Categories
Silence the opposition

1A: a threat to Democracy

The New York Times says that the First Amendment is a threat to Democracy. Oddly, it was published on January 6, which is a convenient coincidence. How fortuitous. Almost like the events of that very evening were planned.

Five days later, the Financial Times takes it a step further and demands that the media censor companies like Fox News:

the president’s supporters were using both mainstream and more niche platforms to plot further violence. That justifies moves by Apple, Google and Amazon to restrict access to Parler, the “alt-tech” Twitter alternative beloved of the radical right.

There is definitely a movement underway to squash free speech.

Categories
Silence the opposition

Thousands of voices silenced

The left not just going after blogs and social media- they are now going after podcasts as well. The powers that be intend to shut down all media that is not state approved. See this report here.

I think it is obvious now that Qanon was a false flag operation designed to look as crazy as possible, so that its existence could be used to silence alternative media. We are now seeing that come to fruition.

I was trying to listen to conservative talk radio on Sirius and on Blaze TV, but the hosts are all suddenly saying that the election wasn’t as bogus as we thought, and that “we will get them next time.” Conservative talk has been brought to heel. Alternative media is all that is left.

Even if you don’t contact me, find an alternative server now, or your blogs and podcasts may be gone forever. An XML backup is no longer sufficient, as Blogger and WordPress no longer support migration by XML.

Categories
Silence the opposition

Not just speech, but funding

The left isn’t just attacking the right to free speech, they are also deciding who can ask for, give, and receive donations. The left is now going after the ability for people to donate money to causes that haven’t been approved by the central committee.

Categories
Silence the opposition

Silencing the opposition

 In the middle of a 3 week Facebook Ban that began on September 17. It all started when I posted this on September 3:

Kyle Rittenhouse shot a child molester, a domestic abuser, and an armed communist. He is only 17 and has completed half my bucket list.

That earned me a 24 hour ban for violating Facebook’s Community standards. Then they went all the way back to July 31 to find this comment to a friend posting an article about Iran doing practice runs on a mockup of a US aircraft carrier:

I saw that. The Iranians are idiots. Maybe they should remember operation Praying Mantis.

They said that it violated Facebook’s ban on hate speech and added a 7 ban. Then they went back to March 11 and found where I posted a link to a scientific study that claims masturbation increases your immune system. I believe that I made the comment that “This is why teenagers aren’t getting COVID,” or something along those lines. 

They added another 7 days for that one, because it violated the Facebook ban on sexual activity. 

Then they went and added another 7 days for a post that they claim violated community standards back in November, but they won’t tell me which one it was. According to them, the next violation will get me another 30 days. This 3 week ban is the 5th time I have been banned this year. I was banned 3 times last year. 

Before I get any snarky comments about how it is Facebook’s site and they can do as they please: I get what you are saying. It’s just that I think that there are two problems with that statement:

1 The rules are not universally enforced. It seems that FB picks and chooses who catches a ban. I have had actual death threats against me that FB did not find were a problem. 

2 Which means that FB is inserting its political beliefs into its Community standards. That means that FB is not just a platform. Its policies are in fact statements of their own- they are editorializing by what they allow and do not allow. 

In my opinion, this should make FB legally liable for any statements that they allow to be posted on their site. After all, those statements are there because FB approved of them. You either allow all comments, whether you agree with them or not, or own them and all of the legal consequences that go with them. 

In the meantime, my ban continues.