You might love him, you might hate him, but the chances are, you have seen Andrew Tate pop up on your social media feed in recent months. The man is known for controversial and sometimes offensive takes on issues ranging from masculinity and relationships, making money online, to just about anything you can imagine.
Now, Andrew is being swiftly and thoroughly banned on almost every social media and content-based platform.
Some find Andrew to be offensive, outrageous, and dangerous for exploiting his audience for attention. While both sides have their arguments, the core issue is that Web2 social networks built the persona of Andrew Tate by allowing for algorithms to push content to anyone who would watch it. Now we see their centralized powers being used to remove him.
Let’s look at how Web2 social networks built Andrew Tate into the globally loved and hated figure that he is today, and how they are now trying to tear down what they created.
The sad truth is that social networks are failing and Andrew Tate is an example of just how rotten the centralized algorithmic system is.
Who is Andrew Tate & What Happened?
To briefly dive into who is Andrew Tate, he is a former kickboxing champion turned internet entrepreneur who although from the United Kingdom and United States, resides in Romania. He claims to be a multimillionaire and is not shy about how he earns his money as he teaches in his online course called, Hustler University. This is a program that claims to help people earn money online. For more on Andrew you can watch the video below:
In a matter of days, Andrew Tate has gone from a controversial, somewhat cringy, internet personality to a criminal that has been outlawed from every platform imaginable. His Hustler’s University has had its affiliate program cancelled and even content of his that is being reposted is being banned from social networks.
The claim against Andrew is that the content he is producing is hateful, violent, and might lead his audience to commit dangerous acts. There have been a handful of non-profits that have advocated for his removal and they seem to have won.
Naturally, the internet is reacting:
Web2 Algorithms Created Andrew Tate
Once again, we are seeing the overreaching and seemingly never-ending power of Web2 platforms in the removal of Andrew Tate. Effectively they are judge, jury, and executioner with no defense provided.
However, what if we told you that the same platforms who are censoring Andrew, are the culprits that built his fanbase and international recognition that they are now trying to erase? You might think this sounds crazy, but it’s the truth, and it shows us how misguided social networks have become.
See, what Andrew and his fanbase were able to do is hack the algorithms that social networks are built on. They knew by saying outrageous stuff and posting on multiple accounts they would appear more often and elicit reactions from users. The way this was done was by having "students" from Huster's University create pages about Andrew. These pages shared his content and made money from the ads. Andrew benefited by growing his audience, and in turn, his potential client base. As we have covered before, social networks are built to keep you on the platform as long as possible. Lucikly for them, Andrew Tate provided the perfect product to keep you, the users, online and engaged. The platforms don't care if you're offended, amused, or searching for something else, they only care if you stay addicted.
By boosting Andrew Tate, platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram have earned millions in user data and advertising. Just as positive feedback loops tend to work, once the platforms began to see how engaging his content was, their algorithms kept pushing it. This became so obvious that even other creators started producing content about Andrew in an effort to jump on the trend.
Most users didn’t have a choice if Andrew’s content was going to be suggested to them, or would simply appear in their feeds. However, the social network knew that this would earn them more revenue, even if it upset a few people.
The Tides Turn & Platforms Censor
Now Andrew is being banned and removed on almost every platform imaginable. You might think this is the right move or you might think he deserves to remain active. However, the issue we see is that the decision is made by a few select individuals without full input from users. Moderation is a complex activity, and Andrew Tate is a prime example of it. Supporters of Andrew will argue that things are taken out of context, or allegations of criminal activity are slanderous and false. Others will say that he is abusive, violent, and needs to be removed.
If you want a fair, free-speech-based future then you need to allow for moderation to be done in a way that allows for all voices to be heard and weighted equally. The concerns of a few should not be valued more than others who might not be as vocal.
Given the shock-value Andrew has built his reputation on, he has naturally upset the cancel mob, and as they usually do, they are targeting Andrew by appealing to the centralized powers that run social networks. Here we see the next major issue with Web2 platforms. They have the full and unmitigated power to remove any content they do not like. In the case of Andrew Tate, they used their power to do both, build him up, and now tear him down.
There need to be solutions to the problems that social networks are causing. The platform should not be contributing to a creator's rise (and now fall). Users should be free to engage with creators like Andrew Tate if they find value in the content and ignore it if they do not agree. They should not be force-fed content, or constantly preyed upon for advertising dollars.
On the other side, creators shouldn’t be at risk of de-platforming off of the opinions of a few individuals. If the super-majority believes that Andrew’s opinions are dangerous then they should be heard. However, a small group should not have the power to eliminate voices they no longer agree with. This doesn't excuse the comments of a person like Andrew Tate, however, there needs to be a balance.
How Solcial is different
At Solcial we are striving to solve both of the issues surrounding algorithms and censorship. Users are now put in positions where creators should provide value, not controversy. On the other side, users have a say in moderation and by implementing our P2P model, censorship is limited to the most severe cases. To make the situation even more clear, by allowing users to have a token, the free market can have a say if someone makes an offensive, intolerant, or hateful statement. Simply put, their token price will fall if they do something stupid and rise if they provide value.
While we have no opinion on Andrew Tate, we do feel that current social networks are broken. Users shouldn’t be manipulated, creators shouldn’t be bullied or face the constant threat of censorship, and platforms shouldn’t have the powers they currently possess.
Solcial is aiming to provide a new way of interacting – with new opportunities for value to be given. Learn more here:
Solcial is a permissionless social network that gives users the power of web3 by allowing people to interact with each other without fearing censorship, and allowing content creators to be rewarded fairly at market value.
Get in Touch
Email: [email protected]