have been banned. For instance, shadow banned comments posted to a blog or media website will not be visible to other persons accessing that site from their computers.
By partly concealing, or making a user’s contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope may be that in the absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic or otherwise out-of-favour user will become bored or frustrated and leave the site, and that spammers and trolls will not create new accounts.
— web.archive.org/web/20220611192726/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning
That social media giants actually engage in the act of shadow banning has always been suspected but unproven. After all, Twitter has a history of denials:
People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let’s start with, “what is shadow banning?”
The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster.
— web.archive.org/web/20220727053712/https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning
Not until undercover video footage released from Project Veritas regarding Twitter employees taking aim at inconvenient speech was the platform’s subterfuge made abundantly clear:
“One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control,” a former Twitter software engineer, Abhinov Vadrevu, says in the video. “The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content. So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.”
“You just sort of turn off all the features for them,” Vadrevu continues. “They still see everything, it’s all there. You can like it, favorite it, or you can like retweet, or whatever. But at the end of the day, no one else interacts. No one else sees what you’re doing.”
— web.archive.org/web/20220820222001/thefederalist.com/2018/01/11/twitter-employees-brag-about-shadow-banning-users-video/
Notably, the act of shadow banning, which Twitter stridently denied doing, was formally codified into the company’s terms of service in 2020.¹
Shadow banning is dishonest and disingenuous, as well as being deceptive and childish. It’s a nasty form of censorship.
It’s dishonest because it refuses to handle the issue directly, frankly and objectively.
It’s also disingenuous. It’s a passive-aggressive response designed to curb behavior and produce a desired outcome while giving the illusion nothing has actually changed insofar as what the account can post and who can see it.
It’s deceptive for the fact there’s hardly any transparency in trying to hide the decision to mute one’s activities.
And, if we can be petty, it’s rather childish.
In lieu of approaching the matter with a calm and measured stance, a juvenile reaction is instead used to mitigate behavior that may itself be juvenile. It’s like expecting a child to correct the apparent childishness of another child. (Of course, your activity might not be childish at all—it may simply be unapproved—but that won’t stop you from being treated like a child.)
Shadow banning involves gaslighting, and it
“…occurs when platforms deny a set of practices which certain users know to be true. Gaslighting is defined as psychologically manipulating someone into questioning their own sanity. When platforms deny something like shadowbanning and users feel the impact of it, it creates an environment in which the shadowbanned user is made to feel crazy, as their reality is being denied publicly and repetitively by the platform.”
— web.archive.org/web/20230226171758/https://hackinghustling.org/posting-into-the-void-content-moderation/
Based on our view, it should be clear we don’t approve of shadow banning. Thus, we don’t employ it. A direct approach is better. If your conduct on this platform crosses the line then we will warn you and work with you to correct it. What we won’t do is censor your activity by secretly downgrading who can see your Notes and then lie to you when you ask us about it.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20201125192631/https://www.rt.com/news/475049-twitter-terms-shadow-bans/
When your activity violates the parameters of the community code of conduct we will notify you of the issue and explain the offense. This is an opportunity for you to continue to use our service as long as you refrain from further misconduct.
There is no maximum number of warnings. Warnings will always include a description of the inappropriate behavior along with possible future penalties should it continue. Warnings may be accompanied by pending account lockouts and other suspensions of service. Your note may be deleted when you receive a warning, but this is not automatic.
Warnings will be delivered by email, minimum. These are informational in nature and cannot be appealed.
If your Note violates our community code of conduct because it contains, links to, or references potentially hazardous content, it is removed from the network as a penalty. A permanent archive copy is maintained as a record of the event. Deletions are always accompanied by a warning. A deletion may be appealed.
When your misconduct warrants a suspension then your account will be locked out as a result. Lockouts are always accompanied by a warning. A lockout is a penalty that prevents you from accessing the network, in whole or in part, as an authenticated user, but does not necessarily prevent you from accessing your account. For example, you might still have the privilege of editing your profile or reading Public Notes.
Your lockout does not directly affect other community members. For example, others may still send you Exclusive Notes (however you will not be able to read them if you’re not able to log on to the platform).
The duration of a lockout is seven (7) consecutive calendar days, minimum. Lockouts cannot go into effect until after an appeal has been exhausted.
If you receive a deletion (content removal) you have the option to seek redress through a formal review. If your penalty involves a lockout then a formal review is automatically invoked on your behalf.
An appeal hearing provides you the opportunity to seek clarification regarding the alleged infraction. This also gives you the chance to respond to the penalty. After your response a subsequent final decision will be made.
This final appeal decision may result in the reinstatement of your deletion. It may also result in the decision to forego the intended lockout of your account.
In order to minimize the risk of dissemination of potentially hazardous content, an appeal may be conducted after a deletion, but must take place prior to a lockout. Deletions and lockouts (and related suspensions of service) are penalties that fall under the appeals process, while having your account banned cannot be appealed whatsoever.
You may waive your right to appeal in which case the penalty will remain in effect (for example, regarding a deletion) or immediately go into effect (for example, regarding a lockout). Once made, the choice to waive an appeal is irrevocable.
The appeals process is considered exhausted when 1) you waive your right to appeal a penalty, or 2) a final appeal decision has been rendered after a formal review has been conducted.
You will not be refunded for any paid services unable to be used as a result of a lockout put into effect after an exhausted appeals process.
This is a permanent situation where your license to access and use our service is unilaterally revoked by us.
Any credit on your account is forfeited with no refund (just like MeWe). Any subscriptions that were active are halted. Access to any premium content you might have enjoyed is barred. Your account itself is erased and all active network content is deleted. Archived data may or may not be deleted, as we deem appropriate. Your username, email and moniker, individually, are barred from reuse.
There is no appeal, redress or exception to a ban.
This is not a penalty, it is a termination. Banning does not happen out of the blue. Accounts may be banned only after a history of warnings, deletions and suspensions has first been recorded. If your account is banned, it should be obvious you worked hard to make it happen.
The exception to this policy applies to:
• Sexual exploitation, abuse or solicitation (child or adult); including CSAM and “hurtcore”
• Human trafficking
In this case, the requirement for a history of violations is waived. While we instantly ban your account we will confer with law enforcement agencies regarding the hazardous content you placed on our platform. (See this FAQ entry.)
You could try, but if the consequences listed above aren’t sufficient to deter you from violating our community code of conduct, we also reserve the right to use technical measures to curb repeat offenders. You may apply again, but that doesn’t mean you’ll get another account.
The community does not determine policy. If it could, then a majority of special interests might easily target any individual or tribe and run roughshod over them, such as having content deleted (like Yik Yak with its system of downvoting). Policy is set by the service and applied to the community.
The community code of conduct, along with the defined penalties and the appeals process is a system of management you must agree with in order to join the community and use its services.
Of course.
In a nutshell, all misconduct is accompanied by a warning. You may not be locked out without an appeal.
Generally, your account cannot be banned before you amass a history of violations. A grave exception to this standard is when we conclude you’ve engaged in CSAM activity (please consult this FAQ entry).
As a user of Twitter, how many times have you been shadow banned? The situation is so bad there are third-party services that check this for you. Twitter’s terms of service indicate they may
“remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames…”
— web.archive.org/web/20220828130948/https://twitter.com/en/tos/previous/version_14
without clarifying what content may be subject to “limited distribution or visibility.”
This means that Twitter gives itself free rein to shadow ban your account with no warning, no explanation and no appeal. As a Twitter account holder, you agreed to this as a matter of registering an account, so there’s no sense complaining about it.
And Facebook. How many times have you reported a legitimate flagrant violation of their terms of service only to be told that the abusive language and threats of violence directed at you were investigated and found to be in full compliance with their TOS?
If you feel we place undue emphasis on conduct and transparency then we suggest you may have grown accustomed to abuse.
Just 17 years after launch, Facebook had amassed 2.8 billion active users by 2021, the same year the Texas Supreme Court ruled¹ against it in a teen sex trafficking case (mandamus relief denied in part). It appears Zuck labored under the impression his platform could be used by sex traffickers to recruit and prey on child victims, while all he had to do was hide behind Section 230.
In 2020, CBS News referred² to the Federal Human Trafficking Report³ which stated that 65% of identified child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media were recruited through Facebook! If you include Instagram in the analysis (owned by Facebook), the number jumps to a stupefying 74%!
Not to be left out, Twitter has had 353 million active accounts since starting in 2006. In 2020 it was sued⁴ for refusing to protect the identity of minors who were targeted by predators conveniently using their platform.
“Despite its public expressions to the contrary, Twitter is swarming with uploaded child pornography and Twitter management does little or nothing to prevent it.”⁵
With the little we know of, this kind of activity and the negligence that encourages it (along with the sheer volume of accounts) has created the massive potential for exploitation and mistreatment. As a social media user, this is what we mean when we say you’re very likely to have become accustomed to abuse on those platforms.
Here it is in black and white: Some of the largest social media platforms don’t have standards to speak of; and the rules they do have they themselves violate, refuse to investigate thoroughly or fail to apply impartially.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20210628142120/https://cases.justia.com/texas/supreme-court/2021-20-0434.pdf?ts=1624630158
² web.archive.org/web/20220826025816/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-sex-trafficking-online-recruitment-report/
³ web.archive.org/web/20220720163618/https://traffickinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2020-Federal-Human-Trafficking-Report-Low-Res.pdf
⁴ web.archive.org/web/20210121001119/https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/statement-twitter-sued-by-survivor-of-child-sexual-abuse-and-exploitation/
⁵ Ibid.; Peter Gentala, senior legal counsel for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center
Because providing a quality service is more important than garnering accounts. Our core mission of empowering anyone to say anything on everything, just about anywhere will work with any demographic or population. If standards of fairness help 10 people they can help ten million. Unlike Facebook, Twitter and others, when we experience growth you can expect that enforcement of community conduct will not fly out the window.
We’ll do our best to remain consistent and apply standards equally. Make no mistake about it, we intend to create an awesome thriving social media platform, but not at the expense of common decency and fairness.
For example, let’s demonstrate where we don’t want to go with some observations by the “whistleblower” Frances Haugen. Regardless of her motives, she articulates what we’ve been seeing all along:
The thing I saw at Facebook over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money.
When we live in an information environment that is full of angry, hateful, polarizing content it erodes our civic trust, it erodes our faith in each other, it erodes our ability to want to care for each other, the version of Facebook that exists today is tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world.
— web.archive.org/web/20220828093406/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-misinformation-public-60-minutes-2021-10-03/
Opinions vary, but we’re not ready to lay the blame for the demise of societies solely at the feet of Facebook. After all, nobody is forced to use it (and Haugen does not define her terms).
While her background can certainly be questioned, there’s no need to second guess her characterization of Zuckerberg’s giant—it’s accurate enough. This is what success looks like for social networks today. It’s a goal we never intend to reach.
You mean the council¹ that will “ensure people can continue to express themselves freely and safely” via the standards of special interest groups like feminists and The Wahid Institute (Islamic research center)?
That council?
¹ web.archive.org/web/20220901045307/https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/a/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council
Not at all. We have a problem with feminists and Muslims supporting the community.
That’s like inviting the Southern Poverty Law Center to monitor your platform for infractions and expecting positive results.¹
You see, this kind of approach does little more than elevate the rights and opportunities of a few special interests at the expense of everyone else. We have a problem leaving the standards of conduct for anyone in the hands of select groups that, by definition, cannot advocate for everyone.
We’re just not that naïve.
For example, how can we expect feminists to vouch for non-feminists when they’d rather tear out a man’s tongue, or blister in rage over a demonstration of women refusing to hold others accountable² for their own safety and well-being? (Puppies and Play-Doh, anyone?)³
Likewise, why would adherents of Islam stand for any other demographic when Sharia law demands that gay men who practice homosexuality⁴ be put to death—especially the “receptive party”?⁵ (Lesbians may receive a caning⁶ and fines, an injustice which should truly outrage feminists who demand gender equality and equal recognition, but we digress.)
Why should feminists or Muslims be expected to back the aggregate community? How is that fair to their own self-interests? Conversely, how can those self-interests be impartially applied to the community at large? The very thing that defines these groups makes them unfit for the task. You see, it’s not possible to support an online society by chopping it up like this.
This may include your pet label.
Trump supporters or MAGA-haters; moderates, liberals, conservatives, progressives or tea party patriots; members of Westboro Baptist or Lakewood Church; followers of Creflo Dollar or Joyce Meyer; military veterans; whether American imperialism is a republic or a democracy; anti-vaxxers; constitutionalists or anarchists; whether you lean toward Rand Paul or AOC; Black Lives Matter; Blue Lives Matter (do any other lives matter?); White supremacy or Black slavery or Asian antipathy; the 2SLGBTQIA+ community; homeschoolers; hooded members of the KKK; Mothers Against Drunk Driving… None of these groups can be expected to support anyone else’s interests.
The issue isn’t even affinity: It’s simply a matter of being practical.
How can you know you‘ve garnered sufficient factions to fairly represent everyone’s interests? Are 12 groups enough? How about 30? The more cliques you have the more you divide the community. It’s a slice and dice game nobody can win, and going the other way is just as pointless. In lieu of 50 factions, why not 2? Because the stark magnified polarity is even more divisive and destructive.
For example, having abandoned a neutral arbiter like The Constitution, American politics seeks to represent the entire country with either of two equally self-serving party factions, neither of which is capable of impartially serving the whole.
Now that the scent of Musk lingers in the birdcage, the “Chief Twit” intends to double-down on the aforementioned inequities began by Dorsey, to wit, having special interest groups protect themselves against other special interest groups:
Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints.
No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 28, 2022
web.archive.org/web/20221031001046/https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792
The pretense that a collection of special interests (no matter how well meaning) can support everyone equally well is absurd. It’s true in life as well as on this platform. We will have no such council.
Our community code of conduct advocates for everyone because it favors no one.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20230307090725/https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109266/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20190409-SD022.pdf
² web.archive.org/web/20211001122028/https://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2015/04/7-things-feminists-hate-to-hear/
³ web.archive.org/web/20211003072511/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html
⁴ “Livat… [is a form] of homosexual sexual activity either between men or women.”
— web.archive.org/web/20230210204120/https://www.equalitynow.org/discriminatory_law/iran_the_islamic_penal_code_of_2013_books_i_ii_and_v/
⁵ “The hadd punishment for livat [sodomy] shall be the death penalty for the insertive party if he has committed livat by using force, coercion, or in cases where he meets the conditions for ihsan [married to a woman]; otherwise, he shall be sentenced to one hundred lashes. The hadd punishment for the receptive party, in any case (whether or not he meets the conditions for ihsan) shall be the death penalty.” (Islamic Penal Code, 2013; Article 234)
— web.archive.org/web/20220901232455/https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=568a98324&skip=0&query=livat&coi=IRN
⁶ web.archive.org/web/20190914115121/https://www.breitbart.com/news/two-malaysian-women-caned-under-islamic-law-for-lesbian-sex/
If you’re asking whether we spy on you, the answer is we do not.
Understand that we reserve the right to supervise any portion of our network at any time for any reason or for no reason (Public Notes, private messages, brand ambassador communications), but we don’t automatically scan everything on the spot the moment it’s posted.
We believe when you create an account and decide to stay that it’s because you care about the quality of the social environment you’ve joined. For this reason, we feel the community itself is motivated to uphold standards of conduct, which is why we encourage members to report any Note that appears to have gone left of center. To do so, right-click on a Note and select the “Report Note” menu option. (You must be logged in to do this.)
In defense of our position where we do not generally monitor content, Congress crafted Section 230 of the CDA. Prior to this legislation, a court held¹ that “an ISP could be liable for content provided by another because it had a policy of monitoring content.”² This liability, left unchecked, would have stifled the innovation and growth of the internet. Thus, the CDA was written to provide immunity to publishers in general and to overrule this very case in particular.
We acknowledge the possibility that hazardous content may be placed on our system and discovered by third parties. We also acknowledge we may remove such content upon notification or discovery, but unlike Yahoo!³ we specifically disclaim the promise⁴ to remove such content, even if you understand our terms of service to contain a monitoring policy.⁵
This disclaimer exists whether or not there is a customer relationship between us (whether or not you are an account holder).
¹ Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 23 Media L. Rep. 1794 (N.Y. Sup. 1995)
² web.archive.org/web/20180306180053/http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/barnes-v-yahoo-cda-immunity-and-promissory-estoppel.html
³ Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. – 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)
⁴ web.archive.org/web/20230407150143/https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-not-covered-section-230
⁵ web.archive.org/web/20220520144556/http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-06-22-Amended%20Appellate%20Decision%20in%20Barnes%20v.%20Yahoo.pdf, on page 7435
We encourage the community to point out content that appears to violate standards. To do so, simply right-click on a Note and use the context menu to select the “Report Note” option (when you’re logged in).
Right up front you should know there is no presumption of wrongdoing merely because a report was made, and reporters who abuse the system will themselves be penalized.
Context is key—what the Note says and where it was said. Nasty vitriol is expected on a site that promotes antisemitism. Lewd, lurid and misogynistic remarks left on pr0n webpages are hardly out of sync with the base subject matter published there. Likewise, the same comments posted on the WORLD¹ journalism site wouldn’t fit the content.
When you report a Note, it is flagged for adjudication. A reviewer will examine the Note to determine how well it aligns with community policy. The reviewer will also take into account the author, the posted location and whether the account has a history of violations. A decision will be made to either leave the Note alone or remove it from the platform. If it’s determined to contain hazardous content, the Note will be removed and the author warned. (The author may appeal this deletion.)
The reporter—that’s you—will also be examined. The number of times you’ve reported violations, as well as the ratio of reports containing hazardous content to those which didn’t will be taken into account. While we strongly urge members to flag obvious violations, we zealously caution them not to abuse the service.
In other words, do not report content just because you can.
Objections must be based on a reasonable concern that the Note contains, refers to or links to hazardous content. It is not enough that you feel it might be offensive or that it could be a violation.
If it’s a case where you simply don’t like what you see then grow a thicker skin, move quietly along and ignore the Note. In most cases it will be gone in a week anyway. Should the reviewer determine that you’ve abused the reporting system then you yourself may be penalized (which can include the removal of your privilege to report suspected violations).
¹ web.archive.org/web/20231121003740/https://wng.org/
When someone reports a Note, a reviewer determines whether it aligns with community policy. If it’s determined to contain hazardous content, the Note will be removed.
Of course, our reviewers are people, just like you and me. And, just like you and me, they’re not infallible. It’s entirely possible one may misinterpret, misconstrue or misunderstand your Note and how well it jives with the community code of conduct, but we work hard to prevent that.
Since you mentioned Parler (the self-described “uncancelable free speech platform” which has been sold and shut down¹ while its new owner conducts a “strategic assessment”), let’s set the record straight: Their Community Jury is (was) nothing more than window dressing. It has no say. This is obvious from their official policy, because when it comes to analyzing reported content and providing recommendations,
“…a Parler-employee judge makes the final determination. A judge may overrule a jury’s majority verdict.”
— web.archive.org/web/20230120031538/https://blog.parler.com/what-is-the-parler-community-jury/
To be clear, the Parler member community decides nothing, even unanimously. The decision is left to a judge (company employee), who can disregard the jury in every situation.
So you see a Parler’s judge functions identically to our reviewer. No matter how much training Parler claims to provide its jurors, we don’t see the need to waste time with an impotent intermediary. That kind of jury, which has no authority, is no jury at all.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20230430045412/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/parler-shuts-down-as-new-owner-says-conservative-platform-needs-big-revamp/
We aren’t interested in a lot of registrations: We want active accounts. If your participation stops then we’ll surmise you no longer wish to use our service, at which point it no longer makes sense for us to administer your account.
Unless you’re Facebook, of course. In aggregate, active and inactive account data can continuously be manipulated, sold and re-sold to the highest bidder. That’s their business model. Your data, your online activity and the analysis thereof are the full price of admission. In volume, there’s serious money to be made like that, but we’re not Facebook.
When your account is banned, it’s deleted from our platform and can never be used again.
If your account has expired, it went inactive and is now dormant.
This can happen when within the past year 1) you did not respond to our communications, or 2) you have not logged in. When your account goes dormant we presume you no longer need it. Once dormant, accounts are subject to deletion at any time. Until then, they can be reactivated by logging in to the network. Once reactivated, an account is no longer considered dormant and is no longer in jeopardy of being removed.
Your account may have been deleted for any of three reasons: 1) it was banned; 2) it went dormant; or 3) you removed it.
Banned accounts are irrevocably forfeited while dormant accounts are simply expired. If you’ve removed your account then you’ve deregistered your username with our service.
You may attempt to “reclaim” an expired or deregistered account as long as the associated username/moniker/email combination has not already been registered in the interim. If it has, you must create an account with another set of credentials to use with our service.
Accounts that have been deleted for any reason forfeit any credit on the account at the time of deletion.
Any content associated with a deleted account cannot be reclaimed.
No, we will not.
Not content merely with terminating the accounts of those it disapproves of, PayPal, at least twice, toyed with the idea of prohibiting:
“the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that “promote misinformation” or “present a risk to user safety or wellbeing.”
— web.archive.org/web/20221011000444/https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-paypal-policy-lets-company-pull-2500-from-users-accounts-if-they-promote-misinformation
Of course, we acknowledge it’s their circus, their monkeys and their definition of “misinformation,” but this really speaks to the idea that a payment processor can debit a user account $2500.00¹ over nothing more than a difference of opinion. Services that operate like this need to fail hard and fast.
We will not fine an account when it creates content we disagree with.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20221012054723/https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full?locale.x=en_US#actions
We see no value having policies supporting Energy Segregation against Gas (ESG), because it’s nothing more than
“…an investment scam that deceptively uses Americans’ money to push political goals and cut off capital to the oil and gas industry—not to generate the highest returns for retirees, pension holders, and taxpayers.”
— web.archive.org/web/20230511205442/https://thefga.org/solution/limited-government/fighting-the-woke-esg-agenda/
The same goes for Discrimination, Indoctrination and Exclusion (DIE) policies. They’re subterfuge. Bari Weiss clarifies:
“ ‘DEI’ is not about the words it uses as camouflage. DEI is about arrogating power.
And the movement that is gathering all this power does not like America or liberalism. It does not believe that America is a good country—at least no better than China or Iran. It calls itself progressive, but it does not believe in progress; it is explicitly anti-growth. It claims to promote ‘equity,’ but its answer to the challenge of teaching math or reading to disadvantaged children is to eliminate math and reading tests. It demonizes hard work, merit, family, and the dignity of the individual.
An ideology that pathologizes these fundamental human virtues is one that seeks to undermine what makes America exceptional.
It is time to end DEI for good. No more standing by as people are encouraged to segregate themselves. No more forced declarations that you will prioritize identity over excellence. No more compelled speech. No more going along with little lies for the sake of being polite.”
— web.archive.org/web/20231108033832/https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/end-dei-bari-weiss-jews
Why should preferential treatment be given to groups according to their skin color, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or whether as an adult they chose to have body parts mutilated? (Children aren’t given a choice.) We believe people should be seen for who they are, not for how they look or what they’ve done to their bodies. People should be known for character, not for external labels.
Wokeism and virtue signaling are banal, vapid substitutes for integrity and hard-earned reputation. DIE and ESG policies have no place here and should have no place anywhere else.
You betcha. We have none (referring to fact checkers, not transparency).
We don’t need to employ fact checkers because we have:
• no agenda to defend
• no issues to sponsor
• no government to protect
• no need to force our opinion on others
If you’ve read our FAQs then you’ll realize we keep our own counsel on many topics. You’ll also realize we don’t demand you agree with us as a condition of maintaining an account. Items like:
• Hunter Biden’s laptop
• J6 riots and the assassination of Ashli Babbitt
• COVID-19 mandates
• Russian election interference
• election audits
• cocaine in the Whitehouse
• child sex trafficking
• gender dysphoria
• the Holocaust
should not be divisive topics, they should be discussed topics, just like anything else.
When social media platforms hide under the skirts of their “fact checkers” they’re merely doubling down on the agenda they’re pushing under the pretense of being objective. Many of you can see through this, a few of you can’t, but only those who must be told what to say think this concept of fact checking is legitimate.
No way.
By definition, Local Notes are data you create and store on your own system. They do not involve our network and are immune to CDA oversight.
Safety FAQs
From the start, the web annotation service provided by Genius subverted a web page’s Content Security Policy (CSP)¹ by redirecting the source page containing the annotation. This means the web page was not served directly from its origin webserver as one would expect, but was instead proxied through the Genius network first.
The process resulted in annotated pages being stripped of the optional security features of CSP, which was sometimes provided by the original version of the page. This meant that anyone who viewed a page with Genius annotations enabled was potentially vulnerable to security exploits that would otherwise have been blocked by the original site.
Having a CSP in place drastically limits the viability of a type of attack called “cross-site scripting,” or “XSS,” in which an untrusted party gets a trusted site to execute malicious code. Robbing a web page of CSP protections opens the door to JavaScript exploits via inline script injection or forced malware downloads.
Currently, the Genius web annotator no longer appears to strip an annotated site of its CSP header. This is a good thing, of course. Further testing however, demonstrates that other headers can be removed, including “permissions-policy”, “strict-transport-security”, “x-frame-options”, “x-content-type-options” and “x-xss-protection”, just to name a few. These are all examples of important security headers removed from an annotated site that would otherwise have sent them.²
The NetNubby service does not tamper with CSP headers (or any other headers for that matter). Reading and posting Notes will not open up the page to possible XSS attacks, because the page’s CSP is always respected.
Whereas Genius alters a webpage at the server level via a proxy, our platform adjusts a webpage at the browser level once it’s downloaded and rendered, via an extension.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20201108141106/https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/05/25/1740215/genius-web-annotations-undermined-web-security
² the results of websniffer.cc/?url=https://www.apple.com/ were checked against websniffer.cc/?url=https://genius.it/www.apple.com
Absolutely. (Of course, countries like Russia or China might not let you choose your favorite VPN.)¹
You can log on to the platform over a Virtual Private Network (VPN) 24/7/365. Unlike some websites that discriminate against visitors choosing to protect their home IP address, we don’t block access when you connect through a VPN.
In fact, we encourage you to use a quality VPN.²
¹ web.archive.org/web/20230328053659/https://www.cloudwards.net/russian-vpn-ban/
² for a dose of original research heavily biased toward security, privacy and performance we recommend hitting restoreprivacy.com
The Privacy Badger¹ browser extension developed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a handy tool useful for preventing fingerprinting and for blocking third-party tracking cookies. The only reason it would interfere with NetNubbys is if it is set to block cookies specifically set by the NetNubby server (which currently sets no cookies). Were this to happen (it can’t, really), simply ensure the NetNubby server is not blocked.
Otherwise, the Privacy Badger is perfectly suited to block tracking cookies and help protect you from the sites on which you post Notes.
¹ www.eff.org/pages/privacy-badger
We think you’ll find your experience using our platform to be feature-rich without having to sacrifice privacy or security. For most browsers, NetNubbys run Out Of the Box (OOB) with no adjustments necessary. And for privacy-focused browsers such as Brave or Epic, you’ll be pleased to know that most of the safest, strictest security options work hand-in-hand with our social media platform.
For example, you can use Brave Shields or Opera’s Ad Blocker extension with no issues.
You can be logged in to only one console at a time. You don’t need to manually log off your current console in order to log in somewhere else. Once you log in to another console, you’ll be automatically logged off the former location.
If you leave your console unattended while your account is still logged in then anyone who has access to your system can perform actions under your credentials. Obviously, this is not a good thing. You should log off the network when you know you’ll no longer need access or when you must leave your computer unattended.
Your account will automatically be logged off after a certain amount of inactivity. This duration can help protect you in the event you’re no longer at your console or forget to manually log off the network when you’re done.
Your username and passphrase are only required to log in. (Most importantly, your username is not your email address. Your email cannot be used as part of your login credentials. This mitigates the insecurity caused by people who know you easily having 50% of your authorization identifiers.)
Once successfully logged in, your account credentials are used for no other transactions. Instead, an industry standard GUID assigned to each account is used to identify you. In order to protect against guessing another account’s ID by examining GUID structure, your actual GUID is never sent over the network or exposed to the console. Instead, a modified GUID (control GUID) is passed between our server and your browser. This control GUID is created by randomly padding and shuffling your actual ID. In this way, neither a man-in-the-middle attack nor someone looking at console endpoint data would be able to intuit your true GUID (or the next sequential one) after you log on.
Further, a random token is assigned to your activity upon logging in. The combination of this token and the control GUID uniquely authorize your activity for the duration of your session. When you log out the token is expired. The next time you log in a new random token is created.
End-to-end
The connection between your browser console and our authentication server is encrypted using a TLS certificate (formerly, SSL certificate). The connection supports TLS 1.3. Protecting the data from your browser to our server is considered end-to-end (E2E) encryption. This manner of encryption secures data so it can only be read on the two ends; by the sender and by the recipient.
At rest
Your passphrase is encrypted on our servers using Argon2, the state of the art hashing algorithm¹ or key derivation function (KDF). This protects you against an offline attack.
Online password guessing is fruitless because your account is locked after a few failed attempts, and it’s obvious that someone is attempting to gain access. In an offline attack where our database has been breached and it’s very unlikely we realize it, your passphrase is still protected by the strength of the Argon2 KDF against hackers who will likely use hashcat software² to try to crack your credentials.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20220908075854/https://www.password-hashing.net/
² web.archive.org/web/20220421063750/https://www.csoonline.com/article/3542630/hashcat-explained-why-you-might-need-this-password-cracker.html
No.
For this kind of attack to succeed, the cookie containing the unique session ID must be stolen via cross-site scripting, session fixation, session sniffing, etc. We don’t employ server sessions. We also don’t use cookies for authentication. This is good for both security and privacy (GDPR compliance).
One way your account might be taken over is if a TLS interception proxy¹ happens to be deployed somewhere on the network path between your console and our server. This kind of proxy decrypts all the SSL traffic going through it and is an example of a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack. It may be hardware such as a BlueCoat device installed at your place of work (or coffee shop). It could also be software such as Kaspersky Internet Security running on your home computer. (Whether hardware or software, an unsophisticated computer user will not detect the fact that network data is being intercepted, decrypted, and possibly stored and analyzed by anyone with access to the proxy’s logs. The best defense against a possible MITM attack is using a VPN.)
Otherwise, your account could be taken over if your computer itself were compromised with a virus that reads your keystrokes or through malware that records unencrypted data before it is sent over the network.
Please understand these two examples are very real, and they don’t just apply to our service but to any network connection you happen to be using, as well as to any software using those connections.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20220821162639/https://tlseminar.github.io/tls-interception/
There are still a few holdout websites that fail to provide encrypted connections. In these cases, the console displays an open padlock indicating data is not protected from your browser to the destination webserver. These connections are not served over https, and can easily be eavesdropped. (However, as long as you enter no PII on the site the overall security risk is low.) Further, a red border is displayed at the top of the console by default.
In contrast, a closed padlock means the page is served over the https protocol.
We also perform basic checks for malware, viruses and other threats. This has nothing to do with protocol—an encrypted page can be infected by malware. If a page is considered harmful the top of the console will display a magenta border. In such cases, you might wish to reconsider posting and reading notes on these sites.
Please note these malware checks are not intended to replace dedicated antivirus software that ought to be running on your system.
If you use the official Tor Browser—no, but when you use Brave it’s no problem.
As you may well be aware, the Tor Browser is built from a modified version of Mozilla FireFox and its quantum engine is not compatible with Chrome extensions.
However, Brave—a security conscious Chrome alternative equally compatible with NetNubbys—has a mode that uses private browsing over Tor.¹ This lets anyone view their favorite onionsites² while reading and posting Notes. (Brave Shields must be active while browsing; see our compatibility and configuration guidelines.)
Just so we’re clear: Using Tor over VPN means starting your VPN software first and then using your browser to connect to a Tor resource.
(While a VPN protects you by inhibiting the disclosure of your home IP address, a VPN is not required to view onionsites or access the NetNubby service.)
¹ web.archive.org/web/20220615090231/https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018121491-What-is-a-Private-Window-with-Tor-Connectivity-
² web.archive.org/web/20220917193638/https://privacypros.io/tor/best-onion-sites/
You certainly couldn’t be blamed for thinking so.
Many hold the view that online anonymity, in general, tends to urge antisocial behavior. However, the research doesn’t bear this out. In fact, the opposite conclusion is supported: People who engage others online using their bona fide identity act far worse than those who use pseudonyms. This is the fallacy of real names:
People often say that online behavior would improve if every comment system forced people to use their real names. It sounds like it should be true—surely nobody would say mean things if they faced consequences for their actions?
Yet the balance of experimental evidence over the past thirty years¹ suggests that this is not the case. Not only would removing anonymity fail to consistently improve online community behavior—forcing real names in online communities could also increase discrimination and worsen harassment. (Emphasis preserved.)
— Dr. J. Nathan Matias, web.archive.org/web/20220823021939/https://coralproject.net/blog/the-real-name-fallacy/
The results¹ of the study “show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals.”
Thus, it seems clear that those who are rude online aren’t hindered by whether you can recognize them, and interestingly, when their account bears their real name, they act worse.²
In an effort to “fix” this issue, our central government has toyed with getting itself involved, but demanding an end to online anonymity will not make social media better, it will just make matters worse.³ Besides, how would it be enforced?
Reversing the judgment of a 1995 Ohio Supreme Court case, the federal Supremes stated:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But… in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
— McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, web.archive.org/web/20220921222559/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/334/
Online anonymity is critical to the freedom to dissent.⁴ It enables whistleblowers to be heard. Further, there are “countless survivors of sexual abuse, religious persecution, racism and other evils who rely on anonymity to prevent reprisals.”⁵
Plainly, speech divorced from identity doesn’t lessen the quality of the conversation. It can actually foster worthwhile dialog. We aren’t neutral: This is our reasoned position on why “no identity” is a very good thing.
Understand that the notion of “no identity” is not synonymous with the concept of “no accountability.” As a registered account holder, you must abide by the community code of conduct.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20220921012250/http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155923
² web.archive.org/web/20220726144107/https://www.techdirt.com/2016/08/03/study-trolls-are-even-worse-when-using-real-names/
³ web.archive.org/web/20221014155410/https://www.techdirt.com/2021/02/01/no-getting-rid-anonymity-will-not-fix-social-media-it-will-cause-more-problems/
⁴ web.archive.org/web/20210928082844/https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/2021/02/26/viewpoint-online-anonymity-critical-freedom-dissent/6830888002/
⁵ web.archive.org/web/20211116165501/https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/why-ending-anonymity-would-not-make-social-media-better.php
We don’t agree Messenger Kids¹ is safe for children to use, thus we reject the premise of the question, but we’ll still respond.
Some four years after its release, Facebook’s messenger app for the younger crowd still didn’t allow parents to monitor and review the contents of live video chats:
One blind spot in Messenger Kids, though, is the video functionality. While parents can see who their child called and when they called them, no record is left of the interaction itself. This means that if your child experienced cyberbullying or other potential issues like inappropriate or offensive content over live video chats, and there would be no evidence. (Emphasis added).
— web.archive.org/web/20230531095201/https://www.bark.us/blog/messenger-kids/
This defect alone is sufficient to have disqualified the software for use with anyone’s children.
When parents consider introducing their children to our social media platform, we urge them to approach us the same way they should approach introducing their children to the internet at large: with active oversight and gobs of caution.
Our platform is intrinsically safe but is designed to be used with the entirety of the internet (clearnet and deep web), which isn’t. Our platform is intended to be used by adults who take responsibility for the sites they visit and for the content they leave behind. This requires discernment, intellectual honesty and emotional stability: traits we cannot expect to have been fully formed in children yet.
As parents, you shouldn’t let anybody—us, the government, anyone—tell you what is acceptable for your children to view.
So our answer is this: Our platform is safe for your children to use so long as you oversee their activity and participate in their content.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20231118193556/https://www.messengerkids.com/
Social FAQs
Good question.
How do you stop anyone from expressing their opinion about you in a private forum? Just because you don’t like what people say doesn’t mean they should be stripped of their right to speak. As in real life, there is no mechanism whereby you can ensure people say only what you want to hear.
That said, there are measures you can employ to prevent Notes from appearing on your site (see Technical FAQs).
Fat chance. NetNubbys cannot silence your critics for you.
Yes, there is!
Any company, product or service interested in connecting with NetNubbys can register a brand ambassador¹ account.
A brand ambassador is a special account that acts as the official representative to the platform. They have the privilege of using NetNubbys to communicate in realtime with loyalists, detractors and inquisitors. Via a brand ambassadorship, companies can directly 1) target interested parties; 2) entice potential customers; 3) enlighten consumers; and 4) assist clients.
The brand ambassador is the interface to everyone interested in the brand; and is a welcome alternative to inefficient email, slow contact forms and dumb AI chatbots. Brand ambassadors are “live” and respond to questions as they’re asked. They provide consumers an immediate opportunity to connect with a responsive, caring and knowledgeable person who officially represents the brand.
¹ The creation of brand ambassadors is the next logical milestone in our suite of services, and will be implemented when we reach a sufficiently large base of registered accounts.
Absolutely not.
NetNubbys exist to give everyone a podium to express themselves, pro or con. Brand ambassadors are expected to communicate relevancy based on the merits of their product or service, the power of their brand, and its affinity with consumers. Having the ability to intimidate or silence detractors would be counterproductive.
The NetNubby experience is different. On purpose.
It does not cater to attention junkies that platforms like Facebook seem to attract. You can’t buy friends here. (Services such as Intertwitter¹ that let you purchase YouTube views, Instagram followers and automatic “likes” demonstrate how puerile and asinine the situation has become.)
And while established social media offerings such as BeReal² do not provide any followers, we do. We just don’t make much ado about it (hardly any ado, actually). Interestingly enough, the reason we don’t emphasize your followers is pretty much the same reason BeReal doesn’t let you have any in the first place: having to deal with “the pressure of wanting to curate a perfect public image”³ or, in our case, having to deal with the perfect post. There is no pressure to write what others might want to see when you have no idea beforehand how many followers you have, if any.
So if you joined hoping to feed your internal narcissist then you might not fit in. Not because we don’t want you here, but because it’s never gonna be all about you while you are here.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20231129113916/https://intertwitter.com/
² web.archive.org/web/20231031165455/https://bereal.com/en/
³ web.archive.org/web/20230629092045/https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-bereal-everything-you-need-to-know-about-this-fast-growing-social-media-app/
We feel strongly that who you claim to be and what you may look like aren’t as important as what you have to say. We’re interested in conversation for its own sake: nothing more. When you speak intelligently, thoughtfully and with conviction, then who you are shouldn’t matter. What you look like ought not be a factor.
If you actually are Donald Trump then the community will figure it out soon enough based on your posts, not your hairdo.
Further, this eliminates the conundrum of “which profile is the real profile.” Anyone using typical social media has had to grapple with the uncertainty of figuring out whether a celebrity profile is authentic. There can only be one, though others also lay claim. Who makes the adjudication? Can the judge also be trusted? It’s a pointless, fruitless rabbit hole.
Who you are will never be an issue on our platform because your actual identity doesn’t figure into the picture. Just as cash money has its own value and the same value no matter whose hand it’s in, so too should conversation be.
For example, the following quote:
The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.
— T. S., web.archive.org/web/20220123072047/https://acko.net/blog/the-coddling-of-the-professional-mind/
is worth consideration even if it wasn’t spoken by an unnamed, renowned American author, economist, political commentator, nationally syndicated columnist, social theorist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University; a veteran of the Korean War and honorably discharged U.S. Marine; an economic libertarian and social conservative who refused presidential positions under the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations; who argues that many U.S. schools are failing children contending that “indoctrination” has taken the place of proper education.
We’re not handing out blue checks as a means of authenticity or social proof.
There are plenty of platforms that will “allow” you to submit government-issued identification in order to prove your identity, like Gab or Parler. If that’s your thing then go for it, but that’s not us.
LinkedIn will even ask for this kind of identification under the ruse of “potential unauthorized access,” right before they not so temporarily restrict your account.
And if you’re Twitter, you’ll just sell them because you can:
The primary value in a blue check whose only qualification is a working credit card is as a tool to trick people…into believing a paid checkmark is a verified checkmark.
— web.archive.org/web/20230331220211/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/what-made-pre-elon-musk-twitter-relevant
If you think about it, what does it mean to say you’ve been verified?
It usually means acceptable legal documents have been submitted, scrutinized and approved.
To what end?
It’s about having a reference point in digital space, something that anchors speech to a speaker. If your moniker is “AuthenticDonaldTrumpForRealsies” then you have your reference, as no one else can claim that name.
But it’s also about having somebody’s approval.
Our platform provides digital anchors like any other social service. The big difference here is we don’t require your papers. If we did, that would be tantamount to saying the government must approve your account (either to make it or to keep it). This would then make Uncle Sugar the de facto authority, not you. That’s something we can’t abide.
In other words, you approve yourself.
If your participation hinged on the presentation of official documentation then how could you speak your mind unimpeded, or how would you converse without permission, and how could you enjoy your time here with an account under constant threat of government revocation?
For a few reasons, we place due priority on anonymity, not verification.
Few things online are more irritating than following a link someone shared to their favorite social media post just to find you must first login to see the content.
It’s so counterproductive you’d think braindead marketers and designers would opt to grow a brain (or at least one eye and half a brain), instead of making the initial visit experience an object lesson in abject frustration. It’s even gotten popular enough for Twitter.¹
We agree with the Nielsen Norman Group that login walls don’t belong in the initial experience.² You should not be required to create an account just to see what others are posting.
That’s why we don’t make you register with us to enjoy Public Notes. When someone shares the URL of a webpage having interesting NetNubbys, you’ll be able to view them all (account or no account). All you need is the free software.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20230704000929/https://9to5mac.com/2023/07/01/twitter-limit-on-how-many-tweets-you-can-read/
² web.archive.org/web/20230527141518/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/login-walls/
Technical FAQs
There are similarities between the two technologies, as well as major differences.
For example, Web Annotations, which became a W3C standard back in 2017, are designed as a decentralized adjunct¹ to a centralized web, where page content is marked up, referenced, footnoted, remarked upon, stored and shared. NetNubbys take root as a centralized service compatible with both the centralized web and the burgeoning distributed web (DWeb), where the page itself becomes a container for your thoughts.
Annotations and NetNubbys both form a conversation layer that sits atop a web page. Web Annotations are by definition tied to a piece of content (an image or snippet of text), while NetNubbys don’t technically share this constraint. (You could post Notes on a completely blank page because they’re tied to a URL.)
Further, our platform provides content-on-demand, such as Subscription Notes, an automated service that doesn’t fit the Web Annotations paradigm.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20220120093054/https://wptavern.com/web-annotations-are-now-a-w3c-standard-paving-the-way-for-decentralized-annotation-infrastructure
You can affix a NetNubby to:
• Internet/WAN/LAN pages
• Secure or unsecure pages (https or http)
• Pages viewed in your browser’s privacy mode
• Distributed web (DWeb) IPFS pages
• Onionsites (using Brave with private browsing over Tor)
• Pages accessed through a VPN
Technically, localhost pages are served to your browser from your own PC, instead of from a remote webserver. These pages are not directly viewable by others, but this in no way limits the kind of Notes you can put there. So yes, localhost pages can display Public NetNubbys.
If a site employs technical measures to prevent the use of NetNubbys, such as browser scripts or a Content Security Policy (CSP), there’s little that can be done (and this is by design).
The Internet is a big place. Choose another web page where NetNubbys work unimpeded. Meanwhile, you may wish to explain to the site operator they’re missing out on a huge opportunity to connect with brand loyalists, such as yourself.
Absolutely.
You can send a custom private header called "x-digital-note-options" with a value set to "deny" to prohibit NetNubbys. For example:
• Apache or OpenLiteSpeed in .htaccess file
Header set X-Digital-Note-Options deny
• IIS in web.config file
<customHeaders>
<add name="X-Digital-Note-Options" value="deny" />
</customHeaders>
• NGINX in location block
server {
server_name example.com;
...gzip...
...ssl...
...root...
include /etc/nginx/snippets/this-is-all-my-general-security-headers-in-one-file.conf;
location / {
try_files $uri /index.html;
# Note! This gets included *again* because this location
# block needs its own custom add_header directives.
include /etc/nginx/snippets/this-is-all-my-general-security-headers-in-one-file.conf;
# NOTE! Adding some more headers here
add_header X-Digital-Note-Options "deny";
}
}
This is a walk in the park for Apache, OpenLiteSpeed or IIS servers. Naturally, NGINX¹ is more complicated. If you blithely add a new add_header inside a relevant location block, all the other “global” add_headers are dropped, hence the include in both the server and location blocks. Uh-huh. Fun times.
Besides using an explicit server header to deactivate global public Notes, a Content Security Policy (CSP) can also impede their use (inadvertently or otherwise). When this kind of CSP directive is discovered, the console will display an appropriate notice.
Unlike the defunct ThirdVoice application which always disregarded the site owner² in favor of the site visitor, the NetNubby platform respects webmasters by providing clear-cut options that are easily deployed. A website’s display of content and a visitor’s prerogative to comment on it should begin as a mutually respectful two-way exchange:
Webmasters have a right to protect their property, but then users have a right to comment on those sites. Third Voice is unlikely to go away, but the real test will be how it is used. (Emphasis added.)
— web.archive.org/web/20041112052854/https://www.theregister.com/2004/06/11/five_years_ago/
Please understand when you prohibit Public NetNubbys on your pages you prevent satisfied customers from using an extremely popular social media tool to spread praise about you, your product or your service. As a marketing professional, you deny yourself the opportunity to directly engage with a qualified audience already strongly focused on your brand.
Conversely, should you determine the concept of NetNubbys does not bolster your brand identity, you can halt their use on your domains.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20240116160526/https://www.peterbe.com/plog/be-very-careful-with-your-add_header-in-nginx
² web.archive.org/web/20000815073208/http://www.worldzone.net/internet/pixelsnttv/
The limits are not based on artificial character or line counts. What you can fit on a Note is what you can post, based on the font size and letter spacing you select. Make your text huge or small, condensed or normal—it’s your choice.
This means that with the default font size a Note can hold 8 lines of about 190 characters total. Smaller font sizes will easily let you display 10 lines of roughly 330 characters or more. And at the other extreme, you can post one big fat emoji. Again, the control is yours.
You betcha.
NetNubbys support full Unicode allowing you to type (or paste) anything from Arabic to Yezidi, including dingbats and emoji. 👍
As a matter of fact, you can 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 ⓢⓔⓥⓔⓡⓐⓛ 𝑝𝑟𝑒-𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑡 𝐟𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝔱𝔬 𝔢𝔵𝔭𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔰 𝖞𝖔𝖚𝖗𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖋 𝓪𝓼 𝕦𝕟𝕚𝕢𝕦𝕖𝕝𝕪 𝕒𝕤 ⒴⒪⒰ 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚.
Of course.
NetNubbys are fully compliant with RTL and LTR languages, so Hebrew and Arabic will correctly display alongside your English and French on the same Note.
Other than the maximum message length which is dynamically calculated from your chosen font size and letter spacing, there are no technical limits to what you can post.
The NetNubbys platform accepts it all, including invisible graphemes. Feel free to also use various display and control sequences such as inline bidi, enclosures, overlays, joiners and common variation selectors. It’s your Note and you have the entire world of Unicode at your disposal—over 294,000¹ codepoints. Type what you want!
¹ www.babelstone.co.uk/Unicode/HowMany.html
You can reposition Notes on your screen using the mouse. On a touch screen you can use your finger or stylus.
There are a lot of moving parts that must co-exist in your browser environment to provide this functionality, including our software and other extensions and browser add-ons you may have installed over which we have no control. The best advice we can give is to 1) refresh your browser page; 2) read Notes; and 3) try again to position them.
Be aware the logic that permits Notes to be manually positioned is made possible by a script that is injected into the page, but some sites (such as the latest version of Gmail) employ a stringent Content Security Policy (CSP) which inhibits the script. If this is the case then you won’t be able to move Notes with your mouse.
However, even on those few sites that prevent repositioning Notes manually, you can always use the right-click context menu to “stack notes” in the corner or “spread notes” uniformly across the screen to read them.
As with any browser extension, the NetNubby console can get out of sync with the web page. This can happen when the extension is installed after a page is already loaded in the browser. Then when you invoke the console, it won’t be able run the required logic. (This doesn’t happen on pages opened after installation.)
The fix is to simply refresh the page, either manually or by clicking the link that says “click here to fix it.” In the latter case the console will refresh the page for you and then make itself available once it sees the page is ready.
If for some reason the page will not load (and it remains out of sync), then the console has determined it cannot work at that location. Should this happen, simply use another page.
Well, websites have become quite complicated since the day Al Gore “created the Internet.”¹
Even after the page seems to be fully loaded with text and images, there may well be several more resources to be fetched behind the scenes. Thus, the console waits until the host page has loaded all requested assets before checking for Notes. This can cause an apparent delay, but this is by design. The software will not display Notes on partially loaded web pages.
Of course, it’s also possible our network just happens to be running slowly at that moment. Jus’ sayin’.
¹ What he actually said was “… [he] took the initiative in creating the Internet.” As a congressman, senator, and vice president, he promoted a national policy to transfer defense-funded computer research to the private and educational worlds and to promote universal access. At the federal government level, he was a technological advocate and patron of network connectedness. He was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
The number is the amount of public Notes available at that location.
A red circle icon means the location is disabled and you’re likely viewing
• a browser system page, or
• a prohibited page where the site operator has blocked Notes (intentionally or otherwise)
The software will not permit reading and writing Notes on disabled pages.
A green icon is the default color, indicating you may use NetNubbys to your heart’s delight.
Notes are insulated from the layout of the web page. Even the logic that allows Notes to be grabbed and moved is encapsulated from the page and isolated from the host environment. While it is remotely possible that functionality may interfere with a page, Notes are designed to coexist peacefully.
Not at all.
Notes are injected into the browser page differently than the way popup windows are created. Intentionally, we designed NetNubbys to be the foremost content on the page so that they can remain visible without breaking the page’s layout.
Our development team (affectionately referred to as “the boys in the basement”) initially created the NetNubby platform to work with Google’s Chrome browser. This means it should work well in all other Chromium blink browsers—from Brave to Yandex—including Edge, Epic, Iridium, Opera, Vivaldi, etc.
But there’s a reason those other browsers exist today—they don’t want to be Chrome. While core functionality is identical among all Chromium-based browsers, so too there are minor differences.
For the absolute best experience, try using Google Chrome. But you’ll find that NetNubbys will work quite well with the alternatives.
This is not on the roadmap.
When you’re offline, the software has no connection to the server, not even in the background. In this case, you cannot receive any communications whatsoever (Notes or console messages). An interrupted internet connection will cause you to be offline, even if the console is open.
When you’re merely logged out, the software can communicate with the server whether the console is active or not. This means you can receive communications such as Public Notes, which don’t require you to be logged in to view. Other communications, such as as Instant Notes, can also be viewed while logged out.
The same thing that occurs when somebody takes down a physical bulletin board you’ve been using: All the contents posted on it vanish.
We don’t own any of your “bulletin boards,” we just give you the opportunity to use ’em. Websites can go offline permanently for a number of reasons and all of them are out of our control.
You do not have to register an account to read Public Notes. All you need is the free software (a simple browser extension).
Unlike Instagram, Facebook and other services that hit you with a login wall, we don’t believe in making your visit frustrating. You should be able to discover what others are saying on your favorite websites without having to create an account first.
And when you’re ready to add your own thoughts to the conversation, all you have to do is sign up (also free).
It’s unlikely AdBlock is preventing NetNubbys from displaying without also breaking the rest of the web page, and a jacked up page is something you would notice—not just the missing ‘Nubbys.
Just so you know, the following AdBlock filter myWebsite.com##DIV will inhibit the display of NetNubbys. This is exactly the rule that would be created if, for some reason, you manually clicked on a Note and instructed AdBlock to hide it. However, if this filter is set then a lot more items will be blocked besides the Notes you want to see, because this rule targets every HTML DIV tag in the page!
To ensure AdBlock is not the culprit simply eyeball the enabled filters and look for that rule. If it’s present then remove it; Notes should again display.
If, for some reason, you are using AdBlock because you don’t want to see Notes on the page, there’s a better approach. Simply use the Hide Notes button in the console to toggle the visibility of NetNubbys. You can also right-click on any Note and use the context menu. Either way, Notes will render on the web page only when you want to see them. You have total control.
The ActivityPub protocol is a decentralized social networking protocol¹ that lets disparate social media platforms become interoperable. It provides a client/server API for creating, updating, and deleting content, as well as a federated server-to-server API for delivering notifications and content.
Although we do not yet work with ActivityPub, we are keeping an eye on this technology to see if the direction it goes is in line with our own paradigm. For perspective, diaspora* has a good write-up² on why ActivityPub cannot be all things to all social networks.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20230706201839/https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
² web.archive.org/web/20230104221243/https://overengineer.dev/blog/2018/02/01/activitypub-one-protocol-to-rule-them-all.html
Currently, we have no rate limits.
You betcha, just as soon as we’re sufficiently popular to attract enough activity to give you something to analyze.
Once we have ample accounts, data analysis is a service we intend to make available to anyone, not just academics.
Sounds like a huge number, doesn’t it?
The data at Siteefy¹ assert that as of 2023, there are at least 201 million active websites, and that Google has roughly 25 billion web pages in its index (but better than 50 billion is a closer estimate).
Of course, this does not include the innumerable web pages available in the darknet, because “some estimates have pegged the size of the Deep Web at up to 500 times larger than the Surface Web,”² or what we know as the clearnet. (And this was back in 2008.)
However, a competing analysis published in 2019 inverts the size of the darknet:
In reality, the number of onion sites is tiny compared to the size of the surface web. Our count of live reachable onion site domains comes to less than 0.005% of the number of surface-web site domains. Out of about 55,000 onion domains that we found, only around 8,400 onion domains had a live site (15%). The popular iceberg metaphor that describes the relationship of the surface web and dark web is upside down.
— web.archive.org/web/20230402121023/https://www.recordedfuture.com/dark-web-reality
Given that we cannot fully agree³ on what the terms darknet and deep web actually mean, it stands to reason we have a hard time agreeing on how to measure the size of them.
Thankfully, all of that is irrelevant since you can post a NetNubby on an Onion site as easily as on any site found in Google, which means the sky’s the limit in terms of subject matter, location and reach for your notes.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20231107131225/https://siteefy.com/how-many-websites-are-there/
² web.archive.org/web/20131126040812id_/http://www.alexwright.org:80/articles/p14-wright.pdf
³ web.archive.org/web/20231024021601/https://www.dictionary.com/e/dark-web/
You sure can.
While it’s simple to post a note on any web page indexed by Google (the so-called clearnet), it’s also easy-peasy to place a NetNubby on a darknet page, such as an Onion site.
To do this use Brave, an ultra security-conscious web browser which lets you access Onion sites as readily as clearnet resources.
You’ll be pleased to know you don’t have to lower any of Brave’s security settings in order to enjoy using NetNubbys over the Tor network. Here is the recommended security configuration. When you see the green “Tor connected successfully” message you can begin.
That said, we have no control over the Brave browser. Beyond the suggested configuration, we cannot know if an update will break or diminish this functionality (and if it does, we cannot provide any assistance). Unlike the Tor Browser, with Brave you may change a tor circuit but have no way of viewing its route.
Please know that the darknet is not nearly as responsive as the clearnet, and Onion sites may load slowly or go down unexpectedly at any time. Further, the speed and responsiveness of relay nodes is not on par with the clearnet and, like the clearnet, when the Tor network experiences degradation all you can do is wait. This degradation can affect the performance of NetNubbys. If things are running too slowly for you, try the New Tor connection for this site menu option to procure a replacement circuit that’s hopefully more responsive.
We are aware of proxies such as Tor2web¹ which allow access to onion services from non-Tor browsers. However, by using such a gateway users relinquish their own anonymity. This is counter-productive, which is why we cannot recommend using Tor2web.
Since we’re discussing the darknet, you may wonder how to locate resources. We suggest the AHMIA² search engine. Unlike most other dark web search engines, AHMIA has a policy against “abuse material” and blocks it.
¹ web.archive.org/web/20231101052845/https://www.tor2web.org/
² The resource has an onion site at juhanurmihxlp77nkq76byazcldy2hlmovfu2epvl5ankdibsot4csyd.onion/ as well as a clearnet address at web.archive.org/web/20231101002625/https://ahmia.fi/