Archive for the ‘Twitterverse’ Category

Twitter IS a Hate-Group

Thursday, June 4th, 2020

Conform or Die

On Sunday morning, and again Monday evening, I sent out a couple of tweets, including one aimed at President Trump, among others, suggesting that the old traditional policy of shooting rioters and looters on sight be adopted. Twitter suspended my account some time overnight on Monday because, they claimed, I was advocating harm to some specific person or persons. This is naturally absurd. By the standard they have applied, I cannot advocate for a whole class of murderers, for instance, to receive capital punishment. Some might even argue that being jailed is harm in and of itself.  Therefore, one mustn’t go on Twitter and advocate for incarceration.  Of course, the preposterous part of all of this is that I wasn’t talking about specific persons. I was addressing an entire class of persons known as “rioters” and “looters.” I’m not aware of any way by which Twitter’s prohibition against wishing harm on others is violated. All of this leads me to believe that Twitter’s management and corporate culture is one of extreme political bias. Instead of confronting actual hate, in pursuit of real threats and incitements to violence the likes of which they’ve been tolerating through the last week as rioters and looters use their platform to coordinate attacks, Twitter has thrown in with the devil, and has become a hate group.

Here are the “offending” tweets:

Violation of Twitter Policy?

You might disagree with my sentiment here, but I think we need to ask if this is really covered by Twitter’s policy, as described here:

Wishing, hoping or calling for serious harm on a person or group of people
We prohibit content that wishes, hopes, promotes, or expresses a desire for death, serious and lasting bodily harm, or serious disease against an entire protected category and/or individuals who may be members of that category. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Hoping that someone dies as a result of a serious disease, e.g., “I hope you get cancer and die.”

  • Wishing for someone to fall victim to a serious accident, e.g., “I wish that you would get run over by a car next time you run your mouth.”

  • Saying that a group of individuals deserve serious physical injury, e.g., “If this group of protesters don’t shut up, they deserve to be shot.”

Obviously, the first two aren’t covered. They’re undoubtedly hanging their hat on the third, but let’s examine that: “Protesters.”

You’ll note that I very carefully specify “rioters” and “looters.” Both of those are criminals. Protesters ARE NOT. The behavior for which I’m seeking a potentially lethal remedy is already criminal conduct. In most states, defending one’s person and property from rioters is already eligible for lethal force. If rioters and looters find themselves committing crimes and mayhem on my property, they will undoubtedly be confronted with lethal force. Lots and lots of it.

How about this one: “Child molesters and rapists should be sentenced to death.”

Will that pass the Twitter test?

Or for that matter, what about: “Murderers with Special Circumstances in Texas should receive the death penalty?”

If this last one doesn’t pass muster, we’d better call Greg Abbott and Bill Paxton to let them know that the Lone Star State had better never tweet about its capital punishment statutes. We wouldn’t want the State of Texas being placed in Twitter Jail.

What I’ve noticed is that Twitter is very one-sided. They have no problem with the monstrous advocacy of abortion all over their platform. The generally have no problem when the leftist throngs descend upon Twitter en masse to wish death and mayhem on conservatives, and seldom does a complaint result in real action against a leftist. There have been many instances of real threats, even aimed at the President, which most often go unnoticed(or at least without action) by Twitter. Meanwhile, if you’re a law-abiding American who happens to believe that only the severest possible penalties will act as an effective brake on the lawlessness to which we’ve been witness for more than a week, you’re the bad person, and Twitter will give no quarter.

I firmly believe that when the rule of law is itself under direct attack, when government at all levels is facing a naked insurrection that threatens the lives and properties of its citizens, government ought to rise to their defense with all the same tools to which the citizenry is entitled, and that means lethal force.

I guarantee you that if the rioters and looters breech the White House grounds, you’re going to see lethal force employed by the Secret Service. It will be ugly. The president of the United States is entitled to a full defense of his life and of his residence, no matter who the president may be at the moment, whether we collectively like him or hate her. We, the people of the United States, are no less deserving of that level of defense, and it is in fact the whole purpose for the existence of all legitimate government.

I don’t care what @Jack Dorsey of Twitter says about it. I don’t care what the leftist enforcers on Twitter say about it. There’s nothing wrong with advocating policies that would “cause harm” to people who are causing harm. What all of this evinces is the crass political bias that social media platforms impose on users, and too frequently, it’s all one direction. I am not in support of making threats against individuals, but I’ll also point out that my advocacy has never been about individuals, or even broad classes of people defined by anything other than behavior, i.e., lawlessness and criminal conduct. If we can no longer advocate on behalf of law and order on Twitter, then why does Twitter have rules for conduct? After all, they stress that their rules of the road are meant to prevent the platform from descending into chaos. I have no problem with that, but what is their remedy? Ultimately, you can be sentenced to Twitter-death, which means to be kicked off the platform entirely, your accounts closed and your access denied.  Twitter seems not to have a problem with a virtual death penalty on their own platform, but it’s also obvious that they tend to issue that severest of penalties primarily to conservatives. What does Twitter hate? Conservatives. What does Twitter hate? Republicans.  What does Twitter hate? Law and order.

I’ve created an account on Parler.com in order to begin moving away from Twitter. As more conservatives find themselves banned and suspended, I hope the migration will continue in earnest and that new platform will grow. It’s the only way to overcome Twitter’s hate.

 

Advertisements

Sticking it to the Man: Break the Social Media Tyrants

Saturday, July 6th, 2019

Social Media Tyranny on Trial

It’s despicable what has been going on in Social Media. Twitter and Facebook routinely “shadow-ban” conservative users, letting them post their content, but making the content effectively invisible to everybody else on the platform.  Sometimes, they tamper with search algorithms so that conservative content just doesn’t show up. More recently, Facebook has begun to coordinate with leftist groups to expose members of “secret” groups in order to cause them difficulties. This happened most recently when the leftist dung-heaving group known as Pro-Publica “exposed” some memes posted in a secret Facebook group created by Border Patrol agents. Facebook is assisting in these sort of exposures. Those of you who think you’re in a “secret” group beware: There is no secret Facebook will not expose.  How long before they begin releasing your private messages? Facebook is not to be trusted. Twitter is almost as bad, and in some ways, worse. I’m pulling out of both platforms. These people can only be tyrannical because we continue to let them.  WE can suck all the fun and good that remains in these platforms out simply by leaving.  How long do you suppose people will hang around once half their friends leave and refuse to return.  It’s time to drive Facebook and Twitter stock into the toilet.  It’s time to break them. It’s time to take away their power.  After all, they have only the power we give them.

Congress had a chance to bring these rabid dogs to heel.  They failed.  It’s now our turn.  By now, almost every patriot I know is fed up with this.  It’s time to do something, and if I have to begin this as an Army of One, I’m fine with that.  The thing is, I know I’m not alone.  People are fleeing Twitter and Facebook.  They’re abandoning Google in favor of DuckDuckGo.com.  They’re going to Parler.com and Gab.com rather than Twitter. They’re going to Minds.com rather than Facebook. I’m making the move effective now. As people abandon the old platforms dominated by the left, these large platforms will die and be replaced.  It won’t happen over night, of course, but every journey begins with a single step, and every flood begins with a single drop.

 

How Donald Trump Can Save the World (Or at least the Internet)

Tuesday, March 19th, 2019

Trump Can Save the World… Or at least the Internet

In the wake of the horrific shooting in New Zealand, what we’ve learned is that the country is fully invested in Internet censorship.  They now threaten to jail and fine people who possess, publish, and/or share video of the shooting.  There’s no such thing as Freedom of Speech in New Zealand, and this is a spreading phenomenon as more and more countries use their regulatory power over telecommunications companies as well as plain old tyrannical law to censor their people.  We must never permit this here in the United States, but increasingly, large corporations that claim exemptions under the Communications Decency Act have begun to behave like content publishers rather than mere publishing platforms for content creators.  This is despicable.  On the one hand, Facebook claims indemnification from lawsuits because they are not a content creator, but on the other hand, Facebook wants to control and maintain veto authority over content.   President Trump must act to take this on, and one lever he has against some foreign governments deals directly with Anglophone countries, including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  What he must do is threaten to walk from FVEY(pronounced Five Eyes) and begin denying them access to our signals intelligence.  They already deserve sanctions for assisting the Obama administration in spying on Trump’s campaign, but this is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: Reform and free the Internet along with free speech or the USA will withdraw from the UKUSA agreement.

President Trump should begin on a small scale, by conquering the Anglophone world, first. The first place he must act, sadly, is in the United States.  He must put the various “platforms” on notice that if they insist on censoring content, he will be forced to treat them just like any other content publisher.  Let’s see how that goes, first.  After that, he needs to push this first to the allegedly enlightened Anglophone world, and then to Europe, and from there, Central and South America.  After that, it gets harder, but he’s going to need to tackle this.  Not only can he save the Internet, but in the process, he can save the world. You see, the Internet really only works well when free speech prevails.

This morning, GatewayPundit published an article demonstrating pretty convincingly that Twitter has intentionally depressed the popularity of @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS in order to hamper President Trump directly.  There are two things about this that must be addressed:

  1. This may constitute an illegal campaign contribution to Democrats
  2. This would mean that Twitter is acting as a publisher, and not as a platform, which would end their exemption under the Communications Decency Act

Of course, there are all sorts of other things implied in this case, but it’s clear that Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, (@Jack on Twitter) is going to have some serious explaining to do. It’s clear that his social media platform is acting more like a content provider.  I and other conservatives have noted some “Shadow-banning” in association with our own accounts, and it began in earnest once Twitter began tinkering with its algorithms.  Early on, what you got in your timeline was always in pure date-time order, meaning you got the tweets of the people you followed, and that was it.  Then Twitter inserted ads.  After that, they began manipulating who you saw, and how often, and started trying to determine whose tweets you ought to see, and whose tweets you ought not see.  Then came the great timeline kerfuffle in which they openly and brazenly manipulated the way your timeline received tweets.  The blow-back was pretty severe, so they tucked away an option in your settings, hidden in plain sight, that permits as user to revert to plane date-time ordered timelines.  The problem is that even there, Twitter is still manipulating the results.

For the last several years, it has been strongly suspected, and now proven, that Twitter has shadow-banned users and content for what appear to be wholly political motivations. “Shadow-banning” basically lets a user send out his or her tweets like normal, but those tweets are hidden from the user’s followers, and neither the user nor his followers are aware.  In some cases, they’ve used this to simply delay the posting of tweets, meaning that your tweets will ultimately be seen, but often long after their relevance has been lost.  Sometimes, this seems to be user-based, and sometimes, it’s based purely on the content of a particular tweet.

What all of this means is that Twitter is engaged in systematic discrimination against conservatives and other users they don’t like for various reasons.  This means that they’re actually designing the content of peoples’ timelines, rather than letting come what may, as should be the case if they’re simply a platform for free speech, as they claim. It’s time to address this, and President Trump has that authority.  Yesterday, Devin Nunes(R-CA) filed a lawsuit against Twitter for defamation based on these and related types of discriminatory and misleading activities.  Here’s a clip from Hannity, on which Nunes appeared on Monday:

The President is in a position to do something about all of this, and he should leverage any assistance he can get from Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and any other assets at his disposal.  If Twitter(and other social media companies) is going to maintain its exemption under the Communications Decency Act, then they must immediately cease censorship of content.  Otherwise, they must lose their exemptions and be subject to the myriad of lawsuits that would ordinarily arise if that exemption was not in place.  The whole purpose of that exemption was to create a place where free speech could reign, and not be confounded by endless lawsuits, but when the platform itself is corrupted, it becomes a publisher and not a referee preventing abuses.  That’s where the Federal role to intercede arises.

In our modern age, Twitter is just one of a number of social media companies, but as Nunes contends in his lawsuit, to remain competitive in politics, business, or almost any sort of pursuit, one must be tied into social media or be overrun by competitors.  It’s therefore essential that Twitter and other “platforms” be brought to heel, before they are making all of the decisions about who can speak in any context on any subject.  What they’re doing now is a fraud and a hoax against their users.  If President Trump wants to make a real difference, he can save free speech, and thereby save the prime value of the Internet, which is to give you and I a voice and a way to plug into the global discussion.  Otherwise, it really is just an Orwellian world of double-speak in which freedom doesn’t exist despite flowery words to the contrary.

Go get ’em, President Trump!

 

Shock and Awe Palin-Style

Sunday, April 28th, 2013

Irrelevant?

Many of you are Twitter members, but some of you are not, and those who aren’t may not know or even quite realize what all the fuss is about.  On Saturday, all the country’s media elites and most-favored-politicians gathered for another iteration of the White House Correspondents Dinner, headlined by none other than Barack Hussein Obama, as is traditional for these events.  While the DC elite gathered to laugh and clink glasses, telling bad jokes, the country is burning, and the sad diminution of the nation continues apace, thanks in large measure to the gang of anointed geniuses assembled for the event.  Chris Christie was there, and all the fawning celebrities, and it was simply a wondrous display of how in Washington DC, no matter how awful things may be in the rest of the country, and without respect to the endless deprivations outside of their “boomtown,” the show must go on, and in keeping with the tradition of the Obama White House, the party never ends.  Then it happened. She happened.  Without warning, across the airwaves and through their Twitter feeds, arrived a message that left the tuxedo-clad drooling-class aghast and in shock:

One would have thought that Sarah Palin had thrown a stink-bomb into the room.  In a flurry of tweets from the geniuses assembled, and from the throng of leftists on Twitter who saw an opportunity to hurl f-bombs and b-words at Sarah Palin, the shock and awe of the simple statement seemed to leave the whole world atwitter.  Yes, in the minutes and hours that followed, the entirety of the Twitter-verse erupted into mass commentary.  There were cat-calls of “hypocrisy” from the left, and nasty “Caribou Barbie” and “Trixie Klondike” remarks from the chattering-class, but there was also a fantastic array of Palin-supporters who took delight in the comments, and many an average soul out here in flyover country who remarked that it was nice that somebody, somewhere “got it.”  Here’s a favorite:

(For the record, at this hour, the number of re-tweets is over 3000 and growing. Irrelevant???)

Whatever you may think of the tweet’s context, timing, or substance, what must we conclude from its reach and impact?  After all, many of the critics of the remark spent most of their one-hundred-forty characters explaining in some form that Sarah Palin is “irrelevant.”  If that were so, and she means nothing whatever to the powers that be, or to the zombies of the left, why is it that each and every time she Tweets the first little thing, they descend upon her like the inexorable march of the undead on a feeding frenzy?  In point of fact, if she were nearly so “irrelevant” as they seem to contend, she would receive none of these responses, positive or negative.   There wouldn’t be tens of thousands of tweets and re-tweets in support of her message, and there surely wouldn’t be the degree or extent of the negative backlash against her.  Simply put, however, I think it’s safe to say that some of the negative responses from the chattering class were an expression of envy, constituting a desperate attempt to find relevancy of their own.

For those who wonder about the real power of Sarah Palin, it is evinced by the uproar that invariably follows her remarks on Twitter.  For those confused by all of the uproar, having believed the media meme that Sarah Palin is irrelevant, this must come as a complete surprise.  How could anybody so “irrelevant” garner this reaction by what is an otherwise pretty standard bit of Twitter commentary?  Was it her use of the term “Assclowns?”  Seems fitting, given her target.  After all, had one of us tweeted this remark, it would likely fall into the vast chasm of Twitter history never to be seen or read again, but it is the fact that she tweeted it, and that she dared comment on the drooling glitterati at the White House Correspondents Dinner that made it into a Twitter event.  Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but don’t believe the spin: “Irrelevant” is not a word that applies, and the ongoing pursuit by the walking dead on Twitter proves it.

Meanwhile, fans, supporters, and average common-sense Americans are laughing in sheer delight, and at this moment, the re-tweeting of her remark continues unabated.