Fake Conservatives Blocking Solutions to Tech Censorship


#1

Originally published at: Fake Conservatives Blocking Solutions to Tech Censorship | Infostormer.com

There’s a group of so-called “conservatives” who are now trying to block solutions to the problem of tech censorship.

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past 10 years, a small handful of websites namely Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have become the digital modern day equivalent of the public square. These companies are banning people from participating in the public discourse if they have views that company management deems to be outside the Jewish mainstream view of politics. Coincidentally, Facebook and YouTube are both run by Jews. And Twitter works with the Jew-run Anti-Defamation League to determine who should and shouldn’t be allowed to post on their site.

These fake “conservatives” are either claiming that tech censorship is not a problem because of gibberish about free markets or they are proposing hoax solutions that will only ensure the status-quo continues.

Take for example Charlie Kirk. This 20-something tool founded Turning Point USA which is shill cuckservative group backed with money from the Koch Brothers. He is advocating that Donald Trump ban social media companies from receiving federal contracts if they censor people.

RT if you believe it is time for @realDonaldTrump to sign an executive order banning tech companies from getting federal contracts due to viewpoint discrimination

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 5, 2019

This is a comical proposal. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not going to be threatened as organizations if they are no longer able to get federal contracts. They do not rely on federal contracts to exist as an organization. In fact, I’d be surprised if they have any federal contracts at all. They are not like defense contractors which rely exclusively on money from the government to exist.

And then we have this 20-something e-thot named Tiana Lowe associated with the National Review. She is out there claiming that tech censorship isn’t a problem because Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are private companies and if the government regulated them that it would be wrong because this would violate free market principles.

Serious question to "conservatives" who want the gov't to regulate social media: what do you do when the GOP loses control of the White House & Congress? That day will come, even if only temporarily. When it does, do you want President AOC appointing the regulators?

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

Two things can be true at once:
1. It’s immoral for social media platforms to call themselves objective platforms and then inconsistently regulate speech.
2. The government has neither the right nor the competency to regulate this problem out of existence.

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

I have been consistently critical of social media technocrats. I’m sure lawyer Twitter can tell me whether social media giants will lose Section 230 protection. But even that is scaling *back* a law’s coverage, not making a new one. https://t.co/G3vmAHKGex

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

Name me the last problem the government has made better and not worse by getting involved. The only answers involve public goods, externalities, agency dilemmas, and monopolies. Social media falls under none of these umbrellas. Gab still exists.

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

FWIW, we still have some consumer power. Conservatives got @JesseKellyDC back on Twitter. But I think private citizens have to be mindful in diversifying how they distribute & consume information. Subscribe to newsletters. Vary your media diet. Use Patreon.

— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 2, 2019

So much of what she said is complete bullshit. Anglin has already done an article dissecting her nonsense point by point so I’ll refer you over to what he wrote. But what she is arguing is ridiculous. The digital public square is the 21st century version of what telephones were back in the 1960s. Without access to a telephone during that time, you would not have been able to launch any sort of competitive business or communicate with people effectively. So what Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are doing by selectively banning people for their political views is the equivalent of if AT&T in the 1960s refused to provide phone service to specific people they disagreed with politically. The thing is, they were prevented from doing this because of government regulation that was implemented in the 1930s. This is why it only makes sense for similar regulations to be applied to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Worse yet is how Lowe purposefully posts provocative photos of herself showing off her fake tits to draw attention to her bullshit views. Look at some of these photos she’s posted of herself. It’s pure Instagram e-thotery.

This new brand of “conservatism” is deeply disturbing. They are essentially taking a position of being against free political speech because of nonsense about free markets. Never mind the fact that we don’t have any free markets to begin with. These social media companies became what they became largely because they were funded with Jewish money and promoted by a dominant Jewish media cartel.

Allowing these large tech monopolies control over who is and isn’t allowed to engage in the public discourse is not in the spirit of the First Amendment or free speech in general. That’s why we need these companies to be immediately regulated. Unfortunately, we have a President of the United States who just wants to tweet about the problem instead of taking any substantive action.


#2

Tiana Lowe is built like a brick shit house.


#3

Look at my fake tits guys.


#4

I laughed really hard about Anglin’s article about tittologist analysis of Lowe’s boobs. It made my day!


#5

It’s vital that financial services are bought under the same umbrella. With the decline of cash - access to electronic transactions must be universally available and denial of such services illegal. The fact that they have gotten away with privatizing the discretion to allow or deny access to financial services is a disgrace.