Alex Jones has been banned for life from Twitter because they don’t like what he writes. Problem is, they’re hiding behind a Terms of Service when in fact, they have just banned a questioning conservative who asks inconvenient (OK, and sometimes dumb) questions.
Twitter’s announced a life-time ban for InfoWars founder Alex Jones, telling us what we’ve long suspected: Not only is Social Media a “progressive-Left” shaping operation, it limits genuine free-ranging speech and discourse.
To be sure, Jones has gotten on the wrong side of many issues. No defending all those. However,free speech has just ended on social.
From our perspective – rising digital mob rule – the issue is ownership of left-wing American liberal mob’s thought’s and social media dominance.
The left doesn’t like it when someone asks cogent questions (even if based on misstated or wrong assertions) and expects an answer in 1-2-3 logical fashion. Instead, the liberal cadres on social, when challenged on a factual basis, drop into ad hominin attacks, subject-changing, or other Alinskyite forms of answer-avoidance.
Why? Usually because there is often no response to the Leftist agenda that makes sense. The flock of idiots must be protected! Ban the questioners! If free speech is taken out back and shot, oh well, huh?
There is a weak case, in Twitter’s defense, that the banning of Jones may be viewed as partly systemic.
Here’s it lays out: Say Jones gets involved in legal challenges to his positions. Then Twitter – by extension – might be dragged into various legal quagmires – and those might cost money to defend.
If Twitter’s revenue equation considering Jones’ nearly 1.5 million pairs of eyeballs exceeds the potential liability-cost of Twitter involvement to defend and hold-harmless their platform; well, that would be reasonable.
But, that isn’t the case, so far. Instead, Twitter has banned free speech by Jones simply because a corporation — one with a self-admitted left-leaning bias – has decided to selectively enforce its Terms of Service (ToS) to silence a growing conservative backlash to socialist-inspired left-wing online consensus.
We’re of the view that Twitter should not be allowed to ban Jones unless other political extremists are treated equally. This would presumably include those on the left using re-tweet bots and those promoting the monetization of gender and of course, the Manufactured Digital Mob that’s out to removed a duly-elected President.
We don’t see this as being evenly managed. We’re not aware of professed Trump-haters being banned, for example.
Social’s Crooked Business Model
As we have explained, users of social media are Grand Suckers.
Online users willingly contribute free content to corporations that cleverly package the activity of regular people and make money off it.
As we’ve said before, it’s a clever use of a business model that promotes runaway narcissism and other forms of metal illness you can find in the current DSM-5 which (if you’re not keeping up with class) is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5.”
Dr. Ronald Pies is Professor of Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. In 2009, when the DSM-5 was in the works,, he wrote a very useful and thought-provoking paper: “Should DSM-V Designate “Internet Addiction” a Mental Disorder?”
He saw it coming.
We believe government should ban the for-profit use of social media. In other words, the revenue generated by social should belong (proportionately) to all its contributors.
Think of it as a “digital farmers cooperative.”
Understand this: Unlike the current fears of Ebola becoming a global disease (as noted in this article this morning), or of a killer flu coming in on jets from the Middle East (another valid concern) there’s a larger problem – the elephant in the room – than no one is talking about….
Is Social Media a global mental health issue than needs to be cured?
The unbansurvival.com websites (including Peoplenomics.com) have not made any serious efforts to “engage” in social media. We don’t share our content for free, pure and simple. Comments on our articles are encouraged, but subject to good taste.
Social media companies piggyback on user efforts and extract money from it. F8ck ’em.
Over on the Copyright Alliance website we found a very useful discussion of what happens to our “creative content” if it’s posted on social (Twitter in this case).
No, Social is not “Special”
We don’t believe social media needs to ban Jones. Instead, let existing laws deal with perceived issues that may arise.
That won’t happen, of course, because the Left is in a terrible bind. They can’t afford to allow free speech unchecked. But, at the same time, they’re also being called out for political defamation of conservative views.
Take the Reuters story “Roy Moore files defamation lawsuit against Sacha Baron Cohen, CBS, Showtime.”
Here, the haters of “right-thinking” will no doubt defend on the basis that the mean-spirited ambush attack was just “humor.”
We wanted to summarize the evolving situation in the global media battlespace for you: The Left is killing free speech on the one hand (Twitter) while sure to be defending it (Cohen) on the other.
To us, it all makes sense, though in a distasteful way. Any party or movement that elects socialists (ever hear about Venezuela?) and doesn’t bounce Nancy Pelosi for speaking gibberish, can’t be made-up of very smart people.
Laughably, though, the Universe doesn’t demand IQ tests to hold the presidency, serve in congress, vote, or post on social media. Might be a different world, huh?
Better, we think. Where is Technocracy when we need a bit?
Federal Jobs Report
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 201,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Job gains occurred in professional and business services, health care, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, and mining.
Household Survey Data
The unemployment rate remained at 3.9 percent in August, and the number of unemployed persons, at 6.2 million, changed little.
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.5 percent), adult women (3.6 percent), teenagers (12.8 percent), Whites (3.4 percent), Blacks
(6.3 percent), Asians (3.0 percent), and Hispanics (4.7 percent) showed little or no change in August.”
Our usual tear-down of the numbers goes like this:
- We don’t believe t h.
- Even with that, the “Labor Participation Rate” dropped to 62.7 percent – not a good sign.
- Worst of all, the number of people actually working dropped 423,000. Sucks-a-bunch.
- Finally, the CES Birth-Death Model “
In our view, it’s a terrible report. The kind of report that cuts the legs out from under the Trump-Bump theorist’s argument. Then Tax Cuts were supposed to boost job creation, were they not? I’m not seeing it.
Another non-fitting board piece:The what???
When coupled with the huge uptick in the Trade Deficit, it’s not looking good for Trump – and by extension – republicans this fall.
Oh, and there were revisions in the report: “The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised down from +248,000 to +208,000, and the change for July was revised down from +157,000 to +147,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 50,000 less than previously reported.
Just freaking dandy, huh?
Headlines to Consider
Did the NY Times make-up their “high level” source of the Trump bash of the week? New York Times op-ed sparks denials from Trump staff: A list of officials claiming they’re not the author.
Maybe they were just quoting another intern as “…a high ranking official”…who knows? Did it before, according to reports.
Second Kosovo War, anyone? The Latest: EU says no breakthrough in Serbia, Kosovo talks…
Musk Losing it? “…” has us wondering. Not the kind of thing to inspire shareholder confidence, in our view. Ah, but wait. Those aren’t shares, they’re a movement, right?
Well, how about this one, then? “.”
Future’s Less Bright
The Dow futures were down 60 when we looked at 7 AM Central. “” says Reuters.
With the disappointing economic news, Dow futures looked to drop 85 at press time. And down 200 before the day’s out – or more – wouldn’t surprise us in the least.
Moron the ‘morrow – have a great weekend and don’t miss our prepping-and-making-oriented Saturday and Sunday content!