Parler, Big Tech, Debate on Online Speech

[dada]

I love how all the cuss words are "bleeped out" like the FCC is calling the shots on the Internet. That at the same time, the article is making a good case against censorship and thought control, while showing clearly the effects of battles we have lost and continue to lose against it. Lenny Bruce died so you can curse freely, you know. And Carlin is rolling in his grave.

[thrulookingglass]

And on that note...

Fuck Parler!

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Fuck Big Tech.

What the Fuck did Parler do, exactly? What sort of BS regurgitation would you spew that wouldn't expose you as a dutiful tool swallower of BS prevailing narratives?

What did Parler reportedly do, or facilitate, that Twitter or Facebook hasn't already -- and continues -- to facilitate many times over?

Please illuminate me.

[dada]

Fuck social media. Has there ever been a bigger waste of time. The constrictions of the mass produced social spectacle presentation networks become constrictions of thinking. Social conformity is what gives shape to the general structure, reproduced on each specific social media platform and within each cultural and political niche or "target demographic." And of course, there is no such thing as privacy on social media. Not from the eye of sauron, at least.

So big tech is basically big gaming. For people who take their games very seriously. But it makes me think about that bitcoin, pulling power from the grid, and wonder how much power it takes to run all the social media platforms out there, from the biggest to the not so biggest, all corporate and backdoor friendly, all over the world.

So much waste, is what I'm saying. Anyway maybe the debate shouldn't be about online speech on corporate gaming platforms, but about playing better games.

Or any other game, at all. Any game is better than the social media game. Rots out your thinking skills from the inside.

[thrulookingglass]

And if these server farms ran on farts and good will would they still be anything more than the thoughts and grievances of an absent-minded delusional society mis-educated by violent war, atrocity, pillaging, stealing, and generally treating one another like shit? Privatized wealth is immoral. Disinformation (aka lies) reaps an indelicate deranged civilization. Knowledge is power they say...corrupting it is how indefensible servitude is produced.

[dada]

Yes, the social media game is the worst kind of game, like a wasting disease of the thinking mind. All the power it takes to run is really just added waste on top of that.

Just was thinking about it in that way, because of the conversation about bitcoin's power sucking needs. Keeping on this line, really the Internet itself would be in the running for biggest electrical waster in the world, and so right up there with the other sources of ecological destruction.

But we need the Internet for the biggest game of all, commerce. So what's a little ecological destruction. Nothing new, that's for sure. Just faster.

But to return to the social media game, the multiplayer online status update sport and role playing adventure for a mass produced game and watch culture. The innovative attention-grabbing, attention-holding production-consumption model of the game allows the player to both produce and consume mass culture product simultaneously.

The goal of the hardcore social media game player is then to entrain themselves to the mass production of consumption, hopefully getting on the follow like love reshare scoreboards for top tier trending viewership ranking of consumer reproduction. It starts to look to the discerning consumer player, though, as if "Society of the Spectacle, the Game" would be a good name for the franchise.

[thrulookingglass]

Before our monstrous entanglement of fiber optics, microwave transmissions, and great lengths of copper it was television, radio, print, scrolls passed about in the desert. The Masons became a guild by keeping their knowledge of math from the "swarthy masses" sealed with a secret handshake so you knew you were dealing with a real professional. When the Hebrew say, "change not a jot, not a tittle" in reproducing scripture this is the phrase used for young men learning their sacred language. Reproduce without error. Proprietary information. Intellectual Property. Copyrights. Does it matter the medium or what is exchanged? As far as ecology, the world's militaries are said to be the worst polluters and I would state the spoilage they create goes a long way further than spent fuel rods, belched combustion, and spent munitions. The mind-set of rule through violence must be abolished. It's all energy right? Its what you do with it that counts. Capital obscures the purpose of manufacture. We are all made from this Earth. All of us. She asks that we love her. What a tall request in the valley of the kings.

Communications was vital to the militaries. No wonder they own the whole shooting match.

Get me a runner!

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Worth moving this to the current page, despite the fucking censoring of the fucking foul language. The youtube clip is (fucking) uncensored, FYI.

.

Insidious, indeed.

Video: Roger Waters Tells “Little Prick” Zuckerberg To “F*** Off” Following Request To Use Iconic Pink Floyd Song For Ad

Pink Floyd song writer Roger Waters slammed Mark Zuckerberg during a press conference recently, announcing that the Facebook owner had offered a “huge, huge amount of money” to use the iconic song Another Brick In The Wall Part II in an advert for Instagram.

Speaking at an event to raise awareness about imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Waters noted the deep deep irony of Facebook wanting to buy and use a song that rails against ‘thought control’ and mindless conformity.

Waters described the development as part of Zuckerberg’s “insidious movement… to take over absolutely everything.”

Waters read out Facebook’s request, which noted “We want to thank you for considering this project. We feel that the core sentiment of this song is still so prevalent and so necessary today, which speaks to how timeless the work is.”

“And yet, they want to use it to make Facebook and Instagram more powerful than it already is,” Waters urged, adding “so that it can continue to censor all of us in this room and prevent this story about Julian Assange getting out into the general public so the general public can go, ‘What? No. No More.’”

“So it’s a missive from Mark Zuckerberg to me… with an offer of a huge, huge amount of money and the answer is, ‘f**k you! No f**king way!’,” Waters boomed to rapturous applause.

“I will not be a party to this bullsh-t, Zuckerberg,” Waters added.

He then asked “How did this little pr**k, who started off going, ‘She’s pretty, we’ll give her a four out of five. She’s ugly, we’ll give her a one’… How the f**k did he get any power in anything?”

“And yet here he is, one of the most powerful idiots in the world,” Waters emphasised.

Following media attention, Waters requested trolls to pile on and call him a hypocrite for posting the video on “Zuckerberg’s crappy censored platform”:

@rogerwaters
.@petercronau, thank you for paying attention brother. Calling all trolls, come on you pricks, call me a hypocrite for posting this on Zuckerberg’s crappy censored platform @Facebook now.

Peter Cronau
@PeterCronau
"Fuck off!": says Pink Floyd’s @rogerwaters to Mark Zuckerberg.
After being offered "a large amount of money" to allow the use of ‘Another Brick in the Wall” to promote Instagram & Facebook.
Speaking at another ‘Free Assange’ forum.
@Wikileaks #Assange
#VideosLaJornada #auspol https://twitter.com/lajornadaonlin

https://twitter.com/rogerwaters/status/ ... 71024?s=20

https://summit.news/2021/06/15/video-ro ... ng-for-ad/

[dada]

I don't watch youtubes very often. Youtube pretty much falls under the category of social media game accessories.

---

I understand that tv and the rest also rot brains, but it's the participatory game-nature of social media, and Internet in general, I guess, that is different. Now people don't just consume the spectacle, they produce it as they consume it. They used to just watch what the corporations aired, now they happily work together with the corporations to create the content that is killing them.

But the scrolls weren't only passed around the desert, they were passed all along the silk road, for literal milennia. The knowledge base was not all proprietary, it was shared and collected by all with a thirst for words and ideas. During many centuries done secretly, not out of stinginess, but to protect themselves from being accused of the heresy of active, free thinking intelligence. Which happens sometimes. In certain ages, smart people get accused of witchcraft.

Not that I'm defending anyone, I just know that masons and mystical jews have not all been bad. Masons are a big group, historically, with many branches, some of them even in conflict with one another on the most basic interpretations of what the craft means. And the mystical jews may all not change the torah one smidgen, but the rabbis never agree on anything at all when it comes to interpreting it.

The militaries of the world as biggest power suckers kind of adds to the point I was making in relation to bitcoin. Now we have giant corporate industries wasting energy, the global markets wasting energy, the Internet wasting energy, and the militaries wasting most of all. And yet argument against bitcoins power wastage must ignore all that, to warp the perspective and "make the case" against it. And I guess it must be fun or enjoyable in some way that I don't get. Making the case, I mean. Because making the case, over and over again, does not stop.

I keep trying to ignore this feeling that the behavior of this board is becoming totally social mediatized. The social conformity thing is palpable. Unspoken, silence to freeze out the free thinkers. It is really all just too bad.

There's really nothing else to say about that. We are all made from this earth, but what she is actually made of is only understood by a small handfull of the billions, I'm noticing.

As for military communications, it also shows the weakness, where clever opponents have gained the upper hand, sometimes even toppling them. Meaning you use spies to learn the routes, and waylay the runners. Or if they are using torch signals on mountain tops, you only need to take one mountain, to mess up the signal chain. Or even just light a torch on the next mountain over, to confuse them.

[DrEvil]

.

Fuck Big Tech.

What the Fuck did Parler do, exactly? What sort of BS regurgitation would you spew that wouldn't expose you as a dutiful tool swallower of BS prevailing narratives?

What did Parler reportedly do, or facilitate, that Twitter or Facebook hasn't already -- and continues -- to facilitate many times over?

Please illuminate me.

Apart from just generally being a far-right cesspool, they repeatedly ignored warnings about calls to violence on their platform. They were too busy banning leftists. The Y'all Qaida putsch was just the final straw. Hosting them turned into a liability, so *poof*, they got banned (they're back online now).

Facebook and Twitter should have been taken offline for the same reasons of course, but money.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Your first paragraph is the typical establishment 'leftist' take.

Yes, Parler attracted 'right-leaning' demos, but that, by itself, is certainly no cause to take it offline or to have a visceral reaction to it. Moreover -- and this is important -- many 'right-leaning' folks were given little other option, as they were being ousted from other platforms (censored).

So demand was created and monetized. Capitalism.

Different perspectives, however distasteful to a segment of the populace, is what we 'fight' for as a nation, is that not right? At least ideally. (Clearly, this isn't the case in practice: not by govt entities, 'social media' platforms, or by the dutiful tools subscribing to divisive rhetoric, which in turn amount to promotion of censorship/fascist inclinations).

And the Capitol 'siege' (staged event) was not as marketed to the plebes. This is becoming increasingly clear with each passing month, though a few of us saw the charade for what it was as it occurred. A percentage of folks -- even here -- are still clinging to false narratives. None of these events -- including the set up of Parler as right-wing 'martyr' -- is mere happenstance.

And yes: as you allude, facebook, twitter and other social media platforms have facilitated all matter of acts benign and malevalent. Yet only Parler was temporarily ousted due to, in a word, 'money' --- and also, in part, continued optics mgmt/conditioning protocols perpetrated on the people (which have been elevated across the board since early 2020).

[JackRiddler]

Yes, Parler attracted 'right-leaning' demos, but that, by itself, is certainly no cause to take it offline or to have a visceral reaction to it.

Parler, as you presumably know, did not 'attract' a demographic but was founded intentionally as a right-wing organizing tool by the Mercers -- the same billionaire family who in 2016 took over the Trump campaign when it had failed, put Bannon in charge of it, and managed it with enough success to achieve an Electoral College victory. That is certainly a cause to have a visceral reaction.

Is it a reason to take it offline? You'd have to talk about that to the corporate Internet host who actually took it offline, Amazon. As extremist libertarians who reject all state regulation on private companies (or on their interference in politics), the Mercers have no cause for complaint when a private corporation like Amazon decides it wants to cancel their contract (which had its usual outs built into the terms of service) so as to avoid the business fallout of continuing to host them. It's exactly what the Mercers believe an Amazon should be able to do, in all other cases not involving them. In any case, they found their hosting alternative and went back online after a brief interruption.

Moreover -- and this is important -- many 'right-leaning' folks were given little other option, as they were being ousted from other platforms (censored).

Again, in keeping with their essentially corporatist beliefs about the rights of private companies to impose censorship on the platforms they own, or to do business only with customers they wish to have. As you say:

Capitalism.

Which is not only about making money, but about private owners owning things, no matter how large or small, with absolute right to their use and disposal. Something I do not unconditionally support, obviously.

Different perspectives, however distasteful to a segment of the populace, is what we 'fight' for as a nation, is that not right?

Depends what this actually means when we go beyond the anodyne generalization with its dubious first-person plural.

Do 'we' fight to protect the 'perspective' of those organizing the attempted violent overthrow of the legislative branch and rule of law (such as they are) on behalf of a president who lost the election but still seeks to seize power by a series of coup attempts?

Maybe you do. You never actually answer that point, in effect tacitly denying that this happened, even though the invitation to the coup by the sitting president was public, and his incitement and subsequent physical attempt by his militants were enacted live on television. When one mentions these details, which we all saw, you don't respond but wave off the event vaguely by comparing it to worse things that are nevertheless irrelevant to the fact that this was a criminal enterprise attempting to overthrow the legislative branch on behalf of a president who lost the election and was trying to seize power in a series of poorly-planned coup attempts, of which January 6th turned out to be the final move.

(Bolded as usual because I've repeated it 9,000 times to no substantive acknowledgment from you.)

And then you go back into said trivialization of a fascist-recruited mob acting on this president's direct public incitement:

And the Capitol 'siege' (staged event) was not as marketed to the plebes. This is becoming increasingly clear with each passing month, though a few of us saw the charade for what it was as it occurred. A percentage of folks -- even here -- are still clinging to false narratives. None of these events -- including the set up of Parler as right-wing 'martyr' -- is mere happenstance.

Language is a funny thing. It was indeed a 'staged event' -- staged by the president of the United States, who used all the public channels at his disposal to invite the crowd to his rally, promising a momentous action to save the country, a 'wild time', and who then fired them up and dispatched them to the Capitol, where they were supposed to stop the enemies of the people from staging a vote by being strong and heroic.

Staged also by the movement fascists who recruited the most militant segments of the crowd, and in part did so in easily discoverable, legal, public ways, online (as much on FB and Twitter as on the Mercers' platform). You really insult these people by calling them 'plebes' (in the conventional nowadays sense of suggesting suckers and patsies; even though there's nothing wrong with being a plebe) since they damn well knew what they were doing when they showed up with nooses and teargas and giant Trump and Confederate flags. Fascists have agency.

The attempt as you suggest also appears to have had facilitation from within the law enforcement on the scene, almost certainly thanks to orders (or lack thereof, as tactically needed) from the Trump loyalists who had been put into place in the weeks prior to perform this function; this certainly merits investigation! And if any of the facilitators were actually anti-Trump, as you seem to think, and hoped the attempt would be a disaster that could be exploited for boosting the security state, they too must be prosecuted.

And it did indeed turn out to be a 'charade', mainly because the announced attempted suspension of the U.S. presidential election by the losing candidate attracted some tens of thousands of pro-Trump militants to Washington, rather than the hoped-for millions. And so, after capturing the Capitol (with possible and in fact likely facilitation from police and other friends on the scene and behind the scenes), the insurgents used their discretion, the better part of valor, to clear the way for the National Guard, when it was finally ordered to move in. The same National Guard that, of course, would have been ordered to block any access to the Capitol and crushed any assembly no matter how rowdy or peaceful half a mile away, had they only been a crowd one-tenth the size but 30 percent more black, or to the left politically, or not invited and sanctioned by the sitting president himself.

And so, thanks mainly to the relative weakness of the popular response to the Trump-led recruitment and incitement (and I suppose thanks in part to sufficient reluctance among them to really go all the way and die in large numbers) we got a 'charade' -- the Beer Hall Putsch, rather than the Reichstag Fire.

And yes: as you allude, facebook, twitter and other social media platforms have facilitated all matter of acts benign and malevalent. Yet only Parler was temporarily ousted due to, in a word, 'money'

Again, fully in keeping with the extremist libertarian doctrine espoused by the funders of Parler (hardly the first website to be 'ousted'). And, of course, this temporary ousting did no damage to the platform, as compared to the lasting ousting by the tech-media companies (as well as the supposedly 'woke' universities and various other institutions) of many more people on the left or who are out of line with U.S. imperialism and pro-Israeli fanaticism, who don't have the special protection accorded to the fake, self-celebrating freedom-fighting 'dissidents' of the right wing, or to crusading billionaire overlords who can just go set up another host.

mgmt/conditioning protocols perpetrated on the people (which have been elevated across the board since early 2020).

The truth of this is a separate matter, and is irrelevant to this case. It does not serve as an excuse for denying or trivializing movement fascism, or the attempted Trump coup d'etat, no matter how laughably incompetent it turned out to be, on this round.

.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Yours is a take I simply can't get behind. You're giving more agency to Trump than I believe he actually has/had.

JR:
organizing the attempted violent overthrow of the legislative branch and rule of law (such as they are) on behalf of a president

To paraphrase our current mentally ill resident in the White House: Come on, man. You're still holding on to this fanciful, overly dramatic establishment narrative, eh?

We shared Trump's speech here before -- I believe in the "US Presidential Election 2020" thread. Nothing that called out "encitement" to me. Perhaps you can point out which words or phrases, specifically, suggest a call for a "coup".

There was no violence, other than the unjustifiable act perpetrated by an alleged officer, killing an alleged protester.

What we witnessed was a staged event: not the staged event you're insisting took place, but one with the likely involvement of certain letter agency operatives. This has been raised and addressed here before.


I'll add a couple excerpts previously posted -- in the Election 2020 thread -- rather than re-type my position on this.

.

JR:

Why, given how unimportant you think Jan 6 was, why are you both obsessed with continuing this trivialization and making excuses for a mob of fascists who stormed the legislature, on command from the executive, so as to overturn the election? As the final move in a coup attempt that lasted for months?

My primary thoughts are as follows:

1. I object to referring to it as a 'coup attempt'. Instead, it appears to be part of an intended misdirection; i simply do not believe a 'coup' was the true objective, though of course some of the boots on the ground -- the 'useful idiots' -- were led to believe otherwise. Also, it had very little, if any, of the markings of a legit coup attempt: no demands, no govt representative was hurt or apprehended, or threatened; no extended 'sit-in' or hostage attempts; no manifesto, etc.

We'll see how current trials for the alleged perpetrators play out. Perhaps details will emerge, but initial returns aren't promising.

2. The intel op aspect of it: immediately prior to, during, and after the event. This by itself calls into question true motives/objectives.

Also, and this is more of a 'meta' talking point: referring to the event as a 'fascist coup attempt' suggests we aren't already under a creeping fascist system. The 'coup' occured many years ago (some may theorize it kicked off in earnest when JFK was taken out; others will posit that we were never a 'democracy', other than as window dressing). Whatever any of us may believe happened that day, the notion that 'democracy" was 'under siege' seems a fanciful delusion to me. This last point alone may be the largest objection I have with the establishment framing of Jan. 6th.

And what have we observed since January? More substantive maneuvers into overt totalitarian measures and mandates for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, as kelley indicates, 'the consequences will be grasped much later'. Moot, by then.


But i'm just an informed observer here. And some may dispute my use of the word 'informed'.

Also this:
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 35#p693301


And also, in as few words as possible:
I have my doubts on the legitimacy of the results of the 2020 election. Myriad reasons for this. With each passing month it becomes more clear that Biden (or rather, the aggregate of handlers operating whatever remains of Biden) was to be the next figurehead in the White House.
Trump served his broad purpose, though he is far less manageable than preferred.
The next four years requires different strategy, given the hard push into the next 'phase' of control mechanisms (via lockdowns, digital surveillance/digital control of money, increased coercion involving human body augmentation/controls, etc.). The Biden conglomerate is all about the Build Back Better program. And more.

[JackRiddler]

.

Yours is a take I simply can't get behind. You're giving more agency to Trump than I believe he actually has/had.

JR:
organizing the attempted violent overthrow of the legislative branch and rule of law (such as they are) on behalf of a president

To paraphrase our current mentally ill resident in the White House: Come on, man. You're still holding on to this fanciful, overly dramatic establishment narrative, eh?

No. I'm still correctly assessing the actual, voluntary, published, recorded, repeated statements of Donald J. Trump, inviting the insurrection to come to Washington on January 6th and have a 'wild time' stopping the election certification vote of the Congress at the Capitol.

You are still in denial about this, and basically acting on the premise that if the 'establishment narrative' says the sun rises in the east, the 180-degree opposite is true. I'm afraid my ability to help you with this is limited.

How the 'establishment' uses the reality that, in this case, is the creation of Trump and his crew and his followers, is a legitimate matter of concern. In no way does it, as you seem to think, change the unalterable past facts of the publicly stated plans and actions of Trump, his crew, and the fascist Confederate mob who showed up to shut down the Congress on behalf of forcing Trump's election, if they could, which constitutes a coup d'etat attempt.

We shared Trump's speech here before -- I believe in the "US Presidential Election 2020" thread. Nothing that called out "encitement" to me.

That is unfortunate for you, that you have chosen blindness.

Perhaps you can point out which words or phrases, specifically, suggest a call for a "coup".

For that matter, show me where U.S. government officials ever called for coup d'etat in Venezuela. How outrageous to impute something plainly obvious in their actions and words when they did not actually describe it as a bad thing, but as restoring the proper President Guaido.

There was no violence, other than the unjustifiable act perpetrated by an alleged officer, killing an alleged protester.

This is incredibly stupid. Sorry. The stupid part is not even in the stubborn denial of the reality. The stupid part is how stupid you are expecting the rest of us to be when you say stupid shit like this.

What we witnessed was a staged event: not the staged event you're insisting took place, but one with the likely involvement of certain letter agency operatives.

Spectacularly false binary. There is no necessary contradiction between the self-evident planning and staging of the coup attempt on behalf of keeping Trump in the presidency (which included his appointed officials at letter agencies), and the possibility that it was also facilitated or encouraged by other interests as something they expected would backfire and prove useful for other agendas.

I'll add a couple excerpts previously posted -- in the Election 2020 thread -- rather than re-type my position on this.

Please don't feel a need to bother with this bullshit. You're better than this.

Oh wait, you did... sorry. Well, the discussion was had there. You brought some of it in here. I will definitely be copy-pasting my above post henceforth, except for the mindboggingly low probability that you might actually say something new on this oft-repeated saw that, effectively, regardless of intent, apologizes for political movement fascists violently seizing a parliament (carrying nooses and screaming death-threats against specific persons) in an attempt to overturn an election that their leader had lost.

.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I meant to clarify/amend a prior point: Trump is quite skilled at incitement, broadly -- he incites both his 'fan base' and those in passionate opposition to whatever they believe he represents (indeed, this latter demo strongly objected to his very existence as a resident in the White House). He was an uber troll; quite capable of stirring sentiment.

As such, i've no problem acknowledging, as I already did in the portion i quoted from a prior posting of mine, that he inspired the useful idiots among the crowd. But he was far from alone in manipulation/suggestion tactics employed leading up to, during, and after that event.

And the Jan. 6 event wasn't undertaken for the reasons you indicate, though of course it was presented that way overtly -- as with most events like this, there is the overt presentation (and subsequent reinforcement of said presentation by the media/govt), and then the underlying/hidden drivers.

We've been observing years-long, though recently higher frequency, stoking of divisive rhetoric -- divide and conquer operations, to put simply -- which, among many benefits to the very few, misdirect attention away from the key drivers of subjugation, and the commonality among those manipulated to fight/hate each other (namely: the people are together as part of the working/labor/diminished middle classes, and should rightly be organizing together, en masse, against their oppressors. Oppressors on both sides of the illusory aisle. Instead, they are driven apart and kept distracted from the key drivers of inequity, to the benefit of the very few).

I'll add more later, perhaps, to more directly address your response.