It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Dorsey Retiring a Bellwether for End of Free Speech on Social Media?

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2021 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Greetings, dear reader!

This is my first “long post” - FAIR WARNING - but I put it together and I’m curious what others think if you’re willing to stay with it.

Thanks!

——————————

Hypothesis: There is a growing probability of material global changes to social media between now and the upcoming mid-terms or the 2024 election cycle aimed at establishing greater regulatory control over social media via legislation that will silence freedom of speech on social media without violating The First Amendment.

Here’s why I think that hypothesis has some legs:

I hold the stance that social media, in theory, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But, in practice, it does a lot more harm than good. Depression, aggression, anxiety, unrest, defamation, and more - which we’re just now seeing explored more frequently by legitimate studies and research.

I suspect what makes social media a “bad thing” is it gives every air breathing human a microphone on any subject. For example, I have a material depth of expertise in one field that is my vocation and can say the majority of people I see talk about said field online have no clue how it actually works and/or are the poster children for Dunning-Kruger. I’ve been the poster child of DK on subjects when I was younger and didn’t realize how little I know
- we probably all have or are experiencing DK now and just don’t realize it (the irony!).

Unfortunately, many people - particularly of younger generations - can’t, won’t or don’t think critically and/or are very uncomfortable standing alone. Thus, they will flock to the popular stance (right or wrong) to not be outcast/safety in numbers via blind agreement/virtue signaling/group think etc. even if the person they are siding with has objectively zero leg to stand on to issue an opinion on the matter. Many (maybe most?) people conduct precisely zero due diligence beyond who else said or “liked” something for the sake of being socially accepted.

So how does Jack Dorsey fit into all of this?

Today, Jack Dorsey - a dude who I respect for his accomplishments but don’t have a great deal of affinity for - resigned as Twitter CEO:

www.cnbc.com...


Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is stepping down as chief of the social media company, effective immediately. Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s chief technology officer, will take over the helm, the company said Monday.


CEOs stepping down without notice and with little provided reason isn’t hugely common - particularly for a founder - but seems to be more common since the pandemic hit.

Bezos, Gates, Dorsey - and more…

So what does this have to do with free speech and censorship of social media?

I found this interesting news from our brethren down in Australia yesterday - I thought about it a bit and found it a tad concerning but didn’t give it another thought until I saw Dorsey resigned this morning:

sg.news.yahoo.com...

Basically, Australian authorities want to be able to “unmask” people who behave “poorly” online - and the Twittersphere is full of some of the most aggressive aggressive zingers and aggressive commentary:


"The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others can just anonymously go around and harm people and hurt people, harass them and bully them and sledge them," Morrison told reporters.

"That is not what can happen in the real world, and there is no case for it to be able to be happening in the digital world."


Fair point. Social Media and the internet definitely contain some aggressive content - and a fair bit nastier than most public discourse people have. I might support something that adds some broader decorum and accountability to the Internet if was done right - but I personally don’t think there’s a way to do that right on a global scale. So instead of arbitrarily created morality, we get Free Speech - where we take the bad with the good.

But, then there’s the closing paragraph about the discussion in Australia - which is what set my alarm bells off:


Australia's opposition leader Anthony Albanese said he would support a safer online environment for everyone.
But he said the government had failed to propose action to stop the spread of misinformation on social media and accused some of the government's own members of spreading misinformation about Covid and vaccinations.


That bit about “failing to stop the threat of misinformation” makes me think this is a solution to correct the “spreading misinformation” problem by virtue of labeling those who aren’t supporting everything the media or the government tells them at face value “trolls”. Pretty smart - extremely troubling - but smart.

As many people are aware, Twitter is full of “Trolls” or, rather, dissenting opinions relative to the currently preferred “official narrative”…. The loudest of all being former President Trump who was summarily removed from the Twitter platform (Trump’s Twitter issues may tie into this whole thing materially, but, for another thread at another time….)

I suspect the definition of “troll” could be cast broadly to include “disinformation troll” or “harmful public health” content. Australia became quite authoritarian with COVID, and they seem to get away with it, so expanding the definition of “troll” to “dissenters” online seems like not a big deal compared to other actions the Aussie government has taken during the pandemic.

As a result of that authoritarian acceptance it’s more palatable to roll proposals or legislation out down there - the political climate is more apt to push this through.

In the US, we get the precedent/learning from the country we just got in bed with more deeply via sharing some of our most sensitive and classified technology - Nuclear Submarines - tech you wouldn’t share with just anyone. Not to say it’s a quid-pro-quo situation - rather, only to highlight the closeness in ties between the US and Australia and much of major social media being based out of the US.

Which is why I find it curious that, in a way, the Australian proposal is basically sanctioned extortion and censorship against it’s citizens via social media platforms that are US based - post approved content and you won’t be “unmasked”.

How does Jack Dorsey fit into all of this?

The extortion pertains to the platforms as well - basically coercing them to “unmask” users:


The platforms could defend themselves from being sued as the publisher of defamatory comment only if they complied with the new legislation's demands to have a complaints system in place that could provide the details of the person making the comment, if necessary, Cash said.


If you’re Dorsey, you 100% pay attention to the regulatory environment and competitive landscape of your industry constantly. You’re playing at industry scale - not job or company scale - and you know this is basically extortion.

If you’re Twitter and are forced with ratting out users you’re probably going to see a decline in the user base - which isn’t good for revenue or the flexibility to run your company as you see fit.

/continued



posted on Nov, 29 2021 @ 11:14 PM
link   
/conclusion

If you’re Jack Dorsey, that’s real bad for your pocketbook.

This proposal, if brought to life, would mean you end up with the only users or posters on platforms being those who support the “approved” or “official” narratives. Those who don’t support the narrative are shunned and societal pressure forces them to “get in line”.

This would mean the regulatory body has control of the conversation and thus the thoughts, suggestions and subsequent actions of a very large swath of the masses.

That control probably moves us in a far more progressive direction given control at the federal level is more of a progressive mindset. Also, the younger generations are far more progressive and also control the tech savvy and experience to build and implement the system to control the conversation.

To me, the likelihood we are heading this direction goes up tremendously if Zuck steps down to pursue “The Metaverse”… kind of like others changing their “focus” despite running extremely viable, gargantuan corporations:

Gates to Gates Foundation
Bezos to Blue Origin
Dorsey into Bitcoin

The ultimate reason I think that a proposal like this is a legitimate probability to occur in the US as well is because it might get around the first amendment issue. These are publicly traded companies. The aim is to regulate the companies via legislation and ensure the private company “follows rules” - and since users agree to the T&C to be a part of the platform the “regulatory bodies” just legally shut down dissenting discourse without touching the first amendment - it was a publicly traded, for-profit US corporation that blocked your comments based on regulatory oversight of content that’s deemed concerning/threatening/false/etc. No one is “forcing” a user to agree to the T&Cs that are disclosed to users and expressly acknowledges they will abide by the code of conduct set forth by the governing body. Could work.

Social media will then be a tool to silence those who speak against the ruling parties be it online - or potentially otherwise ultimately by identifying who isn’t on the platforms (insert cameo by Google here).

Perhaps this is the long game of the Internet - make something people enjoy and are “revolutionized” by - deeply stitch it into our lives and communication mediums creating heavy reliance on it - and legislate it to become a control mechanism via a “public-private partnership” of sorts. Pretty damned impressive and frightening to ponder on all at the same time.

Whatever the case may be, I’m definitely watching to see if Zuck heads for his “Metaverse” full time - at which point, who knows where we’re headed…

What say you?

Thanks for the read!
edit on 29-11-2021 by VulcanWerks because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2021 by VulcanWerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2021 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Free speech ended online about 8 years ago when social media and the news outlets began banning folks for saying Dr Bill Cosby isn't a serial rapist.
edit on 29-11-2021 by ConcernedCanadian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2021 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: VulcanWerks

It won't long before only government propaganda can be found on the internet. The stuff we freely talk about here will be limited to the dark web, but they will figure out how to snuff that out, too.
edit on 30 11 2021 by tamusan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Dorsey sent $350 million to local officials in key states to support 2020 Presidential election cheating. He's bailing now, because the investigations are getting closer to him financially supporting those crimes.



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 02:21 AM
link   
You can still have free speech on this : play.google.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Seems like the control freaks want to protect everyone from mean speech or even unclean thoughts which are defined by the tyrants in control. That IMO is a very dangerous road for the population to allow happen. The words "Conspiracy theory" like the CIA used to silence anyone who did not buy the official word on JFK's assassination and 100s of things since are examples of the propaganda forced down everyone throats.

The outlawing of political opposition is a classic hallmark of totalitarian systems and IMO once the despots get control it is almost impossible to wrestle control back as all they do is make the present LEGAL into something ILLEGAL so they can proceed with their totalitarian control freak plans... One thing that helps them in their cause is the presence of the so called "Tribal Mentality" .....you either agree or you are kicked out of the tribe. It applies to everything from vaxed to unvaxed to jab or no jab and 10,000 other things as the incremental creep of lost freedoms come slowly until one day you wake up and realize just how much has been lost; then it is to late to ever go back unless you leave the tyrants to their own devices and run away. Unfortunately there are few place to run to if you really want to escape.

Never take your eyes off the politicians for that will give them the freedom to build their political empires, enhance and expand their supporters in the civil service while gaining control of the media which will help stifle any views/words that do not toll the political line. Our eyes have been off the political ball for way to long IMO.



edit on 727thk21 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

First the politicians must convince the military that it is right to shoot other Americans who go against the NEW GRAIN.

1. Most the undocumented people coming into the country will be going into the military. And since they don't know American culture they can be easily trained to kill other Americans. I think we have about 2 to 4 years before that happens though.



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Ummmm...Jack Dorsey/Twitter don't even belong in the same BOOK let alone the same post or paragraph as the term "free speech"!

Social media is an Orwellian utopia where these media giants can carefully control the narrative of society. Social media is a disease, a virus; a virus far more serious than covid will ever be. Social media is a cancer on society. Dorsey is just 65 characters away from Zuckerburg and FailBook, erm, Morpheus (or whatever the hell they call it now).



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 07:24 AM
link   
POST REMOVED BY STAFF
edit on Tue Nov 30 2021 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Don't kid yourself into thinking that anyone but regular citizens care about free speech. Governments don't, and Donald Trump especially doesn't! Unless it suits them that is.

Something needs to happen with all the BS that's being spread online. Just look at some of the posts in this thread for all the evidence you need of that fact. People are still pushing false stories about elections being stolen! Five people died in a riot because of this BS but people still push it, with no evidence to back it up!

The problem is that people will believe anything as long as it resonates with their own belief systems! I don't know what the answer is but I'd support something radical because the alternative of letting it go unchecked will be disastrous.



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 07:45 AM
link   
He's also stepping down because he is a pedophile. He has done horrible things to children on a private island of the coast of Africa. He's caught and he knows it. Not much time left till he gets taken down for those atrocities as well as the free speech issue. This is fact.

The great awakening is shining light on facts and on those that want to hide in the dark.

Truth can only be hidden for so long before light is shown on it





posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Couldn't agree more my friend. It has been a.slow erosion of our rights in small increments that people don't really notice at first, usually because this stuff is buried deep in 1,500 page bills. Remember Pelosi saying "you have to pass it to know what's in it"? That shows that probably most of those politicians didn't read even a tenth of these bills. The politicians write these laws and regulations at the behest of corporate special interest groups. Look at the ACA (Affordable Care Act) Congress and senate passed which Obama signed into law. In it was the pretext for these "vaccine mandates" and health data collection (which includes our DNA) for medical tyranny. Politicians on both sides agreed to this and signed it into law, neither side can be trusted to do what their constituents voted them in to do, they only do what's good for their pockets and career advancement. It's sick and disturbing how bad they want money and power and will sacrifice those that oppose them just to keep that so called power.

Bad news for them is the American citizens are.quickly waking up to this fact and arestarting to do things about it. They fear us, we the people, the most.





posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: jamespond

Hahaha! Do you believe the establishment? Do you work at Langley or for GCHQ? Because you sound like a shill who desperately wants people to believe the official narrative. The election was stolen, that is a fact that cannot be denied. You people that push the "election wasn't stolen deerrpp" are the real conspiracy theorists. Anyone with an ounce of credibility knows the election was stolen. Lol GTFO!






posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: jamespond

Oh, cry us an onion Elizabeth



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Twitter banned Trump, banned me for calling AOC a c***, so it isn’t a place of free speech, but a liberal Democratic arm of propaganda. He stepped down and put the Indian evil tech super villain in charge, so it ain’t gonna get better.



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: VulcanWerks

It won't long before only government propaganda can be found on the internet. The stuff we freely talk about here will be limited to the dark web, but they will figure out how to snuff that out, too.


What you’re saying seems realistically possible in the long term.

This leads me to a follow on question though - what comes after that happens? Do we go back to in-person discussions that focus more on our local level?

Case in point… I read a little bit about what’s going on in my community but most of what I read and think about is national news - which is what most people comment on broadly (and discuss here, for instance).

It could be that those who can’t find a voice nationally will speak up locally - which might drive more of a grassroots movement that’s somewhat coordinated but very much specific to local areas and issues. That could be a huge mess for the progressive agenda/desires for more federal control.



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 12:04 PM
link   
free speech ended with hate speech legislation

i said that at the time. Who decides what is hateful?



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Maybe the twat has decided it's time to go get into his bunker early, to avoid the rush when everybody comes at this criminals with torches, pitchforks and guns? I hope he hides on the open seas, I can repair anything and make it workable, including I imagine, submarines ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Nov, 30 2021 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: BerkshireEntity

The election was stolen! Says who? Alex Jones, or was it one of the other credible conspiracy nutters out there?

Get a life mate.

Do u think the real powers in this world give a flying fork whether Biden or Trump sits in the Whitehouse? Arguing over these points is for folk who haven't got a clue how the world works.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join