AP versus Twitter, Facebook, YouTube: Was Re: Censorship: Twitter Hauled In for Pro-Biden Anti-Trump, YouTube Bans Coronavirus, QAnon, PizzaGate

[jim bell]

On Friday, October 16, 2020, 08:11:32 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote: 

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:30:05AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
>  On Friday, October 16, 2020, 01:55:45 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
>  
>  On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:27:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> >> https://attackthesystem.com/2020/10/15/facebook-twitter-declare-war-with-censorship-of-hunter-biden-story/#comment-330341
> >> https://youtu.be/fdCLjW-_uwg          Saager Enjeti and Krystal Ball                 

[snip]

> >I would have thought "preservation of self's liberty" would have struck you clearly by now :/
>> Ha ha ?    I am assuming you intended that somewhat humorously...    That
>> could be a factor, but too many people these days (in common political
>> discourse) denounce each other, to make what I say all that out of the
>> ordinary.  I've long pointed out that I won't be the one implementing AP, for
>>example.   

>Sorry I was unclear - was not denouncing you (no intention to at least), but cautioning you.

>You did a butt load of years in jail already, and it just seems to me that you have not quite understood the lesson.

One lesson I learned was a Supreme Court case named Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

>From that decision:

 "Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who 'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform'; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who 'justify' the commission of violent acts 'with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism'; or who 'voluntarily assemble' with a group formed 'to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.' Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.3 "     [end of quote]


Did I:        'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform';   ?






> If we compare the political environment of 1995 and 2020, the 'Overton
> window'   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window  of AP could have been
> seen as "unthinkable" in 1995, but in today's wacky reality, it could easily
> be seen as "acceptable" or even "sensible".  

Possibly.  That's a good way to put it at least...


> Rather early (1995-1997, 2000), and occasionally, a few people would declare
> my AP essay 'right-wing'.  Initially I thought that opinion to be very odd,
> especially because at that time, my impression was that few 'right-wingers'
> called for the complete elimination (and not merely "overthrow", implying
> that government was supposed to be replaced with something else, that
> something else which was fated to be about as oppressive) of every government
> on the face of the Earth. 

>Indeed, still to this day.

>And even more clearly in today's North America, it is plain to see that The Left appears willing, ready and wanting such a direction, "we need guillotines in the streets" level of wanting.

I'm well aware that 'the Left' can abuse the AP system, too.  But I think they will mostly fail at trying to achieve what THEY want to, using the AP systems. (I'm not implying that 'the Right' is all that much better!  <sigh>)   Mostly, the Left likes to build up powerful, controlling systems.  AP preferentially destroys government-type systems.  


[snip]
> That's absolutely correct.  I didn't mean to suggest that this is new!  Far
> from it!   While I have had a Facebook account for years, I almost never use
> it, so I don't experience any of the censorship.  But I know people who DO
> heavily use Facebook for political discussions, and they have been relating
> increasingly-outrageous examples of anti-conservative (and anti-libertarian)
> censorship over the last few years.  
>
> But I think Facebook's and Twitter's treatment of this new story about Joe
> and Hunter Biden did not merely 'cross the line', really it 'pole-vaulted'
> (or even 'jet-packed' !) far over it!  Actually trying to SUPPRESS this
> story?   What do they think they will actually accomplish, here?   Have they
> ever heard of the 'Streisand Effect' ?

> :D

>They appear to be what Lady McLuscious might call "visual learners" :D

Ha ha!


>> Is it really so implausible that Joe Biden would engage in corruption in
>> 2015?   Even as early as 2009, he 'knew' that he would not be the tapped for
>> the Presidential candidacy in 2016, since it was "Hillary's turn!" !  The
>> death of his other son, Beau, was simply used as an excuse for why he
>> wouldn't run.  He fully expected to be permanently retired in 2017.  So,
>> using his son Hunter as the bag-man for that $3 million payoff was perfectly
>> logical, in a weird sort of way.  

>Not even wierd, simply standard (illegal) corrupt nepotism, on the taxpayer's dime.  Note Trump, the only US president to have his net worth go backwards whilst in office..

I wonder about that Durham!   Does he think his "job" is to DELAY prosecutions until AFTER the upcoming election?  


>> >On the other hand, an alternative, this time P2P, social media non-platform, may well solve this problem.
>
>> We can hope!  Especially given the "Overton Window" change, and today's
>> amazing environment!  Even 10 years ago, it would have been hard to
>> anticipate the kind of frenzied blinding hostility being displayed, daily. 
>> SOME people might have argued about AP, in 1995 (disingenuously even then, I
>> believe), that "Who hates other people so much as to donate money to see them
>> killed!".   Well, in 2020, just about everything has changed.  

>Indeed, and this is a classic example of the type of world I want to NOT live in, where the loonatic lefty mob is literally empowered (in 2020, by Democrat city mayors all over the USA) to commit horrific and broad scale crimes of arson, theft and murder - just imagine AP having been thrown into this mix?

But like I said, above, AP is "biased against" governmental systems.  "Lefty mobs" won't work well unless they have powerful lefty governments to back them up.  


>> It COULD have been almost purely a good thing when the "town-square"
>>discussions of the 1790-to-mid-1900's period got migrated to the Internet,
>> mostly beginning 1995.  (I'm not intending to forget platforms like
>> Compuserve and BBS's, of course.)   People with obscure hobbies that no-one
>> within a mile of their own home practices, now can compare notes around the
>> world.   But I think that has been ruined in the last few years, at least for
>> political-type discussions.  

>It's the centralisation, of power, of control over speech, that is the problem.  We must maintain, over the long term, the intention to decentralise everything - networks, storage, comms, defence distributed, holding of foundational principles (knowledge, education, morals, rights).

To the extent that's possible.  One of the big reasons I view the Starlink system as POTENTIALLY a major step forward  (without, currently, a guarantee...) is that not only does it give "everybody" one more source of Internet,  but it provides the prospect of de-linking any government control over a country's ISPs.  Provide Internet to India in a way that the government can't obstruct?  Quite possibly.  Wireline (or fiber) Internet can be seized by government at a moment's notice.  They MUST comply.  


>If one "leader" falls in one locality, there must be 10 to immediately replace him, each holding a similar set of principles, a similar vigilant demand for "distributed open everything".

>Those who -will- not stand do not deserve freedom.


> YouTube's banning of QANON discussions is a further example of PC idiocy, and

And Streissand..

>> even pointlessness. While I've paid essentially no attention to any QANON
>> content (merely reading the frequent references to them in news), I see
>> nothing at all to justify obstructing people from exchanging what others see
>> as implausible opinions.   Does any major platform ban discussion of UFO's? 
>> Alien abductions?  "Flat Earth"?  Ghosts?  Astrology?  Crop circles?   Why
>> would they?

>Yes, and as a consequence, the QAnon "conspiracy" becomes every more plausible since it appears "the hat fits" and those in power and shirting themselves... whereas UFO discussions of course would not bother them personally.

Their weird treatment of Weinstein, Epstein, Kevin Spacey, and even Joe Biden is so plain to see.   

>Gotta admit, they seem rather dim witted (low IQ individuals).


>> For that matter, if they are taking the position that ideas THEY DON'T AGREE
>> WITH should be obstructed and banned, why doesn't somebody issue a
> >blanket-ban on religious subjects?  Or just individual bans on Christianity,
> >Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism,  Sunni or
> >Shiite, etc?  Or bans on dissent against those religions, or sects, etc? 

>Exactly.

They don't have the guts to generally go after 'mainstream religion'. 


[snip]

>> I think one difference is, now, the current "political" (ideological) environment.  I don't think, TODAY, that I am advocating anything that many other people haven't been thinking about, for years.  

>You don't seem to understand my basic point about advocating (by way of your "naming of) the "political" assassination of specific individuals or groups.

Once you've read the Brandenburg v. Ohio SC decision, it becomes rather clear.    I don't intend to advocate anything untoward...in riot-type situations.  

BUT...I DO intend to remind people, who ignored or rejected my AP idea in the late 1990's, that NOW they want to "kill the bastard". [whoever that bastard that might be!]   Is there any logical reason anymore to NOT want to employ an AP-type system to destroy all governments?


                 Jim Bell