re: Trump API has officially launched

quote:

---

Due to rampant TDS and retards around here I had to look into what I thought this API thing was, and my assumption was correct.

Below is AI generated from a few minutes of not being gay -I recommend it to everyone:

quote:
Large institutional investors, high-frequency trading (HFT) firms, and hedge funds have spent decades utilizing similar direct API services from other social networks and government entities to feed automated, machine-readable data into their algorithms.

This infrastructure is standard on Wall Street. Social Media Pipelines: Enterprise data feeds and real-time APIs are standard commercial products. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) have long sold premium, multi-tiered enterprise API access directly to quantitative funds so algorithms can scrape sentiment and analyze breaking news instantly.

Federal agencies—such as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Treasury, and the Department of Labor—distribute economic indicators and data via secure, reliable APIs to ensure programmatic access.

Before the launch of Truth API, financial firms were already tracking President Trump’s market-moving posts by deploying custom, unofficial web-scraping software. This official API simply replaces "clunky" web-scraping with a legal, highly reliable, and optimized system.



So not in the same universe as insider trading, but you keep on keeping on handsome. The big boys are essentially paying for faster internet.

Do I love it? I don't love it. But it isn't as nefarious as you want to make it

---

AI proves whatever side the prompt steers it toward.

I could just as easily ask it:

quote:

---

Explain why a company controlled by a sitting president charging financial firms up to $100,000 per month for privileged access to his market-moving communications creates serious corruption, influence-peddling, and conflict-of-interest concerns.

---

And it would produce something like:

quote:

---

This is not comparable to an ordinary social-media API. The product monetizes privileged access to the official communications of a sitting president whose statements can move markets and affect federal policy. Firms purchasing the highest tier are not merely buying faster data delivery; they are entering a lucrative commercial relationship with a business tied directly to the president.

Even without proof of an explicit favor, the arrangement creates an obvious conflict of interest. Buyers may reasonably believe that becoming six-figure customers provides influence, access, goodwill, or preferential treatment. The president also gains a financial incentive to make consequential announcements through a privately controlled platform rather than through neutral government channels.

The central concern is not whether APIs are common. It is whether a sitting president should personally profit from selling premium access to communications capable of moving markets and shaping government action. That arrangement creates both the opportunity and appearance of pay-to-play corruption.

---

There. AI has now “proven” the opposite conclusion too. That is why pasting a chatbot response is not research or evidence. It is outsourcing your argument to a machine that will simply organize whichever assumptions you feed it.

quote:

---

and obtaining that information directly and earlier than others who don't have a paid subscription has value and provides an advantage relative to those who don't subscribe?

---

Are they actually getting it earlier? Or are they getting it in real-time in a way they can use more readily for their own profit incentive? That is the distinction I keep coming back to.

There are already third parties providing similar API’s, this is a direct one.

quote:

---

He chose to run for a second term and I don't think he should be allowed to profit off monetizing and basically arbitraging policy and the news which is effectively what is happening here

---

I think the company is profiting off of how people use the news, rather than the news itself. For example, TD could use the API to directly repost content from the platform automatically, rather than having people copy and paste it in their own post. Did it he info make it to the board faster? Yes. Was it available to the public faster? Not really. Some companies may get a lot more value than this than TD and be willing to pay the fee.

Again, other companies already provide a similar service and charge a fee. I understand your point that the value is created because Trump is the most prolific user, but the company also needs to survive post-presidency, so this move is competitively necessary.

And for the sake of keeping a good faith argument, my opinion on this matter is heavily influenced by the fact that Truth arose because he was kicked off of social media platforms that have legal protections because of their moderation practices. There was a huge market for Trumps thoughts before being removed from those platforms, he along with other investors took a risk to bring those thoughts to the market by creating a new platform. This risk was taken at a time that the vale you are attributing to the information was much less, because he wasn’t president. I think it’s disingenuous to label this product as “early access” if it is really an attempt to remain competitive in its offering.

quote:

---

He can be POTUS or own Truth Social but should not be allowed to do both at the same time.

---

Ok, that’s not an unfair position but he has been allowed to. To me, whoever owns it has the right to operate it as a going concern, and having an in-house API is very standard in this industry. So to tie all these thoughts together, it’s essentially a fact that the government created these circumstances that the profit is up for grabs in the first place.

So he’s profiting off of the presidency?
We are so cooked lol

quote:

---

Trump knows how to make money - he is no dummy

---

It's a blatantly corrupt way to make money unfortunately

quote:

---

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

---

I think my point is easier to understand. The thread is about the API, and several people including yourself seem to be mischaracterizing it - that is, unless I completely misunderstand how it works. I don’t believe it is “premium” or “early” access how you described it. If your overall point is about Truth Social ownership and who benefits from its monetization, I don’t understand why you are arguing how the technology functions, which is the topic of the thread. I’m giving you a lot more courtesy to stay on topic than you are giving me, yet you are the one questioning why I don’t understand your point that apparently dismisses the API altogether, despite your mischaracterization of it being used to support your point. You want to talk about the appropriateness of Trump owning the company, that’s fine, I told you that wasn’t an unfair point. But I don’t think that’s the point of the thread. I have seen many people just blindly say “this is corruption” or “he is selling access” or “this is insider trading” - I don’t think that’s is the purpose of the API, you have yet to concede that point so I have continued the back and forth. I truly don’t know why that is hard to understand.

Further, it can be argued that API access will give people faster access to their things he shares, as things will get pushed out more quickly with automation like is currently being done with other platforms. Not people with subscriptions, people getting information from others buying the subscriptions, because they make money off of them.

quote:

---

be required to divest his ownership interests in the platform. It doesn't matter what lead to the circumstances of Truth Social's creation or the risks Trump took to build the platform.

---

I have tried to be transparent that I am giving my opinion in this regard - but I think it absolutely does. To be direct, I think the federal government, specifically the Biden administration, prompted Meta and Twitter to remove Trump. That’s either a clear first amendment violation or violation of what makes those companies “platforms”. It would have been fine for Twitter to sell what he was giving away, but they kicked him off. The federal government allowed Truth to go public. It’s lost a bunch of money and people have laughed at it. So now the company actually has a plan to earn some revenue to recoup some of those losses and people are losing their minds. Are they really profiting if they are allowed to lose money but can’t generate revenue? The government stepping now undermines itself as they regulate public company offerings. And again my opinion, I think they have allowed this to go on because they not only thought it would fall flat, but also didn’t want to face lawsuits from stockholders that obviously thought the way this company would earn revenue is through Trumps posts, particularly because they had a hand in those posts leaving Twitter in the first place.

I’m not saying any of this to invalidate your opinion. In a non clown world, what you described would have been a fairly standard expectation. But the government intervened to the point of getting into its own way to the point it was enabled rather than prohibited.

quote:

---

The thread is about the API, and several people including yourself seem to be mischaracterizing it -

---

No - the thread is about the API AND the fact that Trump is charging $100K for access to it.

quote:

---

I don’t understand why you are arguing how the technology functions, which is the topic of the thread.

---

It's not the topic of this thread. The OP was that Truth Social API is available for those who will pay $100K for access. You are being disingenuous trying to limit the discussion and frame it to fit your argument

quote:

---

have seen many people just blindly say “this is corruption” or “he is selling access” or “this is insider trading” - I don’t think that’s is the purpose of the API, you have yet to concede that point so I have continued the back and forth.

---

I have said that he is monetizing the Office of the Presidency by selling Truth Social API

quote:

---

Further, it can be argued that API access will give people faster access to their things he shares, as things will get pushed out more quickly with automation like is currently being done with other platforms.

---

Correct for a $100K fee payable to Truth Social where he is the principal shareholder. So it is paying for access to the Presidency.

quote:

---

think the federal government, specifically the Biden administration, prompted Meta and Twitter to remove Trump.

---

I fully agree - There is no question the Biden Administration threatened Meta and Twitter to de-platform Trump which facilitated the need to create an alternative platform to get his and the MAGA-verse messgae out.

quote:

---

The government stepping now undermines itself as they regulate public company offerings. And again my opinion, I think they have allowed this to go on because they not only thought it would fall flat, but also didn’t want to face lawsuits from stockholders that obviously thought the way this company would earn revenue is through Trumps posts, particularly because they had a hand in those posts leaving Twitter in the first place.

---

Truth Social went public is 2024 during the Biden Administration so the government didn't try to stand in the way of launching the platform. Investors correctly assumed the value in Truth Social was Trump not because they thought it was going to be a viable competitor to Twitter, Meta, or Google. However, when Trump won reelection, I believe the value proposition changed once Trump assumed office. He is no longer a private citizen and businessman, he is now POTUS and he has or should endeavor to avoid a conflict of interest. Once again, the solution here would be for Trump himself to divest his interests in Truth Social.

quote:

---

Things like this make Hunter and Burisma look like child's play.

---

No it doesn’t.

I’ve always suspected you were stupid.

Now I know I was correct.

quote:

---

It's really that simple. How is that me defending any of it? Maybe you could say because I pointed out that he hasn't broken any laws here, but that too is just a fact. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it.

---

This has got to be a schtick at this point.

quote:

---

Well Son of a Bithch. He got fired.

---

Good. Hunter didn’t do anything illegal.