I never said governments are saints. I've shown an analysis of why this conspiracy theory is bogus.
And frankly, the worst oppressors these days aren't governments, but ISPs and social media companies. At least in the west
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I have no facebook /other social media account and have the option of using a VPN, how am I being oppressed by ISPs and social media ? Though I agree with your point that they are immoral, their use is still voluntary. My tax money going to fund wars and my own enslavement on the other hand is not, as are the police controls. In France they can now kick down any door without judicial aproval, perform searches on the street, assign activists to house arrest. Add to that the regulations in any enterprise I would like to start and I could go on and on about how governments in the west are oppressive in my opinion.
Is your analysis on 911 on steemit ?
Sure, VPNs help. But social media platforms are in agreement and not actually competing, at least the big ones. And they set the narrative, allowing whatever speech they deem acceptable, while dissenting opinions are squashed. And public opinions are what elects governments. But they control what opinions are available, thus influencing decisions.
Now you can say that partaking in social media is voluntary, but these days, if you're not on the major websites, you don't exist. You can attempt to create your own, but domain registrars are also owned by the same companies. Look at that neo-nazi site; it got taken down and is now on the dark web. While I vehemently disagree with much of their ideology, I think they should be allowed to speak (and make fools of themselves).
And no, I have no analysis of 9/11. I don't think it was US backed, if that's what you're asking. But I do think that possibly they let it happen. And linking to the conspiracy in question in this article, Youtube squashed videos claiming a false flag, thus controlling the narrative. I don't think it was, but people discussing that topic should be allowed to do so.
I agree with most of your criticism but I think that this is the price of freedom. This to me falls under the property rights of the owner of whatever plateform to ban whoevers speech he wants to even if I disagree with doing that.
It's up to us to patronize plateforms that allow free speech and it's up to us to take control of enough of that market to have our views aired out.
Back in the 1990s Bill Cooper tried to launch an initiative to buy up shares in a major news network 15% would have been enough to control it.
Not enough people joined in the effort and so it failed.
If the monetary system was sound, low taxes, few regulations etc... people would have more purchasing power but in the end they would still need to make the right decisions, there is no way arround that.
Except social media is a public forum. And they are directly involved in government decisions. This should make them directly responsible and open to all the citizens.
So no, fuck Facebook, YouTube and the like. That's why I'm on Steemit, in the first place.
I agree that you have sole responsibility on your actions and decisions, but thought and speech are not crimes, no matter what thoughts and speech you have. The only limits on speech I can approve is direct calls to violence and plagiarism. But there are laws against that. Unfortunately, now there's push for hate speech and the censorship against conspiracies because they supposedly promote hate speech. So?
I'm 100% against that. The only way to combat bad ideas it with your own ideas, not by shutting them up. The only thing censorship proves is that you're afraid of what those people have to say.
So while I disagree with alot with this whole Las Vegas conspiracies, I support the right for these people to speak their mind.
I m for freedom of speech aswell, but its the freedom of the owner...
I am afraid of laws like the UK just passed, that says that people can be imprisoned for 15 years for reading radical materials, but who decides what is radical and what not ? As long as it's corporations doing the censorship we still have the option to go to competitors like steemit. I gather from your comment that you would want the platforms to be ''forced'' to allow free speech, but you give that power to the goveernment and it usually falls into the hands of corrupt people who then use it for the oppposite, like maybe to try and control alternatives that do allow free speech like steemit...
We agree on some of the problems but we dont have the same solution for them.
In my opinion you oppose a government by taking away it's power and a corporation by stopping to use their serices (which also takes away their power). Use Duckduckgo if you don't like google, and oppose laws that prevent free speech, that's I the way I feel is best to deal with the concerns that you write about and that I share with you. The corporation OWNS their plateform, if you interfere with that by giving the government power to impose on that you go against property rights, and the property rights guarantee free speech, for the OWNER of that medium.
If the owner choses to allow free speech on his plateform people should support that owner and use his plateform, like you are doing with steemit.
Ironicly, I can not watch the video because it is unavailable in the country I'm currently residing in ^_^
So yes, I think that plateforms like google that censor free speech are morally wrong but I don't think that it s by giving government more power over them that you solve this problem.
You say that social media is forced in Europe and in theocratic countries to follow their guidelines but that is their governments doing that and you would give them even more power over those plateforms ?
They say you can argue most with people that you almost agree with and we both agree on the problem just not on the solution.