Rocksolid Light

Welcome to RetroBBS

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"I will make no bargains with terrorist hardware." -- Peter da Silva


rocksolid / Offtopic / People Who Support Internet Censorship Are Infantile Narcissists

SubjectAuthor
o People Who Support Internet Censorship Are Infantile NarcissistsAnonUser

1
People Who Support Internet Censorship Are Infantile Narcissists

<cd743301e4caee5f1c8544d099063792$1@news.novabbs.com>

 copy mid

https://rocksolidbbs.com/rocksolid/article-flat.php?id=42&group=rocksolid.shared.offtopic#42

 copy link   Newsgroups: rocksolid.shared.offtopic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!rocksolid2!.POSTED.localhost!not-for-mail
From: AnonUser@rslight.i2p (AnonUser)
Newsgroups: rocksolid.shared.offtopic
Subject: People Who Support Internet Censorship Are Infantile Narcissists
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 02:04:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: NovaBBS
Message-ID: <cd743301e4caee5f1c8544d099063792$1@news.novabbs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 02:04:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: novabbs.com; posting-account="AnonUser"; posting-host="localhost:127.0.0.1";
logging-data="2844"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@novabbs.com"
 by: AnonUser - Fri, 7 Jun 2019 02:04 UTC

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/people-who-support-internet-censorship-are-infantile-narcissists-abc5f5b6b424?postPublishedType=initial

People Who Support Internet Censorship Are Infantile Narcissists
Go to the profile of Caitlin Johnstone
Caitlin Johnstone
Jun 6

As of this writing, journalist Ford Fischer is still completely
demonetized on YouTube as the result of a new set of rules that were put
in place because of some doofy Twitter drama between some unfunny asshole
named Steven Crowder and some infantile narcissist who thinks the world
revolves around his opinions named Carlos Maza. It remains an unknown if
Fischer will ever be restored to an important source of income around
which he has built his livelihood.

Fischer often covers white supremacist rallies and counter-protests, and
his channel was demonetized within minutes of YouTube’s new rules
against hate speech going into effect because some of his content, as
you’d expect, includes white supremacists saying and doing white
supremacist things. Maza, a Vox reporter who launched a viral Twitter
campaign to have Crowder removed from YouTube for making homophobic and
bigoted comments about him on his channel, expressed concern over
Fischer’s financial censorship.

“What’s happening to Ford is fucking awful,” Maza tweeted yesterday.
“He’s a good journalist doing important work. I don’t understand how
YouTube is still so bad at this. How can they not differentiate between
white supremacist content and good faith reporting on white supremacy?”

I say that Maza is an infantile narcissist who thinks the world revolves
around his opinions because it genuinely seems to have surprised him that
good people would get harmed in the crossfire of his censorship campaign.

I mean, what did he think was going to happen? Did he think some soulless,
multibillion-dollar Silicon Valley corporation was going to display
company-wide wisdom and woke insightfulness while implementing his agenda
to censor obnoxious voices? Did he imagine that YouTube executives were
going to sit down with him over a cup of coffee and go down a list with
him to get his personal opinion of who should and should not be censored?

Think about it. How narcissistic do you have to be to assume that a vast
corporation is going to use your exact personal perceptual filters while
determining who should and should not be censored for oafish behavior? How
incapable of understanding the existence of other points of view must you
be to believe it’s reasonable to expect that a giant, sweeping
censorship campaign will exercise surgical precision which aligns
perfectly with your own exact personal values system? How arrogant and
self-centered must you be to demand pro-censorship reforms throughout an
enormous Google-owned platform, then whine that they’re not implementing
your censorship desires correctly?

This is the same staggering degree of cloistered, dim-eyed narcissism that
leads people to support Julian Assange’s persecution on the grounds that
he’s “not a journalist”. These egocentric dolts sincerely seem to
believe that the US government is going to prosecute Assange for
unauthorized publications about US war crimes, then when it comes time to
imprison the next Assange the US Attorney General is going to show up on
their doorstep to ask them for their opinion as to whether the next target
is or is not a real journalist. Obviously the power-serving agenda that
you are helping to manufacture consent for is not going to be guided by
your personal set of opinions, you fucking moron.

The fact that other people aren’t going to see and interpret information
the same way as you do is something Carlos Maza and the thousands of
people who’ve supported his pro-censorship campaign should have learned
as small children. Understanding that the world doesn’t revolve around
you and your wants and desires is a basic stage in childhood development.
People who believe Silicon Valley tech giants can implement censorship in
a way that is wise and beneficent are still basically toddlers in this
respect. One wonders if they still interrupt their mother’s important
conversations with demands for attention and apple juice.

Ford Fischer was not the first good guy to get caught in the crossfire of
internet censorship, and he will not be the last. In addition to the way
unexpected interpretations of what constitutes hate speech can lead to
important voices losing their platforms or being unable to make a living
doing what they do, the new rules appear to contain a troubling new
escalation that could see skeptics of legitimate military false flags
completely censored.

“Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent
events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took
place,” reads a single sentence in the official YouTube blog about its
new rules.

The sentence appears almost as an aside, without any elaboration or
further information added, and at first glance it reads innocuously
enough. No Holocaust deniers or Sandy Hook false flag videos? Okay, got
it. I personally am not a denier of either of those events, so this
couldn’t possibly affect me personally, right?

Wrong. YouTube does not say that it will just be censoring Holocaust
deniers and Sandy Hook shooting deniers, it says it will “remove content
denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the
shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.”

So what does this mean? Where exactly is the line drawn? If you are not an
infantilized narcissist, you will not assume that YouTube intends to
implement this guideline in the same way you would. It is very possible
that it will include skeptics of violent events which the entire
political/media class agrees were perpetrated by enemies of the
US-centralized power alliance, which just so happen to manufacture support
for increased aggressions against those nations.

Would the new rules end up forbidding, for example, this excellent YouTube
video animation explaining how a leaked OPCW report disputes the official
narrative about an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria last year? If
you are not making the assumption that YouTube will be implementing its
censorship using your own personal values system, there is no reason to
assume it wouldn’t. After all, the official narrative that dozens of
civilians were killed by the Assad government dropping chlorine cylinders
through rooftops is the mainstream consensus narrative maintained by all
respected US officials and “authoritative” news outlets.

This is a perfect example of a very real possibility that could be a
disastrous consequence of increased internet censorship. It is a known
fact that the US government has an extensive history of using false flags
to manufacture consent for war, from the SS Liberty to the Gulf of Tonkin
to the false Nayirah testimony about removing babies from incubators to
the WMD narrative in Iraq. These new rules could easily serve as a
narrative control device preventing critical discussions about suspicious
acts of violence which have already happened, and which happen in the
future.

Consider the fact that Google, which owns YouTube, has had ties to the CIA
and the NSA from its very inception, is known to have a cozy relationship
with the NSA, and has served US intelligence community narrative control
agendas by tweaking its algorithms to deliberately hide dissenting
alternative media outlets. Consider this, then ask yourself this question:
do you trust this company to make wise and beneficent distinctions when it
comes to censoring public conversations?

In a corporatist system of government which draws no meaningful
distinction between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship
is state censorship. Only someone who believes that giant Silicon Valley
corporations would implement censorship according to their own personal
values system could ever support giving these oligarchic establishments
that kind of power. And if you believe that, it’s because you never
really grew up.
--
Posted on Rocksolid Light.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor