Just some random sh*t.

HOA_KSOP said:
Well maybe not that much, because how many people could read, besides nobles and church officials. Maybe merchants, but I suspect the majority of folks couldn't read.
Click to expand...
@HOA_KSOP If you will humour me. Your comment got me thinking about how that now appears to be what is gradually been transpiring in our societies, be it admittedly in a slightly different fashion.

Are we not seeing how increasingly today, the general publics access to and required acquiescence to whatever arbitrary constraints are placed on one's discourse, simply so as to allow you to gain to various social media sites i.e. for permission to access for what is today the equivalent our nations public square, our voice in our respective societies, is being concentrated in the hands of still fewer and fewer entities of immense private power?

All of which, would it not of having the same effect as potentially greatly narrowing what is now permitted to be 'broadcast' as approved or appropriate social discourse, and placing those subjective decisions in the hands of todays version of ..."nobles, church officials and merchants"

In effect, don't we now increasingly have a situation where while virtually everybody can 'read', it is what we will be allowed access to 'read', that has become the issue.

Couple this with persistent calls in some circles for still yet more increased censorship of social media sites, throw in a push for and in fact actual legislation in some jurisdictions for some forms of digital social credit passports, mix with ever-growing installations of improved facial recognition technology, and viola!

May as well pass along the Soma, for we have arrived...:coffee::cool:

Cheers!

Or am I just being a cynic...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mTk
This one always cracks me up, good for discord when someone posts something.... questionable.

cc9.gif
 
Bones26 said:
@HOA_KSOP If you will humour me. Your comment got me thinking about how that now appears to be what is gradually been transpiring in our societies, be it admittedly in a slightly different fashion.

Are we not seeing how increasingly today, the general publics access to and required acquiescence to whatever arbitrary constraints are placed on one's discourse, simply so as to allow you to gain to various social media sites i.e. for permission to access for what is today the equivalent our nations public square, our voice in our respective societies, is being concentrated in the hands of still fewer and fewer entities of immense private power?

All of which, would it not of having the same effect as potentially greatly narrowing what is now permitted to be 'broadcast' as approved or appropriate social discourse, and placing those subjective decisions in the hands of todays version of ..."nobles, church officials and merchants"

In effect, don't we now increasingly have a situation where while virtually everybody can 'read', it is what we will be allowed access to 'read', that has become the issue.

Couple this with persistent calls in some circles for still yet more increased censorship of social media sites, throw in a push for and in fact actual legislation in some jurisdictions for some forms of digital social credit passports, mix with ever-growing installations of improved facial recognition technology, and viola!

May as well pass along the Soma, for we have arrived...:coffee::cool:

Cheers!

Or am I just being a cynic...
Click to expand...
You and I are on the same wavelength. Twitter, Facebook and Youtube exercise immense censorship powers and therefore are the gatekeepers of public debate. The elites want to control everything and it's never been made more obvious than in the last year or two. Elites control the mass media and therefore they create and control the narrative. Contrary thought is squashed using "cancel culture" tactics, which for me is the equivalent of the scarlet letter or the stocks in the town square, only with much more serious consequences.

Now I am a simple man. Since the internet was developed with taxpayer dollars I am of the opinion that no US citizen should be denied access to the internet, that in essence the internet is a public space created with public money, and is, therefore, a public utility open to the public and private business entities. Any private company should have the right to police their sites, but my caveat is that if you are offering a "public space" on their private website for public discourse, then open debate and discourse should be allowed within the limits of the law. Now the fly in the ointment is that most user agreements basically say that to use a private website you are a "user at will", which is the equivalent of being an "employee at will" at your job, which means you can be booted at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Therefore that allows opinions contrary to the elite narrative to be squashed while destroying people's reputations and lives. So my answer is the American public needs to file a class-action lawsuit against Al Gore, since he invented the internet. We would ask for the combined net worth of Twitter, Facebook and Google as damages, arguing that a publicly funded utility is creating harm to Americans by allowing private companies a vehicle to destroy individual citizens ability to earn a living and that therefore the government needs to either financially penalize them or shut them down. The government is in the business of protecting its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. And the jab at Al Gore is meant for levity, although he did try to take credit for inventing the internet. But he is part of the elite so maybe my idea isn't so far-fetched.
 
Last edited:
HOA_KSOP said:
You and I are on the same wavelength. Twitter, Facebook and Youtube exercise immense censorship powers and therefore are the gatekeepers of public debate. The elites want to control everything and it's never been made more obvious than in the last year or two. Elites control the mass media and therefore they create and control the narrative. Contrary thought is squashed using "cancel culture" tactics, which for me is the equivalent of the scarlet letter or the stocks in the town square, only with much more serious consequences.

Now I am a simple man. Since the internet was developed with taxpayer dollars I am of the opinion that no US citizen should be denied access to the internet, that in essence the internet is a public space created with public money, and is, therefore, a public utility open to the public and private business entities. Any private company should have the right to police their sites, but my caveat is that if you are offering a "public space" on their private website for public discourse, then open debate and discord should be allowed within the limits of the law. Now the fly in the ointment is that most user agreements basically say that to use a private website you are a "user at will", which is the equivalent of being an "employee at will" at your job, which means you can be booted at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Therefore that allows opinions contrary to the elite narrative to be squashed while destroying people's reputations and lives. So my answer is the American public needs to file a class-action lawsuit against Al Gore, since he invented the internet. We would ask for the combined net worth of Twitter, Facebook and Google as damages, arguing that a publicly funded utility is creating harm to Americans by allowing private companies a vehicle to destroy individual citizens ability to earn a living and that therefore the government needs to either financially penalize them or shut them down. The government is in the business of protecting its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. And the jab at Al Gore is meant for levity, although he did try to take credit for inventing the internet. But he is part of the elite so maybe my idea isn't so far-fetched.
Click to expand...
thehill.com

Coming soon: America’s own social credit system

The same issue with government censorship exists with corporate censorship: If there is a line, who draws it?
thehill.com thehill.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom