New social media platforms can't become large unless they collaborate with existing power structures. When they collaborate with existing power structures they begin censoring. The whole system is rigged to funnel human communication en masse into censorship by the powerful.
You hear free market types saying if people don't like big tech censorship they should just start their own social media corporation to compete with it. People have tried that, and always failed, because they don't collaborate with existing power structures. It doesn't work.
There is no free market solution to the problem of internet censorship, because monopolistic tech companies which funnel all online communication into themselves are much too valuable to the powerful. They're not going to let competitors just take away their most prized assets.
Which means what exactly? You've got a small fringe platform that nobody in the mainstream ever uses. Elites don't care about that. They're happy for dissident ideas to be quarantined in obscure fringe platforms that everyone ignores.
The most powerful government on earth has still yet to have a single presidential election that doesn’t feature a prominent candidate who supported one of the most evil things that government has ever done.
Yet there have been no consequences for it. No real changes of any kind were made to American military, governmental, political or media institutions to ensure that a similar atrocity never happens again,
How Did People Have Conversations Back Before Tech Oligarchs Were There To Police Them?
"Rollouts of corporate & state power collaborating to control speech are not a response to a threat to democracy, they’re a response to a threat to narrative control." medium.com/@caityjohnston…
Twitter has announced the rollout of even more censorship policies in the lead-up to the November US presidential election. “Credible information” here means information from the same mass media outlets who’ve lied to us about every American war.
There aren't many arguments for supporting Biden that I can respect, but his pledge to end US support for the mass atrocities in Yemen while Trump vetoes congressional attempts to do so is one of them.
Irrelevant. The one who says he'll stop facilitating the single worst mass atrocity in the world has an innately superior position in this area than the one who openly vetoes attempts to do so. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but he's better on Yemen.
At the very least it's hard to imagine Biden being WORSE than Trump on Yemen. I have a hard time imagining him vetoing a congressional attempt to end US backing for Saudi butchery there.
Our society is set up to elevate the most miserable and dysfunctional people to the highest positions of influence, which results in their misery and dysfunction being efficiently spread around the world. medium.com/@caityjohnston…
“We are led by the least among us — the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.”
~ Terence McKenna
The term “super-spreader” has been popping up a lot in mainstream news media in reference to President Trump and his habit of hosting of events without social distancing precautions.
Free Assange,
because the world is growing darker
as the bastards flick the lights off
one by one.
Free Assange,
because the sky is filling with death machines
as mothers weep over small tattered bodies
and the news man talks about rude tweets.
Free Assange,
because they are taking everything from us
and we are becoming voiceless, mindless gear turners
who can only argue about who to bomb next.