Interesting cartoon I found:
Funny
Interesting little tidbit: if you type antifa.com into your web browser you are taken to buildbackbetter.gov – a web site for the incoming Biden/Harris administration.
Don’t read anything into it, though – anyone can set up a forwarding like this without the end site having any knowledge. Just because the Antifa address forwards to the Biden/Harris web page does not mean that the Antifa address is associated with Biden/Harris, or that the Biden/Harris web site administrators had anything to do with the forwarding (or are even aware).
But it is funny…
Oppression = tyranny
For Apple IOS users, there is no reasonable alternative to the Apple App store. By removing the Parler app from their store, Apple has effectively silenced Parler with respect to all Apple IOS app users who have not already downloaded the app. Note, too, that Apple can summarily disable the app for existing users if they so choose; watch for that action in the coming days:
Amazon’s actions are just as egregious, effectively giving Parler only days to find a new service provider – something that I’m sure Amazon executives know is a virtual impossibility. In my opinion the action was timed specifically to silence Parler users as the inauguration of the Biden/Harris platform approaches. Think about what Amazon has done: this is the real-world equivalent of having your storefront landlord lock you out of your shop with only a few days notice simply because they don’t like what you say. Worse, it effectively silences the opposition to the incoming administration – one of the very acts that the 1st Amendment was meant to protect.
Coupled with Google’s removal of the Parler app from their Play store, these actions appear to be a coordinated attack on speech with which these companies do not agree. But it is much worse than that; it could also be seen as an attack on free speech by the government.
Pretending that the incoming administration and their political party could have nothing to do with these actions by Apple, Amazon and Google is naive. Google is currently the subject of an antitrust lawsuit by the government – a lawsuit that could be negated by the new administration. Apple and Amazon have also been the subject of antitrust investigations, and may face additional investigations in the future. Appeasing the incoming administration by silencing their opposition may be a strategic move by these companies to stave off damaging regulatory or antitrust actions. I’ve warned in the past how the threat of government action against social media and Internet companies could be used by political entities to sidestep 1st amendment protections and censor speech. And before you say that it’s OK because Trump and his followers are fascists, let’s take a look back in history at those who implemented similar censorship measures and why.
The excuse provided by those seeking to censor their opposition is that their actions prevent the potential for tyranny. However, this assertion is absurd. Tyranny does not come from speech; it comes from the oppression of speech. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-sung – all these “leaders” came to and retained power through the ruthless oppression of their opposition. The effective silencing of the opposition for the incoming administration by the companies noted above – and by proxy the incoming administration itself – are the true threat to our democracy. We must not allow this oppression to continue; we must take a stand against those who seek to negate the 1st Amendment of the constitution, no matter how you feel about the speech they seek to oppress.
The government or incoming administration may be able to do these companies harm if they do not do as demanded, but we have power, too. We can boycott the companies seeking to silence a significant share of our population. We can stop using their products; we can stop using their services; we can stop patronizing their advertisers. We can shut them down; we can bankrupt them.What good then is protection from government regulatory and antitrust actions when you have no business to protect?
Regardless of your feelings for the opposition, we must take a stand. We must let these companies know that we cherish our freedom of speech and will not relinquish it without a fight; that we will not accept them silencing their foes, now or in the future; that we will not stand idly by for the tyranny that must follow when an opposition voice is silenced.
Boycott these companies to let them know you do not accept their judgement over your own. Buy no new Apple products and make no purchases from the Apple app store; do not use Google search services, purchase products from their advertisers, or use the Google Play store. Order nothing from Amazon, and do not patronize sellers who use Amazon’s storefront services. Do without for now if you have to, buy direct to bypass Amazon if you must, and find an alternative source for Google products and services. Start a new hashtag: #BoycottOppressionNow.
Send the message loud and clear:
Do not limit what we can hear; we can decide on our own when to listen.
Reap what you sow
Google (and other) companies think that they have the right to force their beliefs on the public as they see fit – for example, via the recent actions taken against President Trump and his supporters by Google, Twitter and Facebook. Their insistence that these are acceptable actions because they are for the public good is coming back to bite them in the ass. How, you ask? Now their workers believe that they have the right to force their beliefs on Google:
Google Workers Speak Out About Why They Formed A Union: ‘To Protect Ourselves’
An interesting quote from the article that shows protection is not their only motive:
“There is massive power that has been concentrated at the executive level,” said Alan Morales, a Google engineer who is now a member of the union. “As a tech employee, it’s a reasonable ask to ensure that this labor is being used for something positive that makes the world a better place.”
What comes around goes around. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company…
Who didn’t see this coming?
The totalitarian governments of the world are lining up to take advantage of the Biden administration, which is eager to show that it isn’t hard-line like Trump. Expect America to once again begin making extortion payments so that Biden can look like a peacemaker:
North Korea threatens to build more nukes, cites US hostility
Iran plans 20 percent uranium enrichment ‘as soon as possible’
In the words of Bill the Cat: Thppft!
Opposition censorship
I am deeply troubled by left-leaning social media (and other) companies attempting to limit speech through platform censorship, and by the double-standard applied when it comes to censorship of partizan political opinion. Their treatment with respect to President Trump’s messaging in regards to the capital protestors is the latest example of this one-sided treatment. That’s not to say I agree with the President’s opinions or comments, only that he has the right to express them without censorship.
Here’s an example:
Facebook blocks Trump indefinitely after Capitol riot response
“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” Zuckerberg said in a statement Thursday. “Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”
And where were you when Antifa rioters stormed Portland and Seattle, Mr. Zuckerberg? How many Antifa or BLM members, and their political supporters, did you kick off of your site as a result of those very destructive riots? And just what are the “risks” that have brought you to this decision to ban Trump’s comments? That the President might be heard and his claims believed? Who are you to determine what others are allowed to hear and believe, true or not? People can, and should, think for themselves, and your firm should not interfere with that process.
Silencing opinions with which you do not agree and leaving no other but your own for people to accept is the height of arrogance; it is also a tactic that will not work. It is precisely when people believe that they are not being heard that they resort to the violent protests we saw yesterday at the capital. You are doing no one a favor by silencing the opinion of the President and his supporters on social media, you are simply pushing their voice into isolation to fester unquestioned.
I apply the same rules to the right as I do to the left (unlike you, Mr. Zuckerberg): peaceful protests are acceptable, violent protests are not. The actions of rioters at the capital yesterday was unacceptable, no question. However, unless Trump clearly incited the protestors to riot – which by the Trump statements I’ve read he did not, even granted his continued claim of a “stolen” election – his speech should be as protected as any other and he should be allowed to express it without fear of reprisal or censorship.
Now, in Mr. Zuckerberg’s defense, Facebook is a private company and can restrict use of its platform if it pleases. However, Facebook enjoys the protections of Section 230 by virtue of not restricting its content beyond the offensive or indecent – it acts not as a publisher, selecting and choosing what to publish, but rather as a printer for all to use. But if Facebook wants to exert control over content, then it’s time these protections are lifted. They are either a privately controlled publisher subject to libel laws, or a public forum for all speech with the protections offered by Section 230. Facebook should not have it both ways.
Here’s another example of a censorship action, albeit a “sideways” attack on speech:
Shopify closes websites associated with Trump following riots
How would you feel if your storefront landlord decided he didn’t like your speech regarding a particular political position, and so locked you out of your store? Because that’s exactly what Shopify is digitally doing, as noted in the above-cited story. And in doing so – much like when Google demonetizes web sites over their content – they prevent revenue streams that support the speech in question. Such actions are no less censorship than any other form.
Finally, today a slew of additional censorship actions were taken – including this one preventing users from downloading an app required to use Twitter’s new, censorship-free competitor, Parler:
Google suspends Parler app from Play Store over failure to moderate egregious content
A disturbing excerpt from this story:
A spokesperson for Google confirmed in a statement to Fox News that its “longstanding policies” require that apps with user-generated content have measures in place to remove certain obscene content – including posts that incite violence. Developers agree to those terms.
So now Google is the arbiter of what is acceptable on the Internet? Who made them autarch of the Web? What is most disturbing about this action is that Google is currently the subject of a government antitrust suit. How do we know whether they are acting on their own behalf, or on the new administration’s behalf in an attempt to curry favor with respect to the government’s lawsuit? I’ve warned previously about the potential for government censorship via threats of regulation or or other action against private companies; looks like I might have been right.
As far as Trump’s actions go with respect to the protest at the capital, in my (humble) opinion his actions were negligent but not criminal. He certainly did little to stop the protest, and may have even encouraged it. Nor did he act swiftly to calm the protesters and restore order when their protest turned into a riot. But nothing in what I have read regarding his posts and statements expressly encouraged violence or rioting, only protesting a la BLM. This is no different than when Democrat politicians encouraged BLM protests, many of which also turned into violent riots. How many of these Democrat politicians were banned for their efforts to incite violence (I’m betting zero…)?
No one believed that Trump had incited riotous behavior prior to the riot actually occurring. If Trump’s comments had been taken to inspire violence then it would have been obvious to the normal observer, and alarms could have been raised to prepare for the protest. The fact that additional security – which was available from the Army National Guard – was not requested, and no exceptional security steps taken prior to the protest, is proof that no one considered Trump’s statements sufficient to inspire a riot.
The fact is that the responsibility for the violence at the capital protest falls strictly on the rioters – just as is the media’s position when BLM protests turn violent. President Trump was not responsible, no matter his unflattering, anti-Democrat rhetoric.
These attempts to silence Trump and/or his followers are political, and we should see them for what they are: opposition censorship. And opposition censorship is a very worrisome thing – far more worrisome than the narcissistic ramblings of a soon-to-be ex-President acting like a 10-year-old.
(I apologize to all the 10-year-olds I might have offended with that last remark.)
Coronavirus WHO?
China is now even working against their lap dog, the World Health Organization (WHO), to prevent investigation into the origins and release source of the novel coronavirus:
China Denies Entry to WHO Team Researching Coronavirus Origins
“Joe’s not home right now…”
Are you kidding, Joe?
I agree, Joe, that the capital protestors and BLM would have been treated differently, and I too would be upset – but not for the same reasons as you.
The capital protestors were stopped and run out of the capital building using whatever police force was necessary – including deadly force. If the capital protest had instead involved BLM supporters, the DC police would have abandoned the building and allowed the rioters to set up a homeless encampment in the rotunda – similar to how BLM protests were handled in Seattle and Portland. And I’m sure Chuck Schumer would have been close by to personally give out awards to the protestors for bravely standing up against Trump.
Yes, Joe, I’d be upset too.
NOTE: The capital protestors acted outside of the law, and the police were justified in their actions – including the use of deadly force – to contain and repel the mob. My complaint is not that they were handled like the thugs they are, it’s that the BLM and Antifa thugs are not.
The decent accelerates
I guess we’re all doomed now:
Democrats gain slim Senate majority with sweep of Georgia runnoff (sic) elections
Predictions:
1) The end of the filibuster in the Senate leads to a tyranny of the majority.
2) Voter ID is made illegal, and mail-in voting becomes permanent
3) A return to “catch-and-release” swamps our immigration and social systems.
4) Free money for everyone (except you).
5) Rising business taxes to pay for it all crush America’s competitiveness.
6) Reliance on government handouts increase as jobs wain.
7) Rising national debt destroys the dollar’s preeminence (now $27T).
8) A mass exodus from the U.S. occurs (by those who can, anyway).
9) We all learn to speak Chinese…
Well, now we know what happens when stupid people vote.
Coronavirus origins: lab or nature?
A highly recommended read (caution: this story will scare the hell out of you) regarding the background and possible origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (which causes COVID-19):
My take: Scientists used fearmongering related to the potential for certain viruses to cross from animal to human hosts to attract government research money. Then, to keep the money flowing, they created the very viruses about which they warned. It’s about as ethical as cutting the brakes on a school bus to show how dangerous a bus with no brakes can be, then parking it at a school.
It’s not enough to consider the odds of accidental release alone; we must also consider the consequences of release when evaluating risk. If accidental release results in the annihilation of all humans on earth, no odds are low enough to result in acceptable risk.