Shadowban this, Jack

The development of new, SJW-intolerant platforms is now well underway:
AT: If I had to pick a single event that pushed me over the edge to take action, I would have to say it was the suppression of conservative sources and stories by the incredibly biased Facebook Trending Topics team. 
Many of us don’t realize just how much power and influence the News Feed and Trending Topics products have on our psychological understanding of the world around us. There are hundreds of millions of people who get their main source of news and information from a handful of companies in one of the most progressively liberal cities in the world, it’s time for a change.
There is more good news:
AT: Unlike other social networks, we don’t use verification checkmarks as an elitist social ranking system. We use them for one purpose – verifying identities. Currently, we verify accounts if they have a high likelihood of being impersonated, but very soon every Gab user will have the ability to verify their identity if they so choose. We believe that when people verify their identity they are much less likely to harass others. 
It’s easy to harass folks online behind an anonymous profile, but much more difficult to do so when your name is attached. We want to make sure everyone on Gab can find who they want to find, and protect their identity or brand. That being said there is no requirement to verify your identity. We believe anonymity is important for some to feel comfortable expressing their right to free speech, and we don’t want to infringe on that right.
I cannot claim to be in the least bit surprised. As Vox Day memorably pointed out over a year ago:
Give a man a platform and he will speak his mind. Deny him a platform and he will build his own... and you will never silence him again. Rabbits always think that the only possible response to being shunned is to a) submit or b) vanish. The problem, of course, is that some of us aren't rabbits.
I do not use Twitter. I gave up almost all social media usage years ago and am far happier for it as a result. (Though there is that one rather fetching ukrainina that keeps pinging me on WhatsApp... Don't ask me how I got that particular app, it's a long story.)

So on the face of it, I don't really have a dog in this fight.

However, if you're going to build a social media platform on the basis of free and open expression, upholding the virtues and values of the civilisation that made it possible for you to create such a thing in the first place, then as far as I am concerned, the least you can do is actually, y'know, abide by your word.

The problem is that the leadership at Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, and (increasingly) Google have all long since abandoned the pretence that they are simply impartially providing a platform for end-users to use as they wish within broad and fairly sensible boundaries.

The companies that created those platforms have long since become infested with SJWs and infected with their particularly loathsome disease. (In the extremely unlikely event that you've never seen an SJW, they look kind of like Warhammer 40K genestealers.) And, as SJWs always do when brought in to positions of power and authority, they proceed to use their banhammers and thought-policing tools to drive out anyone guilty of "badthink".

They have done this through means both overt- such as banning people outright- and covert- such as the much-ballyhooed tactic of "shadowbanning". The underlying principle behind such nonsense is that the gatekeepers of these platforms are the ones who have the right to decide what you and I should see, that they are the arbiters of what is and is not "acceptable discourse", and that they and they alone should determine who and what can use their platforms.

Now, to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with private individuals and firms discriminating with respect to who can and cannot use their services. That is called "freedom of association", and it has been one of the bedrock principles of Western civilisation for centuries.

If I were to setup a social network tomorrow, and I told you that you cannot use it because you are fat, or you smell, or because you are a cis-het-white-male (whatever the f@ck that means), or you are black or white or Arab or Jewish or Martian, that is entirely my right.

And it is entirely your right to call me an asshole and find some other service provider who is not a complete lamebrain dickbreath and use that instead.

What I categorically do not have the right to do is to first accept you as a user of my service, where you have agreed to the terms and conditions of that service, and then turn around and deny you that same service simply because I disagree with you on a personal level for some reason. As long as you have obeyed my rules and the terms specified in the contract that you and I agreed to abide by, I have no right to break that contract.

Now obviously, these are basic principles and you can always find a very good lawyer who could find a few (thousand) loopholes in all of this reasoning. Nonetheless, these principles have remained the basis upon which countless millions of business relationships and transactions are forged and conducted every day.

What suddenly makes social media so special that the people who maintain those platforms can now turn around and ignore these things with impunity? Who gave them that right to decide?

While we're on the subject, what, exactly, is so terrible and terrifying about letting "racists" and "trolls" and "evil people" speak their minds?

The answer to that, for most SJWs, usually comes down to a reductio ad Hitlerum: "look what happened when Hitler was allowed to speak his mind!!! And if we let these shitlords say whatever they want, we'll see the rise of yet another fascist lunatic who will lead us all straight into the jaws of Hell!!!".

Well, actually, the facts are slightly different. When Hitler was elected to power, it was done with less than 40% of the popular vote; he engineered his takeover of the German government through legal loopholes and- hey, look!- ruthless suppression of dissenting voices.

In reality, the best way to deal with complete goddamn fruitcakes is not to silence them or censor them. It is to let them speak their minds- because the more you see of them, the more you understand what kinds of people they really are. Even if you believe- as I do- that Most People Are Idiots, the reality is that most people are also capable of recognising complete raging lunatics when they see them.

Not, of course, that SJWs would ever let annoying things like facts and reality get in their way.

Twitter has been thought-policing people's feeds quite happily using their now-standard "shadowbanning" tactic, but interestingly, it only seems to bother doing that to people who have horrid doubleplusungood thoughts (i.e. right-wing nut jobs like Mike Cernovich and Vox Day and Milo, the Lord of Fabulosity).

The SJWs who control Google, Wikipedia, Faceborg, and Twatter all thought that we would simply roll over and accept their egregious abuses of their platforms. Unfortunately for them, we've had enough and we're not simply going to sit here and eat their shit anymore.

Turning to this new "Twitter alternative", I like what I'm hearing so far. This new platform is attracting the right kind of attention and getting the feedback and growth that it needs in order to build itself into a truly superior product offering.

Will it get there? Only time will tell. Andrew Torba, the founder of this new platform, is saying the right things and it looks like he is interested in delivering on his promises.

However, there are several factors which could easily sink him if he is not careful.

The first, and most important, is most succinctly stated within Robert Conquest's Second Law of Politics: Any organisation not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. Mr. Torba must do everything in his power to keep SJWs out of the management group for this new playground he has created.

By all means, let SJWs create accounts and join and perform their usual point-and-shriek routines. That is all they can do, and that method of intimidating their opposition is rapidly losing its effectiveness, because we have long since learned that the moment we actually stand up to their crybullying, they have absolutely no clue how to deal with that resistance.

But under no circumstances can Mr. Torba allow SJWs to get into positions of power within his organisation. If that happens, then this new idea will die in the same way that Twitter is dying under Jack Dorsey's leadership. Mr. Torba will need to create a set of ironclad rules with respect to hiring and firing- I do believe our very own Supreme Dark Lord came up with a guide to doing exactly that not too long ago- that will stop the infiltration of his organisation by SJWs.

That, after all, is the entire point of freedom of association.

This, of course, is only the beginning. Project REDACTED, Project Big Fork, and other initiatives like it are all underway with the express intent of not just taking on but outright crushing these SJW-run platforms.

As far as I am concerned, of course, I am very much looking forward to the day when the last Tweet with the last hashtag from the last unverified account is sent out to be seen by absolutely nobody. Twitter already appears to be tripping over its own two left feet- if its management continues down its present course, it won't be long before the organisation dies completely.


Popular Posts