These were the comments which could be read as stand-alone statements. Every comment, whether reprinted here or not, went in the same direction.
This is certainly one of the biggest loads of crap posted on the Cat.
I don’t think you realise just how big Google and Facebook are and how far their reach is. Not to mention the honey pot they present for enemy foreign governments. Government have already granted them their status. They are effectively a guild being considered a ‘platform’. They only way to be considered a ‘platform’ is to be granted such status from government. In order to actually compete with them, you too need to be a ‘platform’.
FFS what is so difficult to understand about the rule of law? We have laws that “publishers” who pick and choose their content are responsible for what they choose to publish, and that, in very broad terms, “common carriers” who don’t pick and choose but just provide a service don’t have that type of liability. Why is it so hard to understand that the internet giants shouldn’t be allowed to keep sheltering from responsibility by falsely claiming to be common carriers when they’re very clearly operating as publishers? That is, why is it so hard to understand that the law should be enforced?
This person should have adult supervision while using the internet. FFS. PayPal bans you – stop complaining damn you, build your own payment network. Wells Fargo closes your accounts – build your own bank. MasterCard cancels your credit cards – build your own credit card from scratch. Google won’t let you advertise your business – build your own search engine etc etc etc. No wonder our side never wins. All want to lose with grace. Go lose elsewhere knave – we’re fighting now.
Your proposed approach assumes that we can innovate – and entrepreneur our way forward faster than the woke corporatocracy and their government-funded SJW chums can screw us. On evidence to date, that’s a bad bet. Sure, we need to build our own platforms, etcetera, and a lot of that work is well underway. But at the same time we need to fight back against open political discrimination by a range of businesses that happen to be operating under actual or de facto government licenses. For example, WestPac will close your account if they don’t like your politics. Is the answer to create our own bank? No, that’s silly. WestPac needs to either be forced to provide an evenhanded service, or else have their license pulled. Likewise, the social media oligopoly operates under a de facto license, by which government allows them to be common carriers when they defame us, and allows them to be publishers when they deplatform us. The natural response to this sort of predatory, prejudiced oligopoly is a boot up the bum from the Commonwealth. Like it or not, we live in a heavily-regulated society in which we pay over the odds for a meddlesome government. We aren’t calling it into existence, it’s already here. So it’s only sensible to fight back against licensed bullies by using the force of the government that licenses them. Either we use the government while we can, or there’ll come a time when we can’t use it at all.
No point banging our heads against a wall trying to explain reality to these low info posters. The statement above says it all. He is unaware of the numerous SocMed start ups crushed by the likes of Visa and Mastercard and Pay Pal et al, who refuse to handle on-line transactions of conservative start ups. He thinks even though almost all avenues that lead to the info highway have been closed off by these tech giants, we can just have a few meetings and start our own tech giants and interweb thingies. Imagine a small innovator having his electricity cut. No problemo, get yourself a generator. But hey, no one will sell me a generator. No problemo, just build yourself a generator. It’s a free World right? I build a generator but no one will sell me the diesel to power it. No worries mate, start drilling, get your own oil and distill it into diesel. It’s a free World right? This is the result of believing that if it’s in a textbook, if it’s theoretically correct, then it must work in the real World. Libertarians. If the left wasn’t so evil, I’d say libertarians were worse for humanity. (Only because they are so naive, yet act like geniuses.)
I am not sure you understand the risks here. Not surprising, given that the discussion in the media and by the politicians has not yet figured it out.
Why would a future progressive government seek to monitor and control online content, when the big corporations (google, facebook, reddit etc) are already doing so for them?
It’s already quite clear that these platforms can be used to significantly enhance a political campaign. Obama proved that in 2012. Barack Obama’s digital operation was key to his re-election effort. Google “Inside the Cave,” if you want to know how that worked. In part, it centred on Facebook allowing its platform to be used, by that campaign only, in a way that significantly invaded the privacy of users. How? Whenever a facebook user made a donation, their list of friends was published to the campaign, and those friends were also approached for donations/spamming and so on. The campaign also was able to mine the vast data repository behind facebook to identify anyone who might be responsive. Sure, all political parties maintain databases, but very few have access to the wealth of information held by facebook and google. It’s a decisive advantage, especially when only one political flavour is allowed to use it.
Speaking of vast databases, facebook and google are not alone. Other very large vendors (outside of social media) have seen the value (so far, mainly for figuring out what type of ads a person on the internet might respond to) of maintaining as many cross-referenced records on people as they possibly can. One I am aware of has extensive records of billions of individuals. By extensive, I don’t mean just name rank and serial number. They have all of that, plus personal preferences, political interests, credit history, internet history, app usage and so on. Hundreds of facts about each individual, across the world. Facts derived from sneaky surveillance, cookies, ad-trackers and many other methods that would fly under most peoples radar. Any source of data is sucked up, correlated, then marketed for profit.
As an example of how troubling this is, consider any credit record you might have at any of the standard financial reporting agencies. It has been sold to one or more of the bigger global players, then cross-referenced with other data, building a detailed picture of your credit worthiness, social positions, academic capabilities, political positions, family relations, and any other personal feature that might somehow be marketable in the future. Think of the value of that for law enforcement, intelligence and the like. And as for the social engineering possibilities, the only difference between China’s social credit system and what is sitting in western data centres, is that China announced it, and proclaimed what they would use it for. The west already has the data at least, and is using it for purposes that don’t extend to managing “social credit”, but that is just a short tweak from where they already are. So, why would any conservative seek to build their own version of the same thing, to get around a current leftist / statist / autocratic monopoly on big data, when the whole idea goes against a number of things I hold dear. Many western governments are constrained by law as to how they can interconnect and cross link their databases. The commercial world is not. They have had a lot of time to consider how big data can be monetised. Think it through. The issues and risks are much bigger than you think. Foundational principles such as freedom and privacy are at risk. I don’t know the answers, but the last thing I would do is “start building explicitly conservative” versions.
Go back to your room and look up the meaning of these words: Monopoly, Cartel, Publisher, Carrier.
There’s lots of payment processors out there, but if the big guys really manage to put their foot down most of those little payment processors will be forced to abandon customers too. There’s always cheques and bank transfers as a fallback … at a significant nuisance factor. Interesting question whether a big payment processor can legally cut off a smaller payment processor from the transaction network, not for violating any rules, but merely for having a customer that isn’t politically correct. For example, the “David Horowitz Freedom Center” is politically outspoken for sure, but has never done anything illegal to the best of my knowledge. So you have one big player in the marketplace who not only refuses to do business with XYZ (under a “free society” that’s would probably be OK), but also applies pressure on everyone else to refuse to do business with XYZ (which is certainly anti-competitive and probably an unfair trade practice).
I am tired of conservatives not acting, because they worry about what the left might do or say.
I just don’t know where to start with this crap… “In fact, they may just be opening the door for future progressive governments to start monitoring and controlling online content.” Well it isn’t the future sunshine, it’s happening now…from both progressive and not so progressive governments…..after Christchurch….Bitchute, 4chan and various other sites were blocked in this country…..I think Gab was also blocked here for a while…it might even still be blocked….you have to get a VPN or know how to change your computer to access Bitchute. “Stop whinging and start building explicitly conservative organisations.” Well yes…..all well and good but those “conservative platforms and organisations” that have been built…such as Gab (a free speech platform) or Minds (a Facebook alternative)…or those that are currently being such as the one that Jordan Peterson is building….are constantly subjected to attacks from the left….smeared as platforms for the fascists, far right, the hard right, the extreme right, nuttzies, white supremacists, incels and all the rest of the crap that they throw at the centre and the right.
Here’s just a smidgeon of “conservatives” who have been banned from platforms….platforms that still host Antifa, far left groups and organisations (that preach violence), religion of pieces extremist organisations, Hamas, Hezbollah…..and I could go on and on and on…. Sargon of Akkad…hardly conservative or far right….banned from twitter, banned from Patreon..oh and after his “banning” from Patreon….he moved to a startup run by Russians called “Subscribestar” which was then blocked temporarily by Mastercard and Paypal because both Mastercard and Paypal were being subjected to pressure from far left pressure groups. His youtube channel has now been demonetised. Robert Spencer…hardly far right…he runs a website that monitors the religion of pieces…..he had his account closed by Mastercard and Paypal…….because of activism by a religion of pieces organisation….I kid you not.
David Horowitz…..account closed by Mastercard
Lauren Southern..banned from Patreon
Milo..banned from everywhere
Alex Jones….banned from everywhere
Laura Loomer…banned from everywhere
Pamela Geller…banned from everywhere and doxed by Antifa
Paul Joseph Watson..banned from Facebook and Instagram…still active on Youtube…but for how long?
Avi Yemeni….banned from Facebook and Instagram…still active on Youtube…but for how long?
And I could go on and on and on. Oh and closer to home…we have a television network called Sky News…which during the evening has the AUDACITY to host some conservative/right wing/libertarian commentators….haven’t you heard about Sky after Dark? For hosting conservative commentators Sky is constantly under siege from pernicious and very ugly far left activist groups such as “Sleeping Giants”…or as I prefer to call them…”Sleeping Midgets”…..because of their far left activism…many advertisers have pulled business from Sky…..I have personally fought back at an advertiser that succumbed to pressure from those midgets and this particular advertiser is now back on Sky advertising….but what I am trying to say is that even if conservatives set up a completely new television station…it needs money and thus it would require advertisers…..and yet those advertisers would be subjected to the same pressure from far left scum to cease advertising. I think that it’s entirely appropriate to “whinge”…..actually it’s better to be angry.
The non-left in the West has not yet woken up to what they are dealing with: the left who don’t play by the rules. If you play by the rules you’re stuffed. So far Trump has got this; Farrage maybe and a few other leaders and potential leaders in Europe and Brazil. To beat the left you have to act like the left.
Conservatives seem to be bound by the “conservatives should act by their principles” mantra. it’s a losing proposition as we have been watching steadily unfold for the last few decades. conservatism is pretty much dead and buried, it’s only the sheer stupidity of the left that allows the odd conservative to get into power these days. or look at the UK, conservatives are labor light. A take no prisoners approach is what is required. scorched earth policy when it comes to any forms of marxism.
I have long thought that we should play them at their own game. Turn the other cheek and they will stomp all over anyone who disagrees with them. Reasoning does not work with them, they just change the rules as they go along, to get their own way.
For the 3 zillionth time (exactly – I’ve been counting): NOTHING will change unless we engage in some creative destruction. All strictly legal, of course. As I posted a few days ago, those self-proclaimed strategic masterminds who vow that all we need to do is sit back and ‘let them trip themselves up,’ are utterly deluded. Sun Tzu didn’t proclaim that ‘magic happens’ or ‘let the universe provide. Chillax dude!’ Neither did he advocate that letting your enemies make their own mistakes was a passive, solitary, one-size-fits-all tactic. Change does not just ‘happen.’ It needs to be forced. You have to MAKE change take place. That all begins with attitude. The conservative attitude – with a minute number of exceptions – seems to be that the moral high ground precludes any aggression or even assertion, in the face of threat from an enemy. Dazzled by our own righteousness, we are oblivious to the fact that the moral high ground on which we proudly pose, has been surrounded, and is being progressively undermined by the industrious vermin we gaze down upon. ‘Primitives!’ we sneer, crossing our arms, shaking our head, and closing our eyes. All the while, those ‘primitives’ are building a human pyramid, and before too long, their ‘primitive’ sharpened sticks will be thrust through our flabby flesh from all sides. But let’s continue to pretend the threat is not existential. Let’s not get our hands dirty, or – heaven forbid! – crack a fingernail. Plan, scheme, strategise, undermine; neutralise the enablers first, to weaken the enemy’s ability to withstand the barrages that will follow. This is a head-thing. Get over the head-thing, and the capacity is present to dominate.
A summary of my post above for those with short attention spans: We will not win this by only focusing on how we can get to the finishing line (it’s a metaphor – just stay with it) – we need to reduce our opponent’s ability to compete with us. Whether it’s switching urine samples in the change room, getting in their face with yo-mama insults, or stepping it up and actually smashing a kneecap, there is no such thing as fairness or sportsmanship in this race. The meek will be mercilessly crushed. We are being crushed.
I think this person has blown more than a valve. I think the head gasket is a goner. For some real world perspective, here is the co-founder of Facebook (clearly a MAGA hat wearing knuckle dragger) who says that Faceborg MUST be broken up for plenty of very good reasons, all of which have nothing to do with being conservative, or whingeing or whatever else. If these are good reasons (and I think they are), then why are reasons of unequal play not good enough for a debate about changing the status quo?
FFS, it isn’t hard. Alinsky rule 4: ″make them live up to their own rules”. Yes we are in an existential fight for civilisation. No prisoners, no mercy. That’s what the left is doing. Time the right realised it and did the same but we have the odd ideologically pure fools who want to impose Alinsky 4 on us and hence tie our hands.
Many here mentioned Gab so I checked online,this summary is from Wikipedia. Gab is an English-language social media website known for its far-right user base. The site has been widely described as a “safe haven” for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right. The site was launched in 2017 and claimed to have around 850,000 registered user accounts by December 2018. It primarily attracts far-right and alt-right users who have been banned from other social networks. The platform populace is mainly populated by users who are “conservative, male. Is this a fair summary? or could Wikipedia be a wee bit biased?
Folk have already pointed out the many alternatives to Facebook etc. that are already up and running. You can also support individuals who are setting up their own channels. And, like Vox Day, you can fight back (eg. his Indigogo battle). The only other thing I’d like to mention is the idea of government & private companies as seperate entities that have differing goals. So – imagine there’s a group of people behind both, manipulating or using both, to their own ends, whatever they many be. We don’t know what happens in those meetings of government officials, mega-rich, and big company owners when they get together. What do they discuss? What do they plan? What are their goals/dreams/ambitions? Well, we can take a guess. As Roger pointed out, when Chad Robichaux’s ads were taken off Youtube, they told him the offensive word was ‘Christian’. When he changed the word to ‘Muslim’ and submitted again, Youtube were happy with it. I suggest we’re thinking in wrong categories.
Regulating to prevent censorship and discrimination, enforcing 1st amendment rights is not opening the door to regulation that requires censorship and rewards discrimination. A basic tenet of a free society is that you cannot discriminate in commerce because of prohibited grounds. We don’t want Woolies denying food and Energy Australia cutting off the power because they don’t like LNP voters. We don’t want Dr Mohamed, Dr Muhammad or Dr Mohammad at my local medical centre saying “begone kufr, we only treat people who keep halal here.” If I don’t agree with Joyce Allan, I shouldn’t have to start my own airline to be flown to Perth.
If it ain’t illegal it ought to be illegal to censor it. Pretty simple.