The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Strong Support for Tech Tyranny
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From five questions concerning social media companies deplatforming users for venturing off the reservation of allowable opinion, a censorship index by selected demographics follows. Because pro-censorship rates are similar by subgroup for each item the index is calculated by a simple average of percentages in favor of deplatforming across the five categories. These categories are “violent content” (a movie trailer for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?), “hate speech” (sex is a biological construct?), “supporting overthrow of the government” (the Declaration of Independence?), “promoting racial division” (Black Lives Matter?), and “spreading disinformation” (Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?):

They made Socrates drink hemlock. They nailed Jesus to a cross. And you thought they’d support your right to criticize their overlords?

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Censorship, Free Speech, Technology 
Hide 91 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Naive normie’s definition of Hate Speech, “Kill the Jews!”

    SJW’s definition of Hate Speech, “Men can’t give birth”

  2. Off-topic, and a bit galling coming from one who always say not to trust polls at all, but would anyone here know where to find stats vis-a-vis the rates of vegetarianism, veganism, and support for animal rights and various positions related thereto, among the general population in western countries, the general Hindu population in India, the general Hindu population in western countries, and the non-Hindu children of Hindu immigrants, as well as the prevalence of believing/practicing Hindus among the latter two groups?

    I have a hypothesis that the descendants of Hindus in western countries will ditch Hinduism, retain vegetarianism, and embrace animal rights as a replacement justification. This would have broader sociological implications: what other political ideas have gained popularity among immigrant groups clashing with modernity and seeking to retain their traditional folkways?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    I have a hunch that eating animals will be viewed in the future like the current zeitgeist views people who supported slavery centuries ago, used to demean and destroy the figures of the past to make way for the figures of the future.

  3. I think no one likes real “free speech”. Everybody supports censorship of ideas they are against. Or at least, don’t mind it.

    The main problem I think is which ideas are censored, and which not. Who-whom.

    With Big Tech, the main problem more than just censorship is really the power than just a few companies have over a huge amount of information and your own personal data (including biological and financial data). Most people don’t really get it, many even support such power, with rationalizations such as “they are private companies, they can do what they want”, or “well, as long as I copy and paste a chain post on Facebook saying that “I don’t give the right to use my image” all is OK.

  4. The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”

    Perhaps not very many are saying it, yet I would still like to know how many. After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions. (As much as I loathe Twitter and Facebook and as wary as I am of Google’s power, even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment, even in Twitter’s, Facebook’s and Google’s cases. In the long run, after all, the pro-private-company instinct seems a healthy instinct for a free, modest, commercially minded people to retain.)

    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet. What if Comcast refused to transmit your data unless you had pledged allegiance to gay miscegenation, for instance? (Wait for it. They might try.) Surely at least a few respondents would draw a distinction between one’s being kicked off the dominant social and commercial platforms, on the one hand, and one’s being excluded from the Internet altogether, on the other.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”
     
    Yeah, except for Christian bakers who refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding because it violates the baker’s personal religious conviction. Then the government quickly steps in and says the Christian baker will either make the cake or be shut down and impoverished.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment,

    Please define this term in historical context: "Company store". You may use any resources you need, including Tennessee Ernie Ford.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @obwandiyag
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You just proved how unutterably stupid libertarians are.

    To call those monopolies "private companies" is like calling your ass the Taj Mahal.

    You don't know how anything at all works if you think that there is such a thing as a private company, that your so-called private companies don't own the government, yourself, the air, and everything that is free and good and beneficial, and are determined to make you pay through the nose for these things, then you don't know nuffink.

    Replies: @Barbarossa, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Paperback Writer
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet.

     

    They would be doing us a favor.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions.
     
    “They are private companies, they can do what they want” ceased to be a viable position decades ago. The fact that so many conservatives still believe such nonsense that is a large part of the explanation of why things got to be in such a mess.

    These private companies have total control of all political discourse. They effectively control all public political discourse. They can effectively silence all dissent.

    That should never have been allowed to happen. There is no need for liberals to abolish the First Amendment. It has already been abolished in practice. And conservatives did nothing to stop this from happening.

    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like "we need to build alternative platforms" which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.

    Conservatives and libertarians have actually done more harm than liberals by clinging to such hopelessly naïve and silly ideas.
    Huge corporations have been allowed to establish what are in practice monopolies - monopolies that control all political debate.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Adam Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I believe strongly in private business and a private business's right to be untouched by "government" regulation and generally left alone. However, comcast, google facebook and twitter are not private businesses or private companies. They are all publicly traded corporations. They are franchises of the so called United States by contract and incorporation. It is in the public interest and in harmony with the constitution to regulate these sorts of entities for the good of society.

    The people atop the pyramid have somehow managed to convince a large portion of the population to believe it is normal to regulate the local barber more heavily than comcast, google, facebook and twitter. Clown world is amazing.

    Replies: @anon, @utu

  5. Tech can’t be totally evil; it wishes you Happy Birthday on all your devices.

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Huerfano
    @iffen

    True. Apple always wishes me happy birthday in November. I then try to tell them my birthday isn't in November. And then...the questions start...'how many lights do you see?'...

  6. I really like your commentary on this one, A.E., in particular your parentheses that go along with each category of supposed badspeech. Nice!

    Now, I’m gonna go against VDare here (well, most of them, very unusual for me), all unz writers excepting Ron Paul, and about everyone else on the right. You don’t want the US Government to be the arbiter of free speech. Just how does that make the situation any better? “Oh, when our guy is in we’re gonna let people say this again. Ooops, he ‘lost’ the election. We can’t say shit now, especially about how he lost the election.”. That’s just transferring the problem to an organization with even more power than these Big-“TECH” woke people have.

    President Trump had 4 years to push (especially the first 2, when he had an R House/Senate) for the end of the Section 230 cutout that let the internet “platforms” be seen as platforms not publishers. When did he get serious about it? About 3 weeks before the ’20 election, because it got personal! What a tool. Without that, any customer of facebook could take them to court over violations of user agreements, etc.

    There are solutions, but they are not convenient, and most of the American people will favor convenience over freedom, from what I’ve seen. We’ll see. The other option is just complete separation from these people, before it’s too late and we are held together under yet another Communist regime and commiserating together in the bread and cabbage lines. “At least we’d be a united people, though, so, ya know …”

    .

    PS: Yes, I know, the Supreme Court is a part of the US Government, but the beauty of the Constitutional Republic, is that the US Constitution is right out there, in plain English.

    • Replies: @Barbarossa
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I agree with your comment on Trump wholeheartedly in regards to his hare-brained approach.

    I think the same principal also applies to the whole election fraud thing. If the Dems. were supposedly clearly masterminding a massive voting fraud machine why did Trump and the Republicans do nothing concrete to stop or slow it down? Kvetching vaguely about fraud a couple weeks before the election doesn't count.

    This is one of my main issues with Trump, either his actions can be interpreted as idiotically short sighted, or disingenuous. Neither reflects well.

    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that "opinions that disturb the peace" should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally. When I in turn ask if they also think that the "socially disturbing opinions" of the abolitionists or civil rights leaders should have been forcibly crushed, they get a little squirmy.

    Speech restrictions always reflect the power dynamic, and so the types of speech which are restricted certainly put to the lie the idea of supposed limitless power of white males.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @unit472, @Mr. Rational

    , @Eric Novak
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, we don’t want the gov’t to be the arbiter of free speech, which is why the gov’t should force the tech companies to stop censoring on its behalf. Tech censorship is the same as Ma Bell sticking her big nose into your telephone conversations and cutting your service for conversations she doesn’t like, in the 1920s. Gov’t enforcement of free speech is not gov’t censorship.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  7. I don’t know if it is a glimmer of a white pill but people in this survey overwhelmingly think election fraud occurred. All types.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @DanHessinMD

    Bearer of bad news, those sections are only among a subset who say they think election fraud occurred.

  8. Having actually given it some thought, I don’t see Americans unfucking this situation. Once there’s enough legal and political pressure against the majority, nothing shy of a country’s total collapse can fix it. The Ruskis were under the Soviet boot for 70 years and there wasn’t much chance of overthrowing the government. The Nazis lasted only 12 years, but they guillotined the Scholl siblings like it was 1789. Once the authoritarians come to power, there’s nothing to get rid of them but their own incompetence.

    If you’re under 30, enjoy the long night of tyranny. You’re gonna be under it for the rest of your life.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Wyatt

    >If you’re under 30, enjoy the long night of tyranny. You’re gonna be under it for the rest of your life.

    The **** I will. Spent my entire life being gaslighted, being told I'm wrong, I'm delusional. Spent my entire life under the control of impersonal forces or other people. There's no way in hell I'm going to let these idiots take that from me just when I finally have a chance of breaking out.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Wyatt

    I'm a Boomer. During my youth and through much of my prime, I lived in a country, the USA, and through a time, during which I and my fellow citizens experienced unprecedented, universal levels of freedom, including freedom of thought, of speech, and of action. This was coupled with historically unique levels of material well being for most of the population.

    Beginning in the 1990s, although the root causes appeared earlier, I saw these freedoms and levels of well-being erode, first slowly then more rapidly, accelerating sharply after 9/11, then again under the BO administration, and most recently during the past year's Rona Panic. The recent election suggests that democracy, at least at the federal level, is as illusory as in any totalitarian state. Those holding power will count the votes and, as Stalin noted, the vote counters will decide who will hold public office.

    Up until quite recently I sorrowed that my and my country's posterity were losing their birthrights of freedom and prosperity. I did what little I could to preserve these. But at some point I realized that the majority of those who will survive me, the Gen-Xers, Gen-Yers, Millenials, et al., are willingly surrendering their birthright for a mess of pottage, e.g. the doubleplusgoodthink cachet they obtain from enrolling in the new religion of Negrolatry, embracing the madness of the sexually bewildered, and in other ways supporting and defending the new world order reset planned by the world's neo-feudal, globalist elites.

    If this serfdom is what posterity wants then so be it. If they accept the yoke or surrender to it then they deserve it. I hope I'll be dead before the real pain begins.

  9. I am surprised to see censorship support rise with age on this survey. I thought it’s the young generation who is the most pro-censorship.

  10. @iffen
    Tech can't be totally evil; it wishes you Happy Birthday on all your devices.

    Replies: @Huerfano

    True. Apple always wishes me happy birthday in November. I then try to tell them my birthday isn’t in November. And then…the questions start…’how many lights do you see?’…

  11. Old people are more likely to support censorship because they are more disciplined, and censorship was far more popular in the past.

    You altright pretenders have no idea what the real America was all about. Somebody like Tucker Carson could never have existed under the fairness doctrine. Rush Limbaugh didn’t have a chance. The opinions you people express would lead to you being put in an asylum 60 years ago. There has never been more freedom of expression than there is today.

    The problem? Expression is cheap. No one gives a shit about anything anyone has to say. They’re not listening to you. They’re just annoyed by you, like a pop-up is annoying. People want you to shut up and get off the stage. You’re like a bunch of Jehova’s Witnesses who just can’t stop showing up at everyone’s digital doorstep, complaining about stuff no one cares about.

    There wasn’t even anything left to be said. Everyting that could possibly be said has already been said before. You people were just masturbating in a circle jerk, repeating the same tired shit over again to blow off steam, while the world around you kept changing in ways you didn’t like, making a ton of money and becoming safer along the way; and yet you have the audacity to offer suggestions?

    Your most pertinent deficits are a lack of discipline, talent and originality… Not internet freedom.

    • Troll: Jus' Sayin'...
    • Replies: @Mario Partisan
    @JohnPlywood


    The opinions you people express would lead to you being put in an asylum 60 years ago.
     
    Apparently, Mr. Plywood believes that “chicks don’t have dicks” was considered crazy in 1960.

    There has never been more freedom of expression than there is today.
     
    Try saying “chicks don’t have dicks” at any corporate workplace today and see what happens.

    People want you to shut up and get off the stage. You’re like a bunch of Jehova’s Witnesses who just can’t stop showing up at everyone’s digital doorstep, complaining about stuff no one cares about.
     
    Was that an in-the-mirror dialogue you had with yourself, De Niro style, Mr. Plywood?

    There wasn’t even anything left to be said. Everyting that could possibly be said has already been said before.
     
    Fantastic. Now shut up, please.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @JohnPlywood

  12. @Achmed E. Newman
    I really like your commentary on this one, A.E., in particular your parentheses that go along with each category of supposed badspeech. Nice!

    Now, I'm gonna go against VDare here (well, most of them, very unusual for me), all unz writers excepting Ron Paul, and about everyone else on the right. You don't want the US Government to be the arbiter of free speech. Just how does that make the situation any better? "Oh, when our guy is in we're gonna let people say this again. Ooops, he 'lost' the election. We can't say shit now, especially about how he lost the election.". That's just transferring the problem to an organization with even more power than these Big-"TECH" woke people have.

    President Trump had 4 years to push (especially the first 2, when he had an R House/Senate) for the end of the Section 230 cutout that let the internet "platforms" be seen as platforms not publishers. When did he get serious about it? About 3 weeks before the '20 election, because it got personal! What a tool. Without that, any customer of facebook could take them to court over violations of user agreements, etc.

    There are solutions, but they are not convenient, and most of the American people will favor convenience over freedom, from what I've seen. We'll see. The other option is just complete separation from these people, before it's too late and we are held together under yet another Communist regime and commiserating together in the bread and cabbage lines. "At least we'd be a united people, though, so, ya know ..."


    .


    PS: Yes, I know, the Supreme Court is a part of the US Government, but the beauty of the Constitutional Republic, is that the US Constitution is right out there, in plain English.

    Replies: @Barbarossa, @Eric Novak

    I agree with your comment on Trump wholeheartedly in regards to his hare-brained approach.

    I think the same principal also applies to the whole election fraud thing. If the Dems. were supposedly clearly masterminding a massive voting fraud machine why did Trump and the Republicans do nothing concrete to stop or slow it down? Kvetching vaguely about fraud a couple weeks before the election doesn’t count.

    This is one of my main issues with Trump, either his actions can be interpreted as idiotically short sighted, or disingenuous. Neither reflects well.

    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that “opinions that disturb the peace” should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally. When I in turn ask if they also think that the “socially disturbing opinions” of the abolitionists or civil rights leaders should have been forcibly crushed, they get a little squirmy.

    Speech restrictions always reflect the power dynamic, and so the types of speech which are restricted certainly put to the lie the idea of supposed limitless power of white males.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Barbarossa

    Barbarossa said:


    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that “opinions that disturb the peace” should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally.
     
    The Rightists who oppose censorship only do so because they're not currently the ones with the power to do the censoring. If they were the ones with the power they'd be in favour of censorship as well.

    Back in the 60s it was the Left that opposed censorship.

    Dumbo said:

    I think no one likes real “free speech”. Everybody supports censorship of ideas they are against. Or at least, don’t mind it.
     
    I agree. For most people "free speech" has always meant "everybody should be free to express opinions I agree with."

    If you want someone to blame Trump is the obvious target to choose. He had four years to address this problem and he did nothing. Now he's going to get so comprehensively cancelled that his eyes will water.

    Replies: @GazaPlanet, @Achmed E. Newman, @Barbarossa

    , @unit472
    @Barbarossa

    The Republican party saw the fraud coming in the swing states when Democrats ( illegally in most cases) pushed through mail in ballots whether the voter requested one or not. Any changes to election procedure were supposed to be enacted by the state legislature ( where the GOP could block it )but Democrat Governors just ignored that and simply mailed out ballots. Court challenges take time and the Dems can always find a Fed judge to run interference for them until time ran out and the election was held and you could see negro women employed by corrupt municipal government in Atlanta, Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee not verifying signatures, blocking GOP election observers and doing all the things they needed to do to 'fix' the vote.

    Replies: @Barbarossa

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Barbarossa


    If the Dems. were supposedly clearly masterminding a massive voting fraud machine why did Trump and the Republicans do nothing concrete to stop or slow it down?
     
    If your goal is to prosecute criminals, you don't stop them from committing the crime.  You let them do it, THEN arrest them.
  13. If the polls don’t support the government they will never be publicized, ridiculed mocked, if the voters don’t support the establishment candidates their votes will be nullified by corresponding fraudulent ballots.

    Anyone who still believes in polls and polling is a fool. Polls decide nothing. Control of the narrative decides everything. Ban Ron Paul from Facebook, the public supports it! Ban the President, the public strongly supports it!

    Anyone who believes that is a fool.

  14. It’s not a popular position in these parts, but I think our side should actually welcome political correctness.

    On matters of rule following, closely linked to impulse control, we always outperform the left’s base.

    That’s why leftists hate AI moderation.

    • Troll: GazaPlanet
  15. @Barbarossa
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I agree with your comment on Trump wholeheartedly in regards to his hare-brained approach.

    I think the same principal also applies to the whole election fraud thing. If the Dems. were supposedly clearly masterminding a massive voting fraud machine why did Trump and the Republicans do nothing concrete to stop or slow it down? Kvetching vaguely about fraud a couple weeks before the election doesn't count.

    This is one of my main issues with Trump, either his actions can be interpreted as idiotically short sighted, or disingenuous. Neither reflects well.

    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that "opinions that disturb the peace" should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally. When I in turn ask if they also think that the "socially disturbing opinions" of the abolitionists or civil rights leaders should have been forcibly crushed, they get a little squirmy.

    Speech restrictions always reflect the power dynamic, and so the types of speech which are restricted certainly put to the lie the idea of supposed limitless power of white males.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @unit472, @Mr. Rational

    Barbarossa said:

    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that “opinions that disturb the peace” should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally.

    The Rightists who oppose censorship only do so because they’re not currently the ones with the power to do the censoring. If they were the ones with the power they’d be in favour of censorship as well.

    Back in the 60s it was the Left that opposed censorship.

    Dumbo said:

    I think no one likes real “free speech”. Everybody supports censorship of ideas they are against. Or at least, don’t mind it.

    I agree. For most people “free speech” has always meant “everybody should be free to express opinions I agree with.”

    If you want someone to blame Trump is the obvious target to choose. He had four years to address this problem and he did nothing. Now he’s going to get so comprehensively cancelled that his eyes will water.

    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
    @dfordoom

    "Back in the 60s it was the Left that opposed censorship."

    Censorship of what? Obscenity? The Left strongly supported censorship and political repression during WWII. The Left is determined not to be bound by the laws of the nation. They are led by by a criminal conspiracy. That criminal conspiracy depends on censorship to survive.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom


    The Rightists who oppose censorship only do so because they’re not currently the ones with the power to do the censoring. If they were the ones with the power they’d be in favour of censorship as well.
     
    Only thing is, that wasn't the case. Exhibit A is American history. It was a conservative country until the middle 1960s. Where was this disrespect for freedom of speech before and during that whole turbulent era? Freedom of speech is proscribed in Amendment I of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, a document that was adhered to a lot better back in the day.

    There were laws against pornography, but I don't think that's what most people are concerned with here. Oh, Joe McCarthy!! Joe McCarthy!! Is that all you got? (Not you personally, DforDoom.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Barbarossa
    @dfordoom

    Yeah, I basically think that Dumbo and yourself are right on that most people don't really like free speech.
    However, there was a substantial period of time where people at least pretended to like it as a concept. Some of the folks who have expressed aversion to free speech are ex-hippie types who would have surely expressed support for it 15 years ago.
    It seems notable that it's an ideal that is so publicly derided now.

  16. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”

    Perhaps not very many are saying it, yet I would still like to know how many. After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions. (As much as I loathe Twitter and Facebook and as wary as I am of Google's power, even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment, even in Twitter's, Facebook's and Google's cases. In the long run, after all, the pro-private-company instinct seems a healthy instinct for a free, modest, commercially minded people to retain.)

    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet. What if Comcast refused to transmit your data unless you had pledged allegiance to gay miscegenation, for instance? (Wait for it. They might try.) Surely at least a few respondents would draw a distinction between one's being kicked off the dominant social and commercial platforms, on the one hand, and one's being excluded from the Internet altogether, on the other.

    Replies: @Anon, @anon, @obwandiyag, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom, @Adam Smith

    The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”

    Yeah, except for Christian bakers who refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding because it violates the baker’s personal religious conviction. Then the government quickly steps in and says the Christian baker will either make the cake or be shut down and impoverished.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Anon


    Yeah, except for Christian bakers who refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding because it violates the baker’s personal religious conviction. Then the government quickly steps in and says the Christian baker will either make the cake or be shut down and impoverished.
     
    Were it up to me, civil rights law would exempt independent businesses under 200 employees and $50 million in revenue, while enforcing enthusiastically against larger companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google. Your example exactly shows why.
  17. @dfordoom
    @Barbarossa

    Barbarossa said:


    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that “opinions that disturb the peace” should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally.
     
    The Rightists who oppose censorship only do so because they're not currently the ones with the power to do the censoring. If they were the ones with the power they'd be in favour of censorship as well.

    Back in the 60s it was the Left that opposed censorship.

    Dumbo said:

    I think no one likes real “free speech”. Everybody supports censorship of ideas they are against. Or at least, don’t mind it.
     
    I agree. For most people "free speech" has always meant "everybody should be free to express opinions I agree with."

    If you want someone to blame Trump is the obvious target to choose. He had four years to address this problem and he did nothing. Now he's going to get so comprehensively cancelled that his eyes will water.

    Replies: @GazaPlanet, @Achmed E. Newman, @Barbarossa

    “Back in the 60s it was the Left that opposed censorship.”

    Censorship of what? Obscenity? The Left strongly supported censorship and political repression during WWII. The Left is determined not to be bound by the laws of the nation. They are led by by a criminal conspiracy. That criminal conspiracy depends on censorship to survive.

  18. Strong Support for Tech Tyranny

    Once again your column has demonstrated the extensive stupidity of Americans.

  19. @Barbarossa
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I agree with your comment on Trump wholeheartedly in regards to his hare-brained approach.

    I think the same principal also applies to the whole election fraud thing. If the Dems. were supposedly clearly masterminding a massive voting fraud machine why did Trump and the Republicans do nothing concrete to stop or slow it down? Kvetching vaguely about fraud a couple weeks before the election doesn't count.

    This is one of my main issues with Trump, either his actions can be interpreted as idiotically short sighted, or disingenuous. Neither reflects well.

    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that "opinions that disturb the peace" should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally. When I in turn ask if they also think that the "socially disturbing opinions" of the abolitionists or civil rights leaders should have been forcibly crushed, they get a little squirmy.

    Speech restrictions always reflect the power dynamic, and so the types of speech which are restricted certainly put to the lie the idea of supposed limitless power of white males.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @unit472, @Mr. Rational

    The Republican party saw the fraud coming in the swing states when Democrats ( illegally in most cases) pushed through mail in ballots whether the voter requested one or not. Any changes to election procedure were supposed to be enacted by the state legislature ( where the GOP could block it )but Democrat Governors just ignored that and simply mailed out ballots. Court challenges take time and the Dems can always find a Fed judge to run interference for them until time ran out and the election was held and you could see negro women employed by corrupt municipal government in Atlanta, Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee not verifying signatures, blocking GOP election observers and doing all the things they needed to do to ‘fix’ the vote.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Barbarossa
    @unit472

    My question is what concrete things were Trump and the Republicans doing to effectively head off the problem? Democrats do absolutely tend to skew the electoral system in ways they think will benefit them. If the Republicans are so inept as to be completely helpless before this onslaught, it is in my mind, a serious failure of strategic imagination.

    So are Republicans really just that stupid and shortsighted?

  20. @dfordoom
    @Barbarossa

    Barbarossa said:


    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that “opinions that disturb the peace” should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally.
     
    The Rightists who oppose censorship only do so because they're not currently the ones with the power to do the censoring. If they were the ones with the power they'd be in favour of censorship as well.

    Back in the 60s it was the Left that opposed censorship.

    Dumbo said:

    I think no one likes real “free speech”. Everybody supports censorship of ideas they are against. Or at least, don’t mind it.
     
    I agree. For most people "free speech" has always meant "everybody should be free to express opinions I agree with."

    If you want someone to blame Trump is the obvious target to choose. He had four years to address this problem and he did nothing. Now he's going to get so comprehensively cancelled that his eyes will water.

    Replies: @GazaPlanet, @Achmed E. Newman, @Barbarossa

    The Rightists who oppose censorship only do so because they’re not currently the ones with the power to do the censoring. If they were the ones with the power they’d be in favour of censorship as well.

    Only thing is, that wasn’t the case. Exhibit A is American history. It was a conservative country until the middle 1960s. Where was this disrespect for freedom of speech before and during that whole turbulent era? Freedom of speech is proscribed in Amendment I of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, a document that was adhered to a lot better back in the day.

    There were laws against pornography, but I don’t think that’s what most people are concerned with here. Oh, Joe McCarthy!! Joe McCarthy!! Is that all you got? (Not you personally, DforDoom.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    There were laws against pornography, but I don’t think that’s what most people are concerned with here. Oh, Joe McCarthy!! Joe McCarthy!! Is that all you got? (Not you personally, DforDoom.)
     
    I'm a free speech absolutist so I suspect we're actually basically on the same page as far as this issue is concerned. My view of freedom of speech is like my view of pregnancy. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. If you make any exceptions at all (even for pornography) then you don't have freedom of speech.

    The only area where we probably differ is that I'm sceptical as to whether free speech absolutism has ever had much support. I suspect that most people, even Americans, even Americans in the 1950s, have not been prepared to support free speech absolutism.

    I like freedom of speech but when it comes to the crunch I think most people don't really want it and never did.

    And it has to be accepted that there's a price to be paid for freedom of speech. You have to be prepared to accept people's rights to express some very crazy and unpleasant opinions, and you have to be prepared to tolerate pornography.

    It's also very awkward for a political movement. If you look at far right political groupings they attract a lot of people with very crazy and unpleasant opinions which do those groupings an immense amount of harm. And if you look at Unz Review it attracts a lot of people with the kinds of crazy and unpleasant opinions that will almost certainly eventually get it shut down.

    Replies: @Talha, @Chrisnonymous, @nebulafox

  21. @Wyatt
    Having actually given it some thought, I don't see Americans unfucking this situation. Once there's enough legal and political pressure against the majority, nothing shy of a country's total collapse can fix it. The Ruskis were under the Soviet boot for 70 years and there wasn't much chance of overthrowing the government. The Nazis lasted only 12 years, but they guillotined the Scholl siblings like it was 1789. Once the authoritarians come to power, there's nothing to get rid of them but their own incompetence.

    If you're under 30, enjoy the long night of tyranny. You're gonna be under it for the rest of your life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Jus' Sayin'...

    >If you’re under 30, enjoy the long night of tyranny. You’re gonna be under it for the rest of your life.

    The **** I will. Spent my entire life being gaslighted, being told I’m wrong, I’m delusional. Spent my entire life under the control of impersonal forces or other people. There’s no way in hell I’m going to let these idiots take that from me just when I finally have a chance of breaking out.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  22. @Anon
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”
     
    Yeah, except for Christian bakers who refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding because it violates the baker’s personal religious conviction. Then the government quickly steps in and says the Christian baker will either make the cake or be shut down and impoverished.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Yeah, except for Christian bakers who refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding because it violates the baker’s personal religious conviction. Then the government quickly steps in and says the Christian baker will either make the cake or be shut down and impoverished.

    Were it up to me, civil rights law would exempt independent businesses under 200 employees and $50 million in revenue, while enforcing enthusiastically against larger companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google. Your example exactly shows why.

  23. @V. K. Ovelund
    The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”

    Perhaps not very many are saying it, yet I would still like to know how many. After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions. (As much as I loathe Twitter and Facebook and as wary as I am of Google's power, even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment, even in Twitter's, Facebook's and Google's cases. In the long run, after all, the pro-private-company instinct seems a healthy instinct for a free, modest, commercially minded people to retain.)

    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet. What if Comcast refused to transmit your data unless you had pledged allegiance to gay miscegenation, for instance? (Wait for it. They might try.) Surely at least a few respondents would draw a distinction between one's being kicked off the dominant social and commercial platforms, on the one hand, and one's being excluded from the Internet altogether, on the other.

    Replies: @Anon, @anon, @obwandiyag, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom, @Adam Smith

    even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment,

    Please define this term in historical context: “Company store”. You may use any resources you need, including Tennessee Ernie Ford.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    Please define this term in historical context: “Company store”.
     
    As far as I know, a company store is a (presumably overpriced) retailer with a monopoly in a company town. In some instances if I recall, employees were paid partly (or wholly?) in vouchers only the company store would redeem.

    I don't really know a lot about it. Is there some specific point to which you would like me to attend?

    Replies: @anon

  24. @JohnPlywood
    Old people are more likely to support censorship because they are more disciplined, and censorship was far more popular in the past.


    You altright pretenders have no idea what the real America was all about. Somebody like Tucker Carson could never have existed under the fairness doctrine. Rush Limbaugh didn't have a chance. The opinions you people express would lead to you being put in an asylum 60 years ago. There has never been more freedom of expression than there is today.


    The problem? Expression is cheap. No one gives a shit about anything anyone has to say. They're not listening to you. They're just annoyed by you, like a pop-up is annoying. People want you to shut up and get off the stage. You're like a bunch of Jehova's Witnesses who just can't stop showing up at everyone's digital doorstep, complaining about stuff no one cares about.

    There wasn't even anything left to be said. Everyting that could possibly be said has already been said before. You people were just masturbating in a circle jerk, repeating the same tired shit over again to blow off steam, while the world around you kept changing in ways you didn't like, making a ton of money and becoming safer along the way; and yet you have the audacity to offer suggestions?

    Your most pertinent deficits are a lack of discipline, talent and originality... Not internet freedom.

    Replies: @Mario Partisan

    The opinions you people express would lead to you being put in an asylum 60 years ago.

    Apparently, Mr. Plywood believes that “chicks don’t have dicks” was considered crazy in 1960.

    There has never been more freedom of expression than there is today.

    Try saying “chicks don’t have dicks” at any corporate workplace today and see what happens.

    People want you to shut up and get off the stage. You’re like a bunch of Jehova’s Witnesses who just can’t stop showing up at everyone’s digital doorstep, complaining about stuff no one cares about.

    Was that an in-the-mirror dialogue you had with yourself, De Niro style, Mr. Plywood?

    There wasn’t even anything left to be said. Everyting that could possibly be said has already been said before.

    Fantastic. Now shut up, please.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Mario Partisan


    Try saying “chicks don’t have dicks” at any corporate workplace today and see what happens.
     
    Try calling someone with or without a dick a chick and see what happens.

    Replies: @Mario Partisan

    , @JohnPlywood
    @Mario Partisan

    Yes, sex reassignment surgery had been practiced in America since the early 1900s and the general trend was to have males attempt to assume a female gender identity. This was not considered controversial and anyone who obsessed over this utterly irrelevant issue would be quickly identifed as a "kook" and socially ostracized. If they did not adjust themselves and learn to shut up about fringe elements of society, they would be taken in a police cruiser for a ride to the hospital, where they would be diagnosed with schizophrenia and locked away for the rest of their lives. And that's exactly what happens to you on Twitter when you get banned for constantly ragging on about various forms of minutia. Sensible, intelligent people are stopping you from babbling like a panhandler in front of everyone about issues that no one ever thinks or cares about.

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki, @Curle

  25. Funny that 87% of the party of free expression are actually against it. “Laws for thee, but not for me.”

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    @The Alarmist

    "Hate speech" is best defined as any speech which annoys the listener or to which he takes exception. It takes an unusual level of wisdom to oppose laws seeking to restrict "hate speech". The vast majority think such laws will be directed only against ideas, speech and people whom they dislike.

  26. @Mario Partisan
    @JohnPlywood


    The opinions you people express would lead to you being put in an asylum 60 years ago.
     
    Apparently, Mr. Plywood believes that “chicks don’t have dicks” was considered crazy in 1960.

    There has never been more freedom of expression than there is today.
     
    Try saying “chicks don’t have dicks” at any corporate workplace today and see what happens.

    People want you to shut up and get off the stage. You’re like a bunch of Jehova’s Witnesses who just can’t stop showing up at everyone’s digital doorstep, complaining about stuff no one cares about.
     
    Was that an in-the-mirror dialogue you had with yourself, De Niro style, Mr. Plywood?

    There wasn’t even anything left to be said. Everyting that could possibly be said has already been said before.
     
    Fantastic. Now shut up, please.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @JohnPlywood

    Try saying “chicks don’t have dicks” at any corporate workplace today and see what happens.

    Try calling someone with or without a dick a chick and see what happens.

    • LOL: Jus' Sayin'...
    • Replies: @Mario Partisan
    @The Alarmist

    True, how naïve of me.

    I can just imagine the following water cooler chat:

    Mario: Hey Alarmist, so was I went out with this chick…

    Karen: Did you just refer to a woman as a chick!? That is so sexist! We are not "chicks," we are strong and independent!

    Mario: My apologies, cracka ass bitch.

    Karen: Better! Now excuse me, I have a woman’s empowerment appointment with Quantavius where I get choked to honor the memory of George Floyd.

  27. @Mario Partisan
    @JohnPlywood


    The opinions you people express would lead to you being put in an asylum 60 years ago.
     
    Apparently, Mr. Plywood believes that “chicks don’t have dicks” was considered crazy in 1960.

    There has never been more freedom of expression than there is today.
     
    Try saying “chicks don’t have dicks” at any corporate workplace today and see what happens.

    People want you to shut up and get off the stage. You’re like a bunch of Jehova’s Witnesses who just can’t stop showing up at everyone’s digital doorstep, complaining about stuff no one cares about.
     
    Was that an in-the-mirror dialogue you had with yourself, De Niro style, Mr. Plywood?

    There wasn’t even anything left to be said. Everyting that could possibly be said has already been said before.
     
    Fantastic. Now shut up, please.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @JohnPlywood

    Yes, sex reassignment surgery had been practiced in America since the early 1900s and the general trend was to have males attempt to assume a female gender identity. This was not considered controversial and anyone who obsessed over this utterly irrelevant issue would be quickly identifed as a “kook” and socially ostracized. If they did not adjust themselves and learn to shut up about fringe elements of society, they would be taken in a police cruiser for a ride to the hospital, where they would be diagnosed with schizophrenia and locked away for the rest of their lives. And that’s exactly what happens to you on Twitter when you get banned for constantly ragging on about various forms of minutia. Sensible, intelligent people are stopping you from babbling like a panhandler in front of everyone about issues that no one ever thinks or cares about.

    • Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki
    @JohnPlywood


    ...that’s exactly what happens to you on Twitter when you get banned for constantly ragging on about various forms of minutia. Sensible, intelligent people are stopping you from babbling like a panhandler in front of everyone about issues that no one ever thinks or cares about.
     
    Transgenderism has only increased by something like 10,000 percent among under-18s in the last five years or so. What kind of a psychopath would consider that noteworthy?
    , @Curle
    @JohnPlywood

    “ This was not considered controversial and anyone who obsessed over this utterly irrelevant issue would be quickly identifed as a “kook””

    Not a single word of this is true.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  28. White men with no degree want to spout uninformed opinions on things without consequences. Too bad, I guess.

    They are consistently proving themselves to be the Groids of White people.

    • Agree: 216
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Supply and Demand

    Are there consequences for blacks who spout uninformed opinions on things?

    Replies: @The Soft Parade

  29. @Wyatt
    Having actually given it some thought, I don't see Americans unfucking this situation. Once there's enough legal and political pressure against the majority, nothing shy of a country's total collapse can fix it. The Ruskis were under the Soviet boot for 70 years and there wasn't much chance of overthrowing the government. The Nazis lasted only 12 years, but they guillotined the Scholl siblings like it was 1789. Once the authoritarians come to power, there's nothing to get rid of them but their own incompetence.

    If you're under 30, enjoy the long night of tyranny. You're gonna be under it for the rest of your life.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Jus' Sayin'...

    I’m a Boomer. During my youth and through much of my prime, I lived in a country, the USA, and through a time, during which I and my fellow citizens experienced unprecedented, universal levels of freedom, including freedom of thought, of speech, and of action. This was coupled with historically unique levels of material well being for most of the population.

    Beginning in the 1990s, although the root causes appeared earlier, I saw these freedoms and levels of well-being erode, first slowly then more rapidly, accelerating sharply after 9/11, then again under the BO administration, and most recently during the past year’s Rona Panic. The recent election suggests that democracy, at least at the federal level, is as illusory as in any totalitarian state. Those holding power will count the votes and, as Stalin noted, the vote counters will decide who will hold public office.

    Up until quite recently I sorrowed that my and my country’s posterity were losing their birthrights of freedom and prosperity. I did what little I could to preserve these. But at some point I realized that the majority of those who will survive me, the Gen-Xers, Gen-Yers, Millenials, et al., are willingly surrendering their birthright for a mess of pottage, e.g. the doubleplusgoodthink cachet they obtain from enrolling in the new religion of Negrolatry, embracing the madness of the sexually bewildered, and in other ways supporting and defending the new world order reset planned by the world’s neo-feudal, globalist elites.

    If this serfdom is what posterity wants then so be it. If they accept the yoke or surrender to it then they deserve it. I hope I’ll be dead before the real pain begins.

  30. @V. K. Ovelund
    The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”

    Perhaps not very many are saying it, yet I would still like to know how many. After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions. (As much as I loathe Twitter and Facebook and as wary as I am of Google's power, even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment, even in Twitter's, Facebook's and Google's cases. In the long run, after all, the pro-private-company instinct seems a healthy instinct for a free, modest, commercially minded people to retain.)

    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet. What if Comcast refused to transmit your data unless you had pledged allegiance to gay miscegenation, for instance? (Wait for it. They might try.) Surely at least a few respondents would draw a distinction between one's being kicked off the dominant social and commercial platforms, on the one hand, and one's being excluded from the Internet altogether, on the other.

    Replies: @Anon, @anon, @obwandiyag, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom, @Adam Smith

    You just proved how unutterably stupid libertarians are.

    To call those monopolies “private companies” is like calling your ass the Taj Mahal.

    You don’t know how anything at all works if you think that there is such a thing as a private company, that your so-called private companies don’t own the government, yourself, the air, and everything that is free and good and beneficial, and are determined to make you pay through the nose for these things, then you don’t know nuffink.

    • Replies: @Barbarossa
    @obwandiyag

    The "free market" has always been a fiction as there is no such thing, except in libertarian theoryverse. It seems to me that libertarians are right up there with Marxists in terms of delusional theorizing unmoored from reality.

    Government will tip the scales one way or another by action or lack of action. You can for example, promote small scale citizen farmers as was once the case, or massive debt bound agribusiness. The former is much preferable to me, but is to opposite of what has been government policy for decades.

    The best part is that in a "free market" mythology any bad outcomes are just due to impersonal and godlike "market forces". Sorry folks!

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @obwandiyag


    You just proved how unutterably stupid libertarians are.
     
    I won't argue, but if you believe that I am a libertarian, then you are unfamiliar with my comments in this blog. It does not much matter, but everyone here knows that I am a patriarchal collectivist identitarian fascist.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  31. @The Alarmist
    Funny that 87% of the party of free expression are actually against it. “Laws for thee, but not for me.”

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    “Hate speech” is best defined as any speech which annoys the listener or to which he takes exception. It takes an unusual level of wisdom to oppose laws seeking to restrict “hate speech”. The vast majority think such laws will be directed only against ideas, speech and people whom they dislike.

  32. @The Alarmist
    @Mario Partisan


    Try saying “chicks don’t have dicks” at any corporate workplace today and see what happens.
     
    Try calling someone with or without a dick a chick and see what happens.

    Replies: @Mario Partisan

    True, how naïve of me.

    I can just imagine the following water cooler chat:

    Mario: Hey Alarmist, so was I went out with this chick…

    Karen: Did you just refer to a woman as a chick!? That is so sexist! We are not “chicks,” we are strong and independent!

    Mario: My apologies, cracka ass bitch.

    Karen: Better! Now excuse me, I have a woman’s empowerment appointment with Quantavius where I get choked to honor the memory of George Floyd.

  33. @unit472
    @Barbarossa

    The Republican party saw the fraud coming in the swing states when Democrats ( illegally in most cases) pushed through mail in ballots whether the voter requested one or not. Any changes to election procedure were supposed to be enacted by the state legislature ( where the GOP could block it )but Democrat Governors just ignored that and simply mailed out ballots. Court challenges take time and the Dems can always find a Fed judge to run interference for them until time ran out and the election was held and you could see negro women employed by corrupt municipal government in Atlanta, Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee not verifying signatures, blocking GOP election observers and doing all the things they needed to do to 'fix' the vote.

    Replies: @Barbarossa

    My question is what concrete things were Trump and the Republicans doing to effectively head off the problem? Democrats do absolutely tend to skew the electoral system in ways they think will benefit them. If the Republicans are so inept as to be completely helpless before this onslaught, it is in my mind, a serious failure of strategic imagination.

    So are Republicans really just that stupid and shortsighted?

  34. There are solutions.

    PEACE 😇
     

  35. @dfordoom
    @Barbarossa

    Barbarossa said:


    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that “opinions that disturb the peace” should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally.
     
    The Rightists who oppose censorship only do so because they're not currently the ones with the power to do the censoring. If they were the ones with the power they'd be in favour of censorship as well.

    Back in the 60s it was the Left that opposed censorship.

    Dumbo said:

    I think no one likes real “free speech”. Everybody supports censorship of ideas they are against. Or at least, don’t mind it.
     
    I agree. For most people "free speech" has always meant "everybody should be free to express opinions I agree with."

    If you want someone to blame Trump is the obvious target to choose. He had four years to address this problem and he did nothing. Now he's going to get so comprehensively cancelled that his eyes will water.

    Replies: @GazaPlanet, @Achmed E. Newman, @Barbarossa

    Yeah, I basically think that Dumbo and yourself are right on that most people don’t really like free speech.
    However, there was a substantial period of time where people at least pretended to like it as a concept. Some of the folks who have expressed aversion to free speech are ex-hippie types who would have surely expressed support for it 15 years ago.
    It seems notable that it’s an ideal that is so publicly derided now.

  36. @obwandiyag
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You just proved how unutterably stupid libertarians are.

    To call those monopolies "private companies" is like calling your ass the Taj Mahal.

    You don't know how anything at all works if you think that there is such a thing as a private company, that your so-called private companies don't own the government, yourself, the air, and everything that is free and good and beneficial, and are determined to make you pay through the nose for these things, then you don't know nuffink.

    Replies: @Barbarossa, @V. K. Ovelund

    The “free market” has always been a fiction as there is no such thing, except in libertarian theoryverse. It seems to me that libertarians are right up there with Marxists in terms of delusional theorizing unmoored from reality.

    Government will tip the scales one way or another by action or lack of action. You can for example, promote small scale citizen farmers as was once the case, or massive debt bound agribusiness. The former is much preferable to me, but is to opposite of what has been government policy for decades.

    The best part is that in a “free market” mythology any bad outcomes are just due to impersonal and godlike “market forces”. Sorry folks!

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Barbarossa

    Why are you even responding to Ol' Windy Bag?  Don't feed the troll; put him on ignore.

  37. What percentage of big tech censorship is because they are liberal and what percentage is because of fear of those holding political power and a desire to please them? Politicians have the power to tax and the power to regulate, even to the point of breaking up a company with antitrust regulation, and could drive almost any company out of business if they really wanted to.

    Big tech censorship suddenly became more leftist right after the Democrats won in Georgia, thus tipping Congress over to the Democrats. Was this a case of them finally being free to do what they want or a case of them wanting to curry favor with those now in power? It’s probably really some of both. If the government had less power over businesses, businesses would be less eager to be their speech enforcement arm. I can remember when it was widely remarked about how apolitical Bill Gates was. Then the government brought an antitrust suit against Microsoft. After that he hired Washington lobbyists and started donating money to liberal causes and liberal politicians. Any other business owner could see what happened to Gates and became less likely to focus solely on their business as he had tried to do after that.

  38. @obwandiyag
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You just proved how unutterably stupid libertarians are.

    To call those monopolies "private companies" is like calling your ass the Taj Mahal.

    You don't know how anything at all works if you think that there is such a thing as a private company, that your so-called private companies don't own the government, yourself, the air, and everything that is free and good and beneficial, and are determined to make you pay through the nose for these things, then you don't know nuffink.

    Replies: @Barbarossa, @V. K. Ovelund

    You just proved how unutterably stupid libertarians are.

    I won’t argue, but if you believe that I am a libertarian, then you are unfamiliar with my comments in this blog. It does not much matter, but everyone here knows that I am a patriarchal collectivist identitarian fascist.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The people at Unz, after one comment, think they can read your mind.

  39. @V. K. Ovelund
    The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”

    Perhaps not very many are saying it, yet I would still like to know how many. After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions. (As much as I loathe Twitter and Facebook and as wary as I am of Google's power, even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment, even in Twitter's, Facebook's and Google's cases. In the long run, after all, the pro-private-company instinct seems a healthy instinct for a free, modest, commercially minded people to retain.)

    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet. What if Comcast refused to transmit your data unless you had pledged allegiance to gay miscegenation, for instance? (Wait for it. They might try.) Surely at least a few respondents would draw a distinction between one's being kicked off the dominant social and commercial platforms, on the one hand, and one's being excluded from the Internet altogether, on the other.

    Replies: @Anon, @anon, @obwandiyag, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom, @Adam Smith

    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet.

    They would be doing us a favor.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Paperback Writer



    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet.
     
    They would be doing us a favor.

     

    This is a perspective I've not heard before. Might be interesting. When you have some time, would you care to elaborate?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  40. @V. K. Ovelund
    @obwandiyag


    You just proved how unutterably stupid libertarians are.
     
    I won't argue, but if you believe that I am a libertarian, then you are unfamiliar with my comments in this blog. It does not much matter, but everyone here knows that I am a patriarchal collectivist identitarian fascist.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    The people at Unz, after one comment, think they can read your mind.

  41. Who gives to squats if Twitter or Facebook censor speech.

    Why anyone uses those spyware/malware services is beyond me.

    I was commenting on Zero Hedge for ten years and they finally de-platformed me. I suspect it was because I have ad blockers and anti-tracking in place.

    But, they had been de-platforming account holders even in the early years. I remember when somebody back in 2009 used the “N” word in a comment and a lot of Karens came out of the woodwork demanding that their account be canceled. Which it was cause I never saw comments under that handle again. Then along came Frances Sawyer with his anti-geu rhetoric and they spent the better part of year trying to cancel him. He came back under new aliases but was canceled each time and eventually gave up.

    Then for some reason comments were opened up again and people went wild with just about everything. Then last year they decided to cancel my ability to comment but, they still allowed me to log in to my account. How generous of them.

    Their site was pretty much going to shiite anyway and it seems the comments were being overwhelmed by morons. And, without ad-blockers it was virtually unreadable with ads just about every other paragraph. I’m amazed they haven’t yet figured out how to place ads between comments.

    I said no biggie and just walked away and haven’t looked back. A lot of their content was turning to shiite along with the majority of their commenters.

    What I don’t get is how ZH still gets ad revenue even though their content and comments are off the accepted PC reservation.

    I suspect once Joe Biden, the best President Chinese money can buy, assumes office they’ll pass new Hate Speech laws banning a lot of content on UR. And, we can assume anyone that challenges the Constitutionality of the new law will be told they have no standing.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle

    Holy crap, that brings back some memories, MSPH! The name Francis Sawyer especially did. There were some GREAT commenters on ZH back in '11-14 or so. They didn't seem to screen anything out back then. The posts were mostly on financial matters, and the commenters seemed to know their stuff in that area.

    You are quite right about the usability of the current Zerohedge being terrible. People tell me "install adblocker", etc., but I have used work computers that are supposed to handle all that, and the pages will still move around like Mexican jumping beans for 2 minutes before I can read anything. I've had browsers crashed from ZH many times. Then the comments must be opened separately, which isn't too bad, but you have to then mash "Read More" all the time. To hell with Zerohedge.

    If you can tell us, did you use this same handle there? Do you remember a guy named Johnny Bravo who'd argue against the gold bugs? Finally, he said if gold went over $1,200/oz he'd quit commenting. It did, and he did.

  42. So the Government is telling us that according to us, we want to be censored?

    I have as much faith in a government poll as I have in government elections in Detriot.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  43. Tech Tyranny

    What hath convenience wrought?

    Disengage from big tech, as much as you can. Form meaningful human connections with those around you. Befriend your neighbors and be a part of a larger community. Go to church. Join a worthwhile local charity. If you don’t find one, found one with like-minded friends or neighbors. Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends. Set up a tea or knitting club for your daughters and their peers. And do something sweet and romantic with your spouse or special someone. Surround yourself with wholesome, productive, and authentic people and pursuits.

    Learn useful new skills and waste less time arguing with trolls and idiots online.

    You want to weaken big tech tyranny? Stop feeding the beast.

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @Twinkie


    waste less time arguing with trolls and idiots online.
     
    Now, now Twinkles, where would the fun be in that?
    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie

    A lot of these suggestions are fanciful dreams of times gone past. You can't "Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends" without inviting all kinds of pushback, regulation, liability, etc. That is why we are all here doing this dumb posting shit. All other options are slowly/speedily being taken away.

    One thing we can do is consume older technology. Read paper books purchased at used book stores. There is Asimov, for example, but my local corner bookstore in the US had copies of Carlyle in hardback, too, in addition to Shakespeare, etc. Similarly, you can keep listening to classical music without YouTube (quality is shit anyway) if you buy a CD player and buy CDs in used book stores.

    I would love to have a bourbon-drinking club that got smashed and watched based videos like Rogan interviewing Greenwald or McInnes interviewing Mcafee, or a pipe-smoking club that just stayed silent together, but I am an old-fashioned loser.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @iffen, @dfordoom

    , @anon
    @Twinkie

    Disengage from big tech, as much as you can.

    A noble goal, but a real challenge. It takes some effort, therefore many people won't do it. I shall explain.

    Form meaningful human connections with those around you. Befriend your neighbors and be a part of a larger community.

    Many of my neighbors are on Facebook and Pinterest a lot...in 2020 some of them stopped going out almost entirely, but kept up with each other via social media...

    Go to church.

    ...most church orgs now use Facebook and maybe Instagram for communications...

    Join a worthwhile local charity. If you don’t find one, found one with like-minded friends or neighbors.

    ...as do all the local charities...

    Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends.

    ...my local shooting orgs and competition groups have a web presence and are also on Facebook because that's where "everyone else is"; unfortunately many local Scout troops are pozzed with lady "scoutmasters" who routinely comment on...Facebook...because that's where the parents are...

    Set up a tea or knitting club for your daughters and their peers.

    ...those groups exist, and they are commonly found on Instagram, Facebook and Pinterest.

    Surround yourself with wholesome, productive, and authentic people and pursuits.

    It's not easy to convince ordinary people to turn off the social media, because convenience. I'm sort of surprised you have not noticed this.

    Families with no social media presence are kind of oddities; teenagers in those families tend to text their friends a bit more because they don't have Facebook / Pinterest / Instagram pages. It is worth it, but it is like not having a TV in the house -- odd.

    Communicating with church orgs is a bit more difficult for those who don't do Facebook, because that's the tool nice, middle class ladies use for communication. It's also their primary news source, which is one reason so many of them are pozzed to some degree; Mark Zuckerberg's hirelings tell them what is "news" and what is not, thus they are being told what to think and even believe.

    Again, I'm kind of surprised you have not noticed this.

  44. @JohnPlywood
    @Mario Partisan

    Yes, sex reassignment surgery had been practiced in America since the early 1900s and the general trend was to have males attempt to assume a female gender identity. This was not considered controversial and anyone who obsessed over this utterly irrelevant issue would be quickly identifed as a "kook" and socially ostracized. If they did not adjust themselves and learn to shut up about fringe elements of society, they would be taken in a police cruiser for a ride to the hospital, where they would be diagnosed with schizophrenia and locked away for the rest of their lives. And that's exactly what happens to you on Twitter when you get banned for constantly ragging on about various forms of minutia. Sensible, intelligent people are stopping you from babbling like a panhandler in front of everyone about issues that no one ever thinks or cares about.

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki, @Curle

    …that’s exactly what happens to you on Twitter when you get banned for constantly ragging on about various forms of minutia. Sensible, intelligent people are stopping you from babbling like a panhandler in front of everyone about issues that no one ever thinks or cares about.

    Transgenderism has only increased by something like 10,000 percent among under-18s in the last five years or so. What kind of a psychopath would consider that noteworthy?

  45. @V. K. Ovelund
    The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”

    Perhaps not very many are saying it, yet I would still like to know how many. After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions. (As much as I loathe Twitter and Facebook and as wary as I am of Google's power, even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment, even in Twitter's, Facebook's and Google's cases. In the long run, after all, the pro-private-company instinct seems a healthy instinct for a free, modest, commercially minded people to retain.)

    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet. What if Comcast refused to transmit your data unless you had pledged allegiance to gay miscegenation, for instance? (Wait for it. They might try.) Surely at least a few respondents would draw a distinction between one's being kicked off the dominant social and commercial platforms, on the one hand, and one's being excluded from the Internet altogether, on the other.

    Replies: @Anon, @anon, @obwandiyag, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom, @Adam Smith

    After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions.

    “They are private companies, they can do what they want” ceased to be a viable position decades ago. The fact that so many conservatives still believe such nonsense that is a large part of the explanation of why things got to be in such a mess.

    These private companies have total control of all political discourse. They effectively control all public political discourse. They can effectively silence all dissent.

    That should never have been allowed to happen. There is no need for liberals to abolish the First Amendment. It has already been abolished in practice. And conservatives did nothing to stop this from happening.

    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like “we need to build alternative platforms” which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.

    Conservatives and libertarians have actually done more harm than liberals by clinging to such hopelessly naïve and silly ideas.
    Huge corporations have been allowed to establish what are in practice monopolies – monopolies that control all political debate.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @dfordoom


    so many conservatives still believe such nonsense
     
    So many conservatives are authoritarians who are too stupid to see the paradigm shift. The central problem is the brainwashing indoctrination centers to which we condemn children and young adults (I’m not sure that word means what it once did). Corporations and their PC totalitarianism are the result, not the cause.

    Today, only the outliers with oppositional defiant disorder are inoculated against the communist bullshit.
    , @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like “we need to build alternative platforms” which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.
     
    What do you call Gab and Castalia House, then?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    “They are private companies, they can do what they want” ceased to be a viable position decades ago. The fact that so many conservatives still believe such nonsense that is a large part of the explanation of why things got to be in such a mess.
     
    The ground of debate over the benefits of free-enterprise independence versus the detriments of private monopoly power has been thoroughly trodden. My own position in the matter is boringly intermediate, so I've little new to add to the debate. I did not vote for Joe Biden but, as far as I know, Biden's view in this matter reflects my own.

    I do think that, in the United States, growing public stupidity is attached to the word socialism from both sides. To your credit, you have not mentioned the word—which is a fine word in the abstract but is increasingly abused by excitable persons who do not clearly grasp the word's meaning. If the word is used properly, experience during living memory affords little empirical reason to believe that moderate market socialism were directly very harmful (indirect effects are debatable). On the other hand, no other system ever tried produces anything resembling the abundance of wealth the free-enterprise system produces.

    I do not really think that either of these countervailing facts should be in dispute among serious persons, but others seem to wish to dispute the facts, anyway.

  46. @Twinkie

    Tech Tyranny
     
    What hath convenience wrought?

    Disengage from big tech, as much as you can. Form meaningful human connections with those around you. Befriend your neighbors and be a part of a larger community. Go to church. Join a worthwhile local charity. If you don’t find one, found one with like-minded friends or neighbors. Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends. Set up a tea or knitting club for your daughters and their peers. And do something sweet and romantic with your spouse or special someone. Surround yourself with wholesome, productive, and authentic people and pursuits.

    Learn useful new skills and waste less time arguing with trolls and idiots online.

    You want to weaken big tech tyranny? Stop feeding the beast.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Chrisnonymous, @anon

    waste less time arguing with trolls and idiots online.

    Now, now Twinkles, where would the fun be in that?

  47. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions.
     
    “They are private companies, they can do what they want” ceased to be a viable position decades ago. The fact that so many conservatives still believe such nonsense that is a large part of the explanation of why things got to be in such a mess.

    These private companies have total control of all political discourse. They effectively control all public political discourse. They can effectively silence all dissent.

    That should never have been allowed to happen. There is no need for liberals to abolish the First Amendment. It has already been abolished in practice. And conservatives did nothing to stop this from happening.

    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like "we need to build alternative platforms" which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.

    Conservatives and libertarians have actually done more harm than liberals by clinging to such hopelessly naïve and silly ideas.
    Huge corporations have been allowed to establish what are in practice monopolies - monopolies that control all political debate.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund

    so many conservatives still believe such nonsense

    So many conservatives are authoritarians who are too stupid to see the paradigm shift. The central problem is the brainwashing indoctrination centers to which we condemn children and young adults (I’m not sure that word means what it once did). Corporations and their PC totalitarianism are the result, not the cause.

    Today, only the outliers with oppositional defiant disorder are inoculated against the communist bullshit.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  48. @Barbarossa
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I agree with your comment on Trump wholeheartedly in regards to his hare-brained approach.

    I think the same principal also applies to the whole election fraud thing. If the Dems. were supposedly clearly masterminding a massive voting fraud machine why did Trump and the Republicans do nothing concrete to stop or slow it down? Kvetching vaguely about fraud a couple weeks before the election doesn't count.

    This is one of my main issues with Trump, either his actions can be interpreted as idiotically short sighted, or disingenuous. Neither reflects well.

    On free speech, I personally talk to so many people who are essentially opposed to it. They think that "opinions that disturb the peace" should silenced. These are mostly Centrist and Left folks naturally. When I in turn ask if they also think that the "socially disturbing opinions" of the abolitionists or civil rights leaders should have been forcibly crushed, they get a little squirmy.

    Speech restrictions always reflect the power dynamic, and so the types of speech which are restricted certainly put to the lie the idea of supposed limitless power of white males.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @unit472, @Mr. Rational

    If the Dems. were supposedly clearly masterminding a massive voting fraud machine why did Trump and the Republicans do nothing concrete to stop or slow it down?

    If your goal is to prosecute criminals, you don’t stop them from committing the crime.  You let them do it, THEN arrest them.

  49. @Barbarossa
    @obwandiyag

    The "free market" has always been a fiction as there is no such thing, except in libertarian theoryverse. It seems to me that libertarians are right up there with Marxists in terms of delusional theorizing unmoored from reality.

    Government will tip the scales one way or another by action or lack of action. You can for example, promote small scale citizen farmers as was once the case, or massive debt bound agribusiness. The former is much preferable to me, but is to opposite of what has been government policy for decades.

    The best part is that in a "free market" mythology any bad outcomes are just due to impersonal and godlike "market forces". Sorry folks!

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Why are you even responding to Ol’ Windy Bag?  Don’t feed the troll; put him on ignore.

  50. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions.
     
    “They are private companies, they can do what they want” ceased to be a viable position decades ago. The fact that so many conservatives still believe such nonsense that is a large part of the explanation of why things got to be in such a mess.

    These private companies have total control of all political discourse. They effectively control all public political discourse. They can effectively silence all dissent.

    That should never have been allowed to happen. There is no need for liberals to abolish the First Amendment. It has already been abolished in practice. And conservatives did nothing to stop this from happening.

    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like "we need to build alternative platforms" which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.

    Conservatives and libertarians have actually done more harm than liberals by clinging to such hopelessly naïve and silly ideas.
    Huge corporations have been allowed to establish what are in practice monopolies - monopolies that control all political debate.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund

    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like “we need to build alternative platforms” which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.

    What do you call Gab and Castalia House, then?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mr. Rational



    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like “we need to build alternative platforms” which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.
     
    What do you call Gab and Castalia House, then?
     
    I call them irrelevant fringe outlets. What do you call them?

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  51. @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom


    The Rightists who oppose censorship only do so because they’re not currently the ones with the power to do the censoring. If they were the ones with the power they’d be in favour of censorship as well.
     
    Only thing is, that wasn't the case. Exhibit A is American history. It was a conservative country until the middle 1960s. Where was this disrespect for freedom of speech before and during that whole turbulent era? Freedom of speech is proscribed in Amendment I of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, a document that was adhered to a lot better back in the day.

    There were laws against pornography, but I don't think that's what most people are concerned with here. Oh, Joe McCarthy!! Joe McCarthy!! Is that all you got? (Not you personally, DforDoom.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    There were laws against pornography, but I don’t think that’s what most people are concerned with here. Oh, Joe McCarthy!! Joe McCarthy!! Is that all you got? (Not you personally, DforDoom.)

    I’m a free speech absolutist so I suspect we’re actually basically on the same page as far as this issue is concerned. My view of freedom of speech is like my view of pregnancy. Either you’re pregnant or you’re not. Either you have freedom of speech or you don’t. If you make any exceptions at all (even for pornography) then you don’t have freedom of speech.

    The only area where we probably differ is that I’m sceptical as to whether free speech absolutism has ever had much support. I suspect that most people, even Americans, even Americans in the 1950s, have not been prepared to support free speech absolutism.

    I like freedom of speech but when it comes to the crunch I think most people don’t really want it and never did.

    And it has to be accepted that there’s a price to be paid for freedom of speech. You have to be prepared to accept people’s rights to express some very crazy and unpleasant opinions, and you have to be prepared to tolerate pornography.

    It’s also very awkward for a political movement. If you look at far right political groupings they attract a lot of people with very crazy and unpleasant opinions which do those groupings an immense amount of harm. And if you look at Unz Review it attracts a lot of people with the kinds of crazy and unpleasant opinions that will almost certainly eventually get it shut down.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom


    I’m sceptical as to whether free speech absolutism has ever had much support.
     
    Agreed. Prof. David van Mill, has a nice article here:
    “The first thing to note in any sensible discussion of freedom of speech is that it will have to be limited. Every society places some limits on the exercise of speech because it always takes place within a context of competing values.”
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

    Can/should we consider absolute free speech to be in the same useful “hypothetical” or “for-argument’s-sake” category as libertarianism? 🤔

    Peace.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom


    If you look at far right political groupings they attract a lot of people with very crazy and unpleasant opinions
     
    The reality is simply that you are a free-speech absolutist who shares the same biases and propagandization as the mainstream censors. I don't agree with a whites-only state or that women should stay home or that Jews are responsible for our problems, but none of these are transparently crazy or particularly unpleasant opinions. The people who advocating for genocides or something are such a minority that your invoking them is a joke.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    My own comparison is to sexual activity in general. If you choose to have sex with someone who won't give consent (rapists) or cannot give consent (pedophiles), then the law can come down on you like a shower of bricks. Same if you violate the rights of others by taking your activities public, where for the bottom 95% of people in terms of looks, nobody wants to see THAT. Similarly, if you intend to hurt other people or damage their property in the guise of free speech, then you land in a jail cell, and if you plan on blocking the roads to prevent people from getting to work, you are fair game, IMO.

    Beyond that? Your own affair. The subject matter is completely irrelevant.

    As any policeman worth his salt will tell you, people can get aroused by all kinds of bizarre things, so orienting law around that can get pretty unwieldy, pretty quick. Same concept here: you have to make your peace with some nut caring about something you don't give a crap about or even find offensive. It's the price we pay so that you can do the same.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  52. Man, that is disappointing to see. What is wrong with people?

  53. @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like “we need to build alternative platforms” which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.
     
    What do you call Gab and Castalia House, then?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like “we need to build alternative platforms” which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.

    What do you call Gab and Castalia House, then?

    I call them irrelevant fringe outlets. What do you call them?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    What do you call them?
     
    Information outlets growing at lightning speed, while their competitors shoot themselves in the foot (converged publishers) or are deplatformed (Parler).

    Replies: @dfordoom

  54. @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle
    Who gives to squats if Twitter or Facebook censor speech.

    Why anyone uses those spyware/malware services is beyond me.

    I was commenting on Zero Hedge for ten years and they finally de-platformed me. I suspect it was because I have ad blockers and anti-tracking in place.

    But, they had been de-platforming account holders even in the early years. I remember when somebody back in 2009 used the "N" word in a comment and a lot of Karens came out of the woodwork demanding that their account be canceled. Which it was cause I never saw comments under that handle again. Then along came Frances Sawyer with his anti-geu rhetoric and they spent the better part of year trying to cancel him. He came back under new aliases but was canceled each time and eventually gave up.

    Then for some reason comments were opened up again and people went wild with just about everything. Then last year they decided to cancel my ability to comment but, they still allowed me to log in to my account. How generous of them.

    Their site was pretty much going to shiite anyway and it seems the comments were being overwhelmed by morons. And, without ad-blockers it was virtually unreadable with ads just about every other paragraph. I'm amazed they haven't yet figured out how to place ads between comments.

    I said no biggie and just walked away and haven't looked back. A lot of their content was turning to shiite along with the majority of their commenters.

    What I don't get is how ZH still gets ad revenue even though their content and comments are off the accepted PC reservation.

    I suspect once Joe Biden, the best President Chinese money can buy, assumes office they'll pass new Hate Speech laws banning a lot of content on UR. And, we can assume anyone that challenges the Constitutionality of the new law will be told they have no standing.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Holy crap, that brings back some memories, MSPH! The name Francis Sawyer especially did. There were some GREAT commenters on ZH back in ’11-14 or so. They didn’t seem to screen anything out back then. The posts were mostly on financial matters, and the commenters seemed to know their stuff in that area.

    You are quite right about the usability of the current Zerohedge being terrible. People tell me “install adblocker”, etc., but I have used work computers that are supposed to handle all that, and the pages will still move around like Mexican jumping beans for 2 minutes before I can read anything. I’ve had browsers crashed from ZH many times. Then the comments must be opened separately, which isn’t too bad, but you have to then mash “Read More” all the time. To hell with Zerohedge.

    If you can tell us, did you use this same handle there? Do you remember a guy named Johnny Bravo who’d argue against the gold bugs? Finally, he said if gold went over $1,200/oz he’d quit commenting. It did, and he did.

  55. @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    There were laws against pornography, but I don’t think that’s what most people are concerned with here. Oh, Joe McCarthy!! Joe McCarthy!! Is that all you got? (Not you personally, DforDoom.)
     
    I'm a free speech absolutist so I suspect we're actually basically on the same page as far as this issue is concerned. My view of freedom of speech is like my view of pregnancy. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. If you make any exceptions at all (even for pornography) then you don't have freedom of speech.

    The only area where we probably differ is that I'm sceptical as to whether free speech absolutism has ever had much support. I suspect that most people, even Americans, even Americans in the 1950s, have not been prepared to support free speech absolutism.

    I like freedom of speech but when it comes to the crunch I think most people don't really want it and never did.

    And it has to be accepted that there's a price to be paid for freedom of speech. You have to be prepared to accept people's rights to express some very crazy and unpleasant opinions, and you have to be prepared to tolerate pornography.

    It's also very awkward for a political movement. If you look at far right political groupings they attract a lot of people with very crazy and unpleasant opinions which do those groupings an immense amount of harm. And if you look at Unz Review it attracts a lot of people with the kinds of crazy and unpleasant opinions that will almost certainly eventually get it shut down.

    Replies: @Talha, @Chrisnonymous, @nebulafox

    I’m sceptical as to whether free speech absolutism has ever had much support.

    Agreed. Prof. David van Mill, has a nice article here:
    “The first thing to note in any sensible discussion of freedom of speech is that it will have to be limited. Every society places some limits on the exercise of speech because it always takes place within a context of competing values.”
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

    Can/should we consider absolute free speech to be in the same useful “hypothetical” or “for-argument’s-sake” category as libertarianism? 🤔

    Peace.

  56. Kid you not, this is a real screenshot for how something showed up for me in Twitter:

    Apparently, informing people they may have to settle for less galaxies than they would presumably like is something they might be triggered by. 🤨

    Peace.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  57. @dfordoom
    @Mr. Rational



    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like “we need to build alternative platforms” which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.
     
    What do you call Gab and Castalia House, then?
     
    I call them irrelevant fringe outlets. What do you call them?

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    What do you call them?

    Information outlets growing at lightning speed, while their competitors shoot themselves in the foot (converged publishers) or are deplatformed (Parler).

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mr. Rational



    What do you call them?
     
    Information outlets growing at lightning speed
     
    It would be lovely to believe that the plucky little guy can take on the big boys and win. I don't believe it will happen.

    Have you read Ilana Mercer's latest post, Locked Down and Locked Out: First the State, Then Silicon Valley, right here on Unz Review? She has some extremely interesting things to say about Big Tech (which she prefers to call Deep Tech). It's well worth reading. I have no idea if the link will work - I'm having major issues with Unz Review at the moment.

    https://www.unz.com/imercer/locked-down-and-locked-out-first-the-state-then-silicon-valley/
  58. @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    What do you call them?
     
    Information outlets growing at lightning speed, while their competitors shoot themselves in the foot (converged publishers) or are deplatformed (Parler).

    Replies: @dfordoom

    What do you call them?

    Information outlets growing at lightning speed

    It would be lovely to believe that the plucky little guy can take on the big boys and win. I don’t believe it will happen.

    Have you read Ilana Mercer’s latest post, Locked Down and Locked Out: First the State, Then Silicon Valley, right here on Unz Review? She has some extremely interesting things to say about Big Tech (which she prefers to call Deep Tech). It’s well worth reading. I have no idea if the link will work – I’m having major issues with Unz Review at the moment.

    https://www.unz.com/imercer/locked-down-and-locked-out-first-the-state-then-silicon-valley/

  59. @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment,

    Please define this term in historical context: "Company store". You may use any resources you need, including Tennessee Ernie Ford.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Please define this term in historical context: “Company store”.

    As far as I know, a company store is a (presumably overpriced) retailer with a monopoly in a company town. In some instances if I recall, employees were paid partly (or wholly?) in vouchers only the company store would redeem.

    I don’t really know a lot about it. Is there some specific point to which you would like me to attend?

    • Replies: @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don’t really know a lot about it. Is there some specific point to which you would like me to attend?

    The "private company" aspect of the company store.

    You wrote: even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment,

    The "private company" in some coal towns owned everything; the store, the housing, the hospital, the school building, everything. This caused some problems. You should be able to puzzle out why and how.

    Do you see any parallel to certain private companies now? Where has the "pro-private-company" mindset led us? How is it working out?

    Replies: @dfordoom

  60. @Paperback Writer
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet.

     

    They would be doing us a favor.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet.

    They would be doing us a favor.

    This is a perspective I’ve not heard before. Might be interesting. When you have some time, would you care to elaborate?

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @V. K. Ovelund

    OK, I'm only speaking about normal, sane people here. I'm not talking about crazies because crazies gonna crazy no matter what.

    Real human relationships are only created in person. Yet even normal people can be suckered into believing that virtual relationships are real. They are not. They are illusory.

    If you want change you need to create genuine in person real life social networks.

    Think of it.

  61. @Twinkie

    Tech Tyranny
     
    What hath convenience wrought?

    Disengage from big tech, as much as you can. Form meaningful human connections with those around you. Befriend your neighbors and be a part of a larger community. Go to church. Join a worthwhile local charity. If you don’t find one, found one with like-minded friends or neighbors. Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends. Set up a tea or knitting club for your daughters and their peers. And do something sweet and romantic with your spouse or special someone. Surround yourself with wholesome, productive, and authentic people and pursuits.

    Learn useful new skills and waste less time arguing with trolls and idiots online.

    You want to weaken big tech tyranny? Stop feeding the beast.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Chrisnonymous, @anon

    A lot of these suggestions are fanciful dreams of times gone past. You can’t “Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends” without inviting all kinds of pushback, regulation, liability, etc. That is why we are all here doing this dumb posting shit. All other options are slowly/speedily being taken away.

    One thing we can do is consume older technology. Read paper books purchased at used book stores. There is Asimov, for example, but my local corner bookstore in the US had copies of Carlyle in hardback, too, in addition to Shakespeare, etc. Similarly, you can keep listening to classical music without YouTube (quality is shit anyway) if you buy a CD player and buy CDs in used book stores.

    I would love to have a bourbon-drinking club that got smashed and watched based videos like Rogan interviewing Greenwald or McInnes interviewing Mcafee, or a pipe-smoking club that just stayed silent together, but I am an old-fashioned loser.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Chrisnonymous

    Well, more people just don't have friends or families or social opportunities-or any prospect of gaining them any time soon. In previous times, I'd have been an extreme outlier, maybe, but I'm increasingly not. And apparently it takes a 21st Century American bien-pensant to not figure out that long-term involuntarily isolation and grounding causes mental damage, even for genuinely asocial, introverted people.

    And that's not good. Society should really avoid producing men like me.

    One thing I do massively agree on: the value of paper, physical books. Just going through them, digesting them. They've been helping me rediscover my sanity.

    , @iffen
    @Chrisnonymous

    Almost anything can be made to sound good on paper (or in a blog comment). It doesn't have much effect on where we are going.

    , @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    One thing we can do is consume older technology. Read paper books purchased at used book stores.
     
    Yes, I agree very strongly with that.
  62. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions.
     
    “They are private companies, they can do what they want” ceased to be a viable position decades ago. The fact that so many conservatives still believe such nonsense that is a large part of the explanation of why things got to be in such a mess.

    These private companies have total control of all political discourse. They effectively control all public political discourse. They can effectively silence all dissent.

    That should never have been allowed to happen. There is no need for liberals to abolish the First Amendment. It has already been abolished in practice. And conservatives did nothing to stop this from happening.

    Conservatives cling to moronic fantasies like "we need to build alternative platforms" which is unworkable nonsense because these alternative platforms are a joke. These alternative platforms will either remain irrelevant fringe outlets or they will be crushed by the monopolists.

    Conservatives and libertarians have actually done more harm than liberals by clinging to such hopelessly naïve and silly ideas.
    Huge corporations have been allowed to establish what are in practice monopolies - monopolies that control all political debate.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund

    “They are private companies, they can do what they want” ceased to be a viable position decades ago. The fact that so many conservatives still believe such nonsense that is a large part of the explanation of why things got to be in such a mess.

    The ground of debate over the benefits of free-enterprise independence versus the detriments of private monopoly power has been thoroughly trodden. My own position in the matter is boringly intermediate, so I’ve little new to add to the debate. I did not vote for Joe Biden but, as far as I know, Biden’s view in this matter reflects my own.

    I do think that, in the United States, growing public stupidity is attached to the word socialism from both sides. To your credit, you have not mentioned the word—which is a fine word in the abstract but is increasingly abused by excitable persons who do not clearly grasp the word’s meaning. If the word is used properly, experience during living memory affords little empirical reason to believe that moderate market socialism were directly very harmful (indirect effects are debatable). On the other hand, no other system ever tried produces anything resembling the abundance of wealth the free-enterprise system produces.

    I do not really think that either of these countervailing facts should be in dispute among serious persons, but others seem to wish to dispute the facts, anyway.

  63. @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    There were laws against pornography, but I don’t think that’s what most people are concerned with here. Oh, Joe McCarthy!! Joe McCarthy!! Is that all you got? (Not you personally, DforDoom.)
     
    I'm a free speech absolutist so I suspect we're actually basically on the same page as far as this issue is concerned. My view of freedom of speech is like my view of pregnancy. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. If you make any exceptions at all (even for pornography) then you don't have freedom of speech.

    The only area where we probably differ is that I'm sceptical as to whether free speech absolutism has ever had much support. I suspect that most people, even Americans, even Americans in the 1950s, have not been prepared to support free speech absolutism.

    I like freedom of speech but when it comes to the crunch I think most people don't really want it and never did.

    And it has to be accepted that there's a price to be paid for freedom of speech. You have to be prepared to accept people's rights to express some very crazy and unpleasant opinions, and you have to be prepared to tolerate pornography.

    It's also very awkward for a political movement. If you look at far right political groupings they attract a lot of people with very crazy and unpleasant opinions which do those groupings an immense amount of harm. And if you look at Unz Review it attracts a lot of people with the kinds of crazy and unpleasant opinions that will almost certainly eventually get it shut down.

    Replies: @Talha, @Chrisnonymous, @nebulafox

    If you look at far right political groupings they attract a lot of people with very crazy and unpleasant opinions

    The reality is simply that you are a free-speech absolutist who shares the same biases and propagandization as the mainstream censors. I don’t agree with a whites-only state or that women should stay home or that Jews are responsible for our problems, but none of these are transparently crazy or particularly unpleasant opinions. The people who advocating for genocides or something are such a minority that your invoking them is a joke.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    The reality is simply that you are a free-speech absolutist who shares the same biases and propagandization as the mainstream censors.
     
    On almost every significant issue (feminism, the LGBT agenda, free trade, environmentalism, immigration, the power of Big Tech, capitalism, US imperialism) my views are pretty much the exact opposite of the biases and propagandisation of the mainstream censors.

    The people who advocating for genocides or something are such a minority that your invoking them is a joke.
     
    Tiny minorities advocating for extreme positions (such as civil war, etc) are not only going to get themselves cancelled they're going to get everybody who can be made to appear to be even vaguely associated with them cancelled and they're going to get sites such as this shut down. I think that's a problem.
  64. anonymous[190] • Disclaimer says:

    Interesting how free expression discourse goes nowadays. No reference to any of the canonical arguments (except for AE’s initial allusion to Phaedo,) – Areopagitica, On Liberty, Toleration… I don’t even hear the arguments in anybody’s own words. Has anybody been shown any of this, in, I dunno, school or anything? Do people keep this normative and ethical cultural foundation in the back of their minds? Is it so obvious and agreed we don’t have to mention it? Seems to me it all went down the memory hole. It never comes up.

    Also no apparent awareness of the supreme law of the land on the matter, Article 19 and its detailed interpretive guidance HRC General Comment 34. Even if you’d rather talk about your obsolete halfassed revoked bill of rights instead, the government tells the world that the latter is in perfect conformity with the former.

    And under the former the law is perfectly clear. The government has made a binding commitment to respect Article 19. That means they can’t censor you themselves. The government has made a binding commitment to protect Article 19. That means the government can’t let some ignoramus tech spergs censor you either. Anybody who doesn’t know that, they’re a helpless civic simpleton. Has anybody ever heard of this shit?

    Furthermore, the government has made a binding commitment to fulfill Article 19, meaning they must actively expand freedom of expression and information freedom over time. Freedom of expression is not a matter of enough or too much, it’s a greedy objective, MORE MORE MOAR!, like money is for creepy asshole Bill Gates.

    Any restrictions must be tested against the criteria of General Comment 34. For shits and grins, if you’re a fed, test classified that way. If you have a vestige of integrity, you’ll dump 99.99999% of it. You’ll see Chelsea Manning’s got it right.

    I can’t believe how brainwashed people are. The interesting question is, How did the government shitcan what the whole world knows?

    • Replies: @Curle
    @anonymous

    “ That means the government can’t let some ignoramus tech spergs censor you either.”

    Surely in a nation of 320 million people someone has seen fit to argue your claims in some state or federal action. Care to offer an citation or is that too spergy?

  65. @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie

    A lot of these suggestions are fanciful dreams of times gone past. You can't "Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends" without inviting all kinds of pushback, regulation, liability, etc. That is why we are all here doing this dumb posting shit. All other options are slowly/speedily being taken away.

    One thing we can do is consume older technology. Read paper books purchased at used book stores. There is Asimov, for example, but my local corner bookstore in the US had copies of Carlyle in hardback, too, in addition to Shakespeare, etc. Similarly, you can keep listening to classical music without YouTube (quality is shit anyway) if you buy a CD player and buy CDs in used book stores.

    I would love to have a bourbon-drinking club that got smashed and watched based videos like Rogan interviewing Greenwald or McInnes interviewing Mcafee, or a pipe-smoking club that just stayed silent together, but I am an old-fashioned loser.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @iffen, @dfordoom

    Well, more people just don’t have friends or families or social opportunities-or any prospect of gaining them any time soon. In previous times, I’d have been an extreme outlier, maybe, but I’m increasingly not. And apparently it takes a 21st Century American bien-pensant to not figure out that long-term involuntarily isolation and grounding causes mental damage, even for genuinely asocial, introverted people.

    And that’s not good. Society should really avoid producing men like me.

    One thing I do massively agree on: the value of paper, physical books. Just going through them, digesting them. They’ve been helping me rediscover my sanity.

  66. @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    There were laws against pornography, but I don’t think that’s what most people are concerned with here. Oh, Joe McCarthy!! Joe McCarthy!! Is that all you got? (Not you personally, DforDoom.)
     
    I'm a free speech absolutist so I suspect we're actually basically on the same page as far as this issue is concerned. My view of freedom of speech is like my view of pregnancy. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. If you make any exceptions at all (even for pornography) then you don't have freedom of speech.

    The only area where we probably differ is that I'm sceptical as to whether free speech absolutism has ever had much support. I suspect that most people, even Americans, even Americans in the 1950s, have not been prepared to support free speech absolutism.

    I like freedom of speech but when it comes to the crunch I think most people don't really want it and never did.

    And it has to be accepted that there's a price to be paid for freedom of speech. You have to be prepared to accept people's rights to express some very crazy and unpleasant opinions, and you have to be prepared to tolerate pornography.

    It's also very awkward for a political movement. If you look at far right political groupings they attract a lot of people with very crazy and unpleasant opinions which do those groupings an immense amount of harm. And if you look at Unz Review it attracts a lot of people with the kinds of crazy and unpleasant opinions that will almost certainly eventually get it shut down.

    Replies: @Talha, @Chrisnonymous, @nebulafox

    My own comparison is to sexual activity in general. If you choose to have sex with someone who won’t give consent (rapists) or cannot give consent (pedophiles), then the law can come down on you like a shower of bricks. Same if you violate the rights of others by taking your activities public, where for the bottom 95% of people in terms of looks, nobody wants to see THAT. Similarly, if you intend to hurt other people or damage their property in the guise of free speech, then you land in a jail cell, and if you plan on blocking the roads to prevent people from getting to work, you are fair game, IMO.

    Beyond that? Your own affair. The subject matter is completely irrelevant.

    As any policeman worth his salt will tell you, people can get aroused by all kinds of bizarre things, so orienting law around that can get pretty unwieldy, pretty quick. Same concept here: you have to make your peace with some nut caring about something you don’t give a crap about or even find offensive. It’s the price we pay so that you can do the same.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    Same concept here: you have to make your peace with some nut caring about something you don’t give a crap about or even find offensive. It’s the price we pay so that you can do the same.
     
    Sure. Look it doesn't personally bother me what opinions people express, even if I think the opinions are crazy or unpleasant. I have no personal desire to silence any opinions.

    At the moment though we have to accept that some opinions will get us cancelled or will damage any political movement to which we belong. So in the current climate people have to decide if they're prepared to take the risk of being cancelled, or of damaging their own political cause.

    Since I'm not alt-right or dissident right or a MAGAtard you could say I don't have a dog in this fight. But I am a dissident (even if I'm a dissident leftist) and if there's a major crackdown then dissidents on the left are going to get stomped just as hard as dissidents on the right, which does concern me.

    I'm not in favour of any kind of censorship but I think that some caution is required at the present time.
  67. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Paperback Writer



    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet.
     
    They would be doing us a favor.

     

    This is a perspective I've not heard before. Might be interesting. When you have some time, would you care to elaborate?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    OK, I’m only speaking about normal, sane people here. I’m not talking about crazies because crazies gonna crazy no matter what.

    Real human relationships are only created in person. Yet even normal people can be suckered into believing that virtual relationships are real. They are not. They are illusory.

    If you want change you need to create genuine in person real life social networks.

    Think of it.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  68. anon[329] • Disclaimer says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    Please define this term in historical context: “Company store”.
     
    As far as I know, a company store is a (presumably overpriced) retailer with a monopoly in a company town. In some instances if I recall, employees were paid partly (or wholly?) in vouchers only the company store would redeem.

    I don't really know a lot about it. Is there some specific point to which you would like me to attend?

    Replies: @anon

    I don’t really know a lot about it. Is there some specific point to which you would like me to attend?

    The “private company” aspect of the company store.

    You wrote: even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment,

    The “private company” in some coal towns owned everything; the store, the housing, the hospital, the school building, everything. This caused some problems. You should be able to puzzle out why and how.

    Do you see any parallel to certain private companies now? Where has the “pro-private-company” mindset led us? How is it working out?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @anon


    The “private company” in some coal towns owned everything; the store, the housing, the hospital, the school building, everything. This caused some problems. You should be able to puzzle out why and how.

    Do you see any parallel to certain private companies now? Where has the “pro-private-company” mindset led us? How is it working out?
     
    Extremely good points.
  69. @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie

    A lot of these suggestions are fanciful dreams of times gone past. You can't "Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends" without inviting all kinds of pushback, regulation, liability, etc. That is why we are all here doing this dumb posting shit. All other options are slowly/speedily being taken away.

    One thing we can do is consume older technology. Read paper books purchased at used book stores. There is Asimov, for example, but my local corner bookstore in the US had copies of Carlyle in hardback, too, in addition to Shakespeare, etc. Similarly, you can keep listening to classical music without YouTube (quality is shit anyway) if you buy a CD player and buy CDs in used book stores.

    I would love to have a bourbon-drinking club that got smashed and watched based videos like Rogan interviewing Greenwald or McInnes interviewing Mcafee, or a pipe-smoking club that just stayed silent together, but I am an old-fashioned loser.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @iffen, @dfordoom

    Almost anything can be made to sound good on paper (or in a blog comment). It doesn’t have much effect on where we are going.

  70. @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom


    If you look at far right political groupings they attract a lot of people with very crazy and unpleasant opinions
     
    The reality is simply that you are a free-speech absolutist who shares the same biases and propagandization as the mainstream censors. I don't agree with a whites-only state or that women should stay home or that Jews are responsible for our problems, but none of these are transparently crazy or particularly unpleasant opinions. The people who advocating for genocides or something are such a minority that your invoking them is a joke.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The reality is simply that you are a free-speech absolutist who shares the same biases and propagandization as the mainstream censors.

    On almost every significant issue (feminism, the LGBT agenda, free trade, environmentalism, immigration, the power of Big Tech, capitalism, US imperialism) my views are pretty much the exact opposite of the biases and propagandisation of the mainstream censors.

    The people who advocating for genocides or something are such a minority that your invoking them is a joke.

    Tiny minorities advocating for extreme positions (such as civil war, etc) are not only going to get themselves cancelled they’re going to get everybody who can be made to appear to be even vaguely associated with them cancelled and they’re going to get sites such as this shut down. I think that’s a problem.

  71. @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie

    A lot of these suggestions are fanciful dreams of times gone past. You can't "Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends" without inviting all kinds of pushback, regulation, liability, etc. That is why we are all here doing this dumb posting shit. All other options are slowly/speedily being taken away.

    One thing we can do is consume older technology. Read paper books purchased at used book stores. There is Asimov, for example, but my local corner bookstore in the US had copies of Carlyle in hardback, too, in addition to Shakespeare, etc. Similarly, you can keep listening to classical music without YouTube (quality is shit anyway) if you buy a CD player and buy CDs in used book stores.

    I would love to have a bourbon-drinking club that got smashed and watched based videos like Rogan interviewing Greenwald or McInnes interviewing Mcafee, or a pipe-smoking club that just stayed silent together, but I am an old-fashioned loser.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @iffen, @dfordoom

    One thing we can do is consume older technology. Read paper books purchased at used book stores.

    Yes, I agree very strongly with that.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  72. anon[273] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    Tech Tyranny
     
    What hath convenience wrought?

    Disengage from big tech, as much as you can. Form meaningful human connections with those around you. Befriend your neighbors and be a part of a larger community. Go to church. Join a worthwhile local charity. If you don’t find one, found one with like-minded friends or neighbors. Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends. Set up a tea or knitting club for your daughters and their peers. And do something sweet and romantic with your spouse or special someone. Surround yourself with wholesome, productive, and authentic people and pursuits.

    Learn useful new skills and waste less time arguing with trolls and idiots online.

    You want to weaken big tech tyranny? Stop feeding the beast.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute, @Chrisnonymous, @anon

    Disengage from big tech, as much as you can.

    A noble goal, but a real challenge. It takes some effort, therefore many people won’t do it. I shall explain.

    Form meaningful human connections with those around you. Befriend your neighbors and be a part of a larger community.

    Many of my neighbors are on Facebook and Pinterest a lot…in 2020 some of them stopped going out almost entirely, but kept up with each other via social media…

    Go to church.

    …most church orgs now use Facebook and maybe Instagram for communications…

    Join a worthwhile local charity. If you don’t find one, found one with like-minded friends or neighbors.

    …as do all the local charities…

    Create a shooting club or a ranger/scout troop for your children and their friends.

    …my local shooting orgs and competition groups have a web presence and are also on Facebook because that’s where “everyone else is”; unfortunately many local Scout troops are pozzed with lady “scoutmasters” who routinely comment on…Facebook…because that’s where the parents are…

    Set up a tea or knitting club for your daughters and their peers.

    …those groups exist, and they are commonly found on Instagram, Facebook and Pinterest.

    Surround yourself with wholesome, productive, and authentic people and pursuits.

    It’s not easy to convince ordinary people to turn off the social media, because convenience. I’m sort of surprised you have not noticed this.

    Families with no social media presence are kind of oddities; teenagers in those families tend to text their friends a bit more because they don’t have Facebook / Pinterest / Instagram pages. It is worth it, but it is like not having a TV in the house — odd.

    Communicating with church orgs is a bit more difficult for those who don’t do Facebook, because that’s the tool nice, middle class ladies use for communication. It’s also their primary news source, which is one reason so many of them are pozzed to some degree; Mark Zuckerberg’s hirelings tell them what is “news” and what is not, thus they are being told what to think and even believe.

    Again, I’m kind of surprised you have not noticed this.

    • Agree: dfordoom, iffen
  73. When a tiny and insignificant minority supports censorship…
    They’re just asking for it.
    The Majority will not be silent anymore.

    The crazy quilt of “minorities” is already unraveling.
    It will turn on each other when the monies run out.
    Keep printing that monopoly money.

    The more they print, the less its worth.
    A hilarious by product of the Anti-White animus.
    Less productivity, and higher debts.

  74. @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    My own comparison is to sexual activity in general. If you choose to have sex with someone who won't give consent (rapists) or cannot give consent (pedophiles), then the law can come down on you like a shower of bricks. Same if you violate the rights of others by taking your activities public, where for the bottom 95% of people in terms of looks, nobody wants to see THAT. Similarly, if you intend to hurt other people or damage their property in the guise of free speech, then you land in a jail cell, and if you plan on blocking the roads to prevent people from getting to work, you are fair game, IMO.

    Beyond that? Your own affair. The subject matter is completely irrelevant.

    As any policeman worth his salt will tell you, people can get aroused by all kinds of bizarre things, so orienting law around that can get pretty unwieldy, pretty quick. Same concept here: you have to make your peace with some nut caring about something you don't give a crap about or even find offensive. It's the price we pay so that you can do the same.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Same concept here: you have to make your peace with some nut caring about something you don’t give a crap about or even find offensive. It’s the price we pay so that you can do the same.

    Sure. Look it doesn’t personally bother me what opinions people express, even if I think the opinions are crazy or unpleasant. I have no personal desire to silence any opinions.

    At the moment though we have to accept that some opinions will get us cancelled or will damage any political movement to which we belong. So in the current climate people have to decide if they’re prepared to take the risk of being cancelled, or of damaging their own political cause.

    Since I’m not alt-right or dissident right or a MAGAtard you could say I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I am a dissident (even if I’m a dissident leftist) and if there’s a major crackdown then dissidents on the left are going to get stomped just as hard as dissidents on the right, which does concern me.

    I’m not in favour of any kind of censorship but I think that some caution is required at the present time.

  75. @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don’t really know a lot about it. Is there some specific point to which you would like me to attend?

    The "private company" aspect of the company store.

    You wrote: even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment,

    The "private company" in some coal towns owned everything; the store, the housing, the hospital, the school building, everything. This caused some problems. You should be able to puzzle out why and how.

    Do you see any parallel to certain private companies now? Where has the "pro-private-company" mindset led us? How is it working out?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The “private company” in some coal towns owned everything; the store, the housing, the hospital, the school building, everything. This caused some problems. You should be able to puzzle out why and how.

    Do you see any parallel to certain private companies now? Where has the “pro-private-company” mindset led us? How is it working out?

    Extremely good points.

  76. I don’t know if this is off-topic, but I’m guessing this is a brilliant way to throw off the Twitter algorithms (at least for now) depending on the content one is posting. Hilarious….
    https://twitter.com/StrongestP/status/1351025063173222400

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Talha

    Doh - I was wrong about how long it would take - dude got whacked! Oh well, was pretty funny while it lasted.

  77. @V. K. Ovelund
    The numbers are what they are. I will not try to explain them away, yet like @Dumbo I wonder how many respondents are merely saying, “They are private companies; they can do what they want.”

    Perhaps not very many are saying it, yet I would still like to know how many. After all, they are private companies, etc., is on its face hardly an unreasonable thing to say, even if saying it might be an error under present conditions. (As much as I loathe Twitter and Facebook and as wary as I am of Google's power, even I still almost agree with the pro-private-company sentiment, even in Twitter's, Facebook's and Google's cases. In the long run, after all, the pro-private-company instinct seems a healthy instinct for a free, modest, commercially minded people to retain.)

    I also wonder how the numbers might change if the Right were locked out hard from the Internet. What if Comcast refused to transmit your data unless you had pledged allegiance to gay miscegenation, for instance? (Wait for it. They might try.) Surely at least a few respondents would draw a distinction between one's being kicked off the dominant social and commercial platforms, on the one hand, and one's being excluded from the Internet altogether, on the other.

    Replies: @Anon, @anon, @obwandiyag, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom, @Adam Smith

    I believe strongly in private business and a private business’s right to be untouched by “government” regulation and generally left alone. However, comcast, google facebook and twitter are not private businesses or private companies. They are all publicly traded corporations. They are franchises of the so called United States by contract and incorporation. It is in the public interest and in harmony with the constitution to regulate these sorts of entities for the good of society.

    The people atop the pyramid have somehow managed to convince a large portion of the population to believe it is normal to regulate the local barber more heavily than comcast, google, facebook and twitter. Clown world is amazing.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Adam Smith

    The people atop the pyramid have somehow managed to convince a large portion of the population to believe it is normal to regulate the local barber more heavily than comcast, google, facebook and twitter.

    Comcast in particular...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast

    ...we have seen this movie before.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

    , @utu
    @Adam Smith

    "comcast, google facebook and twitter" - should be treated as public utilities. The discussion should not be about the freedom of speech but about the right of access to communication media.

    Replies: @The Soft Parade

  78. @Talha
    I don't know if this is off-topic, but I'm guessing this is a brilliant way to throw off the Twitter algorithms (at least for now) depending on the content one is posting. Hilarious....
    https://twitter.com/StrongestP/status/1351025063173222400

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha

    Doh – I was wrong about how long it would take – dude got whacked! Oh well, was pretty funny while it lasted.

  79. anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adam Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I believe strongly in private business and a private business's right to be untouched by "government" regulation and generally left alone. However, comcast, google facebook and twitter are not private businesses or private companies. They are all publicly traded corporations. They are franchises of the so called United States by contract and incorporation. It is in the public interest and in harmony with the constitution to regulate these sorts of entities for the good of society.

    The people atop the pyramid have somehow managed to convince a large portion of the population to believe it is normal to regulate the local barber more heavily than comcast, google, facebook and twitter. Clown world is amazing.

    Replies: @anon, @utu

    The people atop the pyramid have somehow managed to convince a large portion of the population to believe it is normal to regulate the local barber more heavily than comcast, google, facebook and twitter.

    Comcast in particular…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast

    …we have seen this movie before.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  80. @Adam Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I believe strongly in private business and a private business's right to be untouched by "government" regulation and generally left alone. However, comcast, google facebook and twitter are not private businesses or private companies. They are all publicly traded corporations. They are franchises of the so called United States by contract and incorporation. It is in the public interest and in harmony with the constitution to regulate these sorts of entities for the good of society.

    The people atop the pyramid have somehow managed to convince a large portion of the population to believe it is normal to regulate the local barber more heavily than comcast, google, facebook and twitter. Clown world is amazing.

    Replies: @anon, @utu

    “comcast, google facebook and twitter” – should be treated as public utilities. The discussion should not be about the freedom of speech but about the right of access to communication media.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @The Soft Parade
    @utu

    Your access theory is a good lob at a public utility, but you may be tossing a green apple.

    The modern day is loathe to get any deeper into carving a reflexive body of "forum law" than those presently used as: public forum (anything goes), limited public forum (time, place and manner), and viewpoint neutral (courthouse, police station, military base). Ostensibly provided as a public utility, one can see that upon creating the virtual forum, all will seek the "public forum" whose fundamental problem now lies in regulating those who are "preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.” Mind, a real public forum provides accountability of real people; the electronic forum is the green apple where everyone is anyone.

    So the government hauls in on the new public forum utility and says, 'We're now creating your right of access to First amend. right to express and receive information, by terms reasonably tailored under time, place and manner requirements , and you are now a "Limited Public Forum" subject to prenumbral body of law expanding upon this new phenomenon--which just incidentally--becomes laden with governmental traps causing the terms of its access to grow with each new occurrence of domestic terrorism.

    And I think we just met our pony coming back the other way. On the other hand, if you simply arrive at the meeting and share among yourselves thoughts written on flash paper for which you've also brought along a lighter, all is well with your new utility. (Its also a great experience on your second date with the right girl--as they say, where words get in the way).

  81. @JohnPlywood
    @Mario Partisan

    Yes, sex reassignment surgery had been practiced in America since the early 1900s and the general trend was to have males attempt to assume a female gender identity. This was not considered controversial and anyone who obsessed over this utterly irrelevant issue would be quickly identifed as a "kook" and socially ostracized. If they did not adjust themselves and learn to shut up about fringe elements of society, they would be taken in a police cruiser for a ride to the hospital, where they would be diagnosed with schizophrenia and locked away for the rest of their lives. And that's exactly what happens to you on Twitter when you get banned for constantly ragging on about various forms of minutia. Sensible, intelligent people are stopping you from babbling like a panhandler in front of everyone about issues that no one ever thinks or cares about.

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki, @Curle

    “ This was not considered controversial and anyone who obsessed over this utterly irrelevant issue would be quickly identifed as a “kook””

    Not a single word of this is true.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Curle

    Don't feed the troll.  You have an "Ignore" button under the "Agree" menu.

  82. @anonymous
    Interesting how free expression discourse goes nowadays. No reference to any of the canonical arguments (except for AE's initial allusion to Phaedo,) - Areopagitica, On Liberty, Toleration... I don't even hear the arguments in anybody's own words. Has anybody been shown any of this, in, I dunno, school or anything? Do people keep this normative and ethical cultural foundation in the back of their minds? Is it so obvious and agreed we don't have to mention it? Seems to me it all went down the memory hole. It never comes up.

    Also no apparent awareness of the supreme law of the land on the matter, Article 19 and its detailed interpretive guidance HRC General Comment 34. Even if you'd rather talk about your obsolete halfassed revoked bill of rights instead, the government tells the world that the latter is in perfect conformity with the former.

    And under the former the law is perfectly clear. The government has made a binding commitment to respect Article 19. That means they can't censor you themselves. The government has made a binding commitment to protect Article 19. That means the government can't let some ignoramus tech spergs censor you either. Anybody who doesn't know that, they're a helpless civic simpleton. Has anybody ever heard of this shit?

    Furthermore, the government has made a binding commitment to fulfill Article 19, meaning they must actively expand freedom of expression and information freedom over time. Freedom of expression is not a matter of enough or too much, it's a greedy objective, MORE MORE MOAR!, like money is for creepy asshole Bill Gates.

    Any restrictions must be tested against the criteria of General Comment 34. For shits and grins, if you're a fed, test classified that way. If you have a vestige of integrity, you'll dump 99.99999% of it. You'll see Chelsea Manning's got it right.

    I can't believe how brainwashed people are. The interesting question is, How did the government shitcan what the whole world knows?

    Replies: @Curle

    “ That means the government can’t let some ignoramus tech spergs censor you either.”

    Surely in a nation of 320 million people someone has seen fit to argue your claims in some state or federal action. Care to offer an citation or is that too spergy?

  83. @Curle
    @JohnPlywood

    “ This was not considered controversial and anyone who obsessed over this utterly irrelevant issue would be quickly identifed as a “kook””

    Not a single word of this is true.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Don’t feed the troll.  You have an “Ignore” button under the “Agree” menu.

  84. @Achmed E. Newman
    I really like your commentary on this one, A.E., in particular your parentheses that go along with each category of supposed badspeech. Nice!

    Now, I'm gonna go against VDare here (well, most of them, very unusual for me), all unz writers excepting Ron Paul, and about everyone else on the right. You don't want the US Government to be the arbiter of free speech. Just how does that make the situation any better? "Oh, when our guy is in we're gonna let people say this again. Ooops, he 'lost' the election. We can't say shit now, especially about how he lost the election.". That's just transferring the problem to an organization with even more power than these Big-"TECH" woke people have.

    President Trump had 4 years to push (especially the first 2, when he had an R House/Senate) for the end of the Section 230 cutout that let the internet "platforms" be seen as platforms not publishers. When did he get serious about it? About 3 weeks before the '20 election, because it got personal! What a tool. Without that, any customer of facebook could take them to court over violations of user agreements, etc.

    There are solutions, but they are not convenient, and most of the American people will favor convenience over freedom, from what I've seen. We'll see. The other option is just complete separation from these people, before it's too late and we are held together under yet another Communist regime and commiserating together in the bread and cabbage lines. "At least we'd be a united people, though, so, ya know ..."


    .


    PS: Yes, I know, the Supreme Court is a part of the US Government, but the beauty of the Constitutional Republic, is that the US Constitution is right out there, in plain English.

    Replies: @Barbarossa, @Eric Novak

    Yes, we don’t want the gov’t to be the arbiter of free speech, which is why the gov’t should force the tech companies to stop censoring on its behalf. Tech censorship is the same as Ma Bell sticking her big nose into your telephone conversations and cutting your service for conversations she doesn’t like, in the 1920s. Gov’t enforcement of free speech is not gov’t censorship.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Eric Novak

    Respectfully, you don't get it, Mr. Novak. When the US government decides "yes, arranging violent riots to be held in Portland, Oregon on Twitter is most certainly A-OK, but, no, saying you like Trump is inciting violence" you'll understand. It can be just as biased. Have you ever dealt with people from the government? They don't come across to me like the guy Soloman from the Bible.

    What the US Government could (have, if Trump had done something 4 freakin' years ago) do is not keep that cut-out that is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That gives a waiver to these software tech companies so that they can't be sued for acting arbitrarily as the are "platforms" rather than "publishers". Except for, they ARE publishers if they lean one way or the other. A user should be able to bring a lawsuit. 10 million users should bring lawsuits!

  85. Looking at how the American experiment was corrupted and destroyed it has to be recognized that free-speech for subversives and aliens was a very significant factor. Our history could be used as exhibit A illustrating the wisdom expressed by Socrates in The Republic. I think of it now as a sort of power-vacuum, if the people in a society abdicate their power over the expression of ideas , especially those taught to their children, someone else will come in and do it for them.

  86. @Eric Novak
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, we don’t want the gov’t to be the arbiter of free speech, which is why the gov’t should force the tech companies to stop censoring on its behalf. Tech censorship is the same as Ma Bell sticking her big nose into your telephone conversations and cutting your service for conversations she doesn’t like, in the 1920s. Gov’t enforcement of free speech is not gov’t censorship.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Respectfully, you don’t get it, Mr. Novak. When the US government decides “yes, arranging violent riots to be held in Portland, Oregon on Twitter is most certainly A-OK, but, no, saying you like Trump is inciting violence” you’ll understand. It can be just as biased. Have you ever dealt with people from the government? They don’t come across to me like the guy Soloman from the Bible.

    What the US Government could (have, if Trump had done something 4 freakin’ years ago) do is not keep that cut-out that is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That gives a waiver to these software tech companies so that they can’t be sued for acting arbitrarily as the are “platforms” rather than “publishers”. Except for, they ARE publishers if they lean one way or the other. A user should be able to bring a lawsuit. 10 million users should bring lawsuits!

  87. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    Off-topic, and a bit galling coming from one who always say not to trust polls at all, but would anyone here know where to find stats vis-a-vis the rates of vegetarianism, veganism, and support for animal rights and various positions related thereto, among the general population in western countries, the general Hindu population in India, the general Hindu population in western countries, and the non-Hindu children of Hindu immigrants, as well as the prevalence of believing/practicing Hindus among the latter two groups?

    I have a hypothesis that the descendants of Hindus in western countries will ditch Hinduism, retain vegetarianism, and embrace animal rights as a replacement justification. This would have broader sociological implications: what other political ideas have gained popularity among immigrant groups clashing with modernity and seeking to retain their traditional folkways?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    I have a hunch that eating animals will be viewed in the future like the current zeitgeist views people who supported slavery centuries ago, used to demean and destroy the figures of the past to make way for the figures of the future.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  88. @DanHessinMD
    I don't know if it is a glimmer of a white pill but people in this survey overwhelmingly think election fraud occurred. All types.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Bearer of bad news, those sections are only among a subset who say they think election fraud occurred.

  89. @Supply and Demand
    White men with no degree want to spout uninformed opinions on things without consequences. Too bad, I guess.

    They are consistently proving themselves to be the Groids of White people.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Are there consequences for blacks who spout uninformed opinions on things?

    • Replies: @The Soft Parade
    @Audacious Epigone


    Are there consequences for blacks who spout uninformed opinions on things?
     
    Indeed. It's known as having the mind of an obwandiyag. Being a void of the pre-frontal cortex whose rudimental function consists of employing large words driven by petty delusions of synaptial equality.
  90. @utu
    @Adam Smith

    "comcast, google facebook and twitter" - should be treated as public utilities. The discussion should not be about the freedom of speech but about the right of access to communication media.

    Replies: @The Soft Parade

    Your access theory is a good lob at a public utility, but you may be tossing a green apple.

    The modern day is loathe to get any deeper into carving a reflexive body of “forum law” than those presently used as: public forum (anything goes), limited public forum (time, place and manner), and viewpoint neutral (courthouse, police station, military base). Ostensibly provided as a public utility, one can see that upon creating the virtual forum, all will seek the “public forum” whose fundamental problem now lies in regulating those who are “preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.” Mind, a real public forum provides accountability of real people; the electronic forum is the green apple where everyone is anyone.

    So the government hauls in on the new public forum utility and says, ‘We’re now creating your right of access to First amend. right to express and receive information, by terms reasonably tailored under time, place and manner requirements , and you are now a “Limited Public Forum” subject to prenumbral body of law expanding upon this new phenomenon–which just incidentally–becomes laden with governmental traps causing the terms of its access to grow with each new occurrence of domestic terrorism.

    And I think we just met our pony coming back the other way. On the other hand, if you simply arrive at the meeting and share among yourselves thoughts written on flash paper for which you’ve also brought along a lighter, all is well with your new utility. (Its also a great experience on your second date with the right girl–as they say, where words get in the way).

  91. @Audacious Epigone
    @Supply and Demand

    Are there consequences for blacks who spout uninformed opinions on things?

    Replies: @The Soft Parade

    Are there consequences for blacks who spout uninformed opinions on things?

    Indeed. It’s known as having the mind of an obwandiyag. Being a void of the pre-frontal cortex whose rudimental function consists of employing large words driven by petty delusions of synaptial equality.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS