jolincost

A lot of things happen with the inaction or perhaps with the deliberate ignorance of government regulators.

Reading greenwald's take on it I come to feel that it seems likely that this cabal of corporate hegemons, utilized multiple private intelligence security firms to stoke and instigate the riot for the purposes of destroying their competitor as well as sending a message to people who dared utilize that app instead of one of the conventional apps that you're not safe if you do that. it was an extremely effective and coordinated campaign and I respect their ingenuity and will to dominance. fledgling startups should be aware of these sort of tactics and take steps to mitigate them for their own success, but I think aside from the purely political and free speech problems that poses I think and the important corporate monopolistic issues are companies should not be delivering these negative results for consumers who want to choose to use an alternate app, they shouldn't be using their monopoly power nor coordinating with other monopolies in order to shut out a competitor.

Perhaps this operation was a favor to the incoming administration who promised to go soft on the antitrust stuff if the techs would pull off this coup against these politically inconvenient free speech enabling technologies that go against the dominant ideology advocated by the group trying to maintain control. Win win.

That's one of the ideas behind why these platforms which facilitate so much societal communication should not be treated as private corporate entities with regards to free speech they should be treated as public utilities

But his main point is that free speech is curtailed unevenly, which isn't false.

You just feel betrayed that he went from criticism government to criticizing corporate, and to calling out the double standards in the culture that protect liberals, and punish conservatives, which as a "tolerant centrist" you should be against.

Instead you call him a gimp while it's your attitude that sounds like unapologetic hypocrisy feverishly licking the boots of whoever you're no longer allowed to criticize... As George Carlin (i think) said, that tells you who's in charge and what they fear. I'm sure they thank you for supporting their cause.

You have the idea, it's not my job to give you proof, you can think for yourself and see it. Sounds like you blame someone else instead of owning your choice to believe or not. Trying to dismiss the idea as false without criticizing it, or giving evidence that counters it, is self-deception. You can simply choose to disbelieve without pretending it's unbelievable. That's what I suggest you do, because it seems like a hard idea for you to consider, and I don't want it to be hard for you. Have a good day!

This funny. You expend a lot of words on something which you say has no proof. If you didn't fear these ideas to be true, why spend so so much effort defending they can't be?

That comment asked for how, that's not a challenge, nor a refutation.

You don't want to face this idea, so to try to avoid engaging with it, you pretend you need to see more to merely consider it. But you can consider it immediately, and relate it to the world you see.

I understand that's not something you want, and it's hard for you, and I don't want it to be hard for you, so you could try just not believing it. And you can do that, without pretending you've disproved it. Why are you unwilling to disbelieve without pretending you've also disproved it, yet at the same time refusing try to disprove it by addressing and criticizing it? No wonder you seem upset, it must be very hard to be stuck in such a bind. But it's no one else's responsibility to get you out of that except yourself. It's your responsibility what you choose to believe or not and it's your responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas, no one else's.

You work it out. You can think and use your mind.

You say it's condescending to note you own your own beliefs but it seems more condescending or arrogant or immature or irresponsible to try to incorrectly put the responsibility on other people, for what you choose to believe and how you choose to believe it.

If you are open and curious I'm sure you'd be willing to engage with an idea and criticize it but it seems from your comment that you've already decided that whatever other people write here will be nonsense, which is similar to how you decided that other ideas are nonsense without engaging and criticizing them, you don't seem open and curious at all. it seems much more like denial and psychological avoidance. which makes sense because these ideas are challenging and they threaten the worldview and the associated sense of security and stability with that.

So this problem where you shut your mind off and refuse to consider and critique the ideas and instead of this project onto others to demand that they solve the problem for you, is a common pathological projection pattern, but you can fix it, accepting you got yourself into this place and owning your own beliefs and the responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas that you encounter.

Best of luck, hope this helps!

No quarter.

Free speech limited by inciting violence, OK, but should be applied evenly. Anrifa, BLM, weren't deplatformed, right?

The politics of the new right are for some reason considered an existential threat by big tech, and the global security and intelligence faction.

We can't have a situation where Trump can actually deliver results and give the people hope and risk upsetting the control system, so we need to remind everyone they belong to a global control structure, introduce a virus, and coordinate an exaggerated curfew response to remind everyone to be afraid and that we're really in control, not some new fangled ideologue making promises of renewed greatness and destruction of the control system

Thanks

Pretending illegitimacy

You're not being honest. Abusing meaning of word legitimate

Straw man. Pretending it's racism

Straw man

I'm comfortable with those terms, and just as i said, I'm not going to debate it but I'm happy to hear different perspectives. None have been proposed, and just as i expected, the commenter is pretending, and does not have the courage of conviction.

Nothing in the comment faults my words. And what I'm saying is too important to tarnish with a dishonest discussion with someone being dishonest.

I know you hope you can dismiss this view with some metacommentary, but nothing raised has challenged what i said, and i think you're wasting your time by continuing to comment because you're not succeeding in dismantling the ideas i presented.

I have a solution for you, that i proposed initially. You don't want to believe this idea, so simply don't. Just refuse to believe it. That will be easiest for you and i really do not want anything to be hard for you.

It's all belief. Nothing said contradicts my points. You're pretending it doesn't hold up, because that's easier than facing them.

You have my statement. Rather than pretending it doesn't hold up, why not specifically address my statement and demonstrate to yourself how you believe it to be false.

You can probably believe that if it makes it easier for you. I do not want things to be hard for you.

Oh, no submissions, what a surprise. No one knows who you are.

I'll tell you more when you give me your email address to discuss. And a public profile with your real name. I'll share mine, if you have the cojones to share yours, friend.

Edit restriction, s/upwards/corporates/

It's called democracy.

Moreover my analysis and reflection of the last 4 years where in I awakened and gained a sort of political consciousness after previously in my life having zero care for politics in any way is

This is a particular evolution of democracy which I call Democratic theater and it relies on deceptive control of the population by the media and the intelligence and security apparatus to provide the illusion of freedom to prevent the need for delivering real results by keeping the population in a constant state of confusion and conflict by supporting both sides of an artificial divide to prolong the state of conflict

I guess some of the beneficiaries of this are upwards who can benefit from the enhanced media appeal of this division but I think the primary beneficiary is the status quo and it's done to preserve power in a system where people expect to be free but are basically constrained but given this outlet which is a sort of cathartic entertainment, the purpose of which is to channel genuine to satisfaction into controlled avenues so that it never actually emerges as revolution or organized political action that has any chance of disrupting the status quo in a meaningful way

I believe it's a form of controlled opposition where a cabal of intelligence security and media interests control both sides of the conflict and I believe these sort of mass phenomena are driven by masters of narrative control psychology sociology.

I started off believing that Trump would do what he said and kind of save America and root out these shackles and the cabal of interest that keeps them in place but it seems he was just a charlatan who couldn't deliver and perhaps never intended to. I now believe it's likely that Trump was probably compromised by the very same cabal of interests who got him to dance to the tune they wanted as a puppet for 4 years as part of his great charade

In essence all of this Democratic theater is more window dressing for business as usual.

I'm happy to hear different opinions and to update my own perspective but I'm not going to debate this it simply the belief that I've arrived at at this time after many years of reflection and thought.

This probably had nothing to do with FB proper as is simply a form of state or corporate sponsored https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung

This guy or someone in his business or personal circle has caused problems for someone and they've leant on him.

Around 20% of all deplatforming originates with these covert coerce requests from states or big corporate