Twitter, as all know, is outright- and shadow-banning influential members of the right. Facebook was caught doing the same with people and posts, though because Facebook is much larger and heterogeneous they haven’t had as much success.

Google shifts its algorithms to emphasize concerns of social justice warriors: try “American inventors” or see this (among others) article. It and Twitter censor their auto-complete functions in attempts to hide traditional content.

Social justice warriors themselves use the rules set up by these and other sites to report realists for “abuse” or “sensitive content“.

And so on. Which, as I said, all know. The Left has already purged all mainline offline institutions, and so it was natural enough for them to move online.

Yet all their efforts online would if not abetted largely come to naught, because the (Alt) Right adapts as quickly to the tactics of the Left as the Left moves to attack. If unaided by external forces, the Left would at best come to a stalemate, if not endure outright losses, as they have with Brexit, Hungary’s reform, the success of Marie Le Pen, the rise of Trump, and other versions of elite-rejecting “populism” (losers in democracies always call their enemies populists, but democracies by definition are populist).

Enter the abetting: Trolls could face jail under new legal guidelines: Social media is to be more stringently policed under new rules on offences for which online users can face criminal charges.

What’s the old saying? One man’s troll is another man’s freedom fighter?

Internet trolls who create derogatory hashtags or post humiliating photoshopped images could face jail, the country’s most senior prosecutor has warned. The Crown Prosecution Service has published new guidance to help police determine whether to press charges against someone for their behaviour on social media… Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said: “Social media can be used to educate, entertain and enlighten, but there are also people who use it to bully, intimidate and harass. “Ignorance is not a defence and perceived anonymity is not an escape. Those who commit these acts, or encourage others to do the same, can and will be prosecuted.” Creating a hashtag to encourage an online harassment campaign, or pushing for retweets of a “grossly offensive message” are given as examples of unacceptable behaviour… The CPS also announced the launch of a hate crime consultation, issuing a series of public policy statements centred on combating crimes against disabled people, as well as racial, religious, homophobic and transphobic hate crime.

Before that, who remembers this? Controversial blog aide arrested. And this? Scottish man arrested for teaching dog a Nazi salute. And this? UK man prosecuted for posting ‘grossly offensive’ anti-Muslim comments on police Facebook page. And this? [German] couple sentenced for Facebook incitement against refugees. And this? Is it right to jail someone for being offensive on Facebook or Twitter? And this? Internet Trolls can be Prosecuted Under Australian Law.

And…but enough. You have the idea.

The effect will be twofold. Governments themselves silencing critics, and companies using stringent interpretations of government rules and laws to increase banishment. The Internet itself is (more or less) in the hands of the United Nations, and if there is one consistency of the UN since its inception, it is that it uses its powers to stifle dissent.

Companies that bar large swaths of customers will, of course, suffer monetarily. Look possibly for rent seeking to increase, companies hit hard by shunning their own customers will argue they are a “public service” and therefore deserve government funds.

What might constitute offenses? Putting an image up of the latest terrorist atrocity? Islamaphobia. Quoting the Bible on one flesh? Homophobia. Say a man who thinks he’s a woman is nuts? Trannyphobia. Publicize the actual crime of a social justice warrior? Harassment.

Hate speech all. You didn’t imagine the speech “codes” that fester and grow on college campuses would remain there, did you? Not when graduates are flooding into government service and onto the streets. The new speech laws will be called “fairness doctrines” and “free speech.”

The elite media, one with the government and the bureaucracy, will be relentless in their propaganda. They must, if they are to survive. It was already known to a minority, but what this election has made clear to those who pay any attention, is that the elite media isn’t needed. “Social” and “alternative” media more than compensated for the loss.

Not only is the elite media not needed, it is actively harmful. But they do have the money and the backing of the rest of the culture’s elite, in and out of government. The fight against free media can and will get dirty.

If Hillary’s wins, it’s likely they’ll win. And then Tradition and Reality news will in dribs and drabs be pushed underground. We’ll have to work on our secret handshakes. We need to study the old ways information got out under tyrannical regimes. I merely mention that there are lots of methods to hide data cryptographically.

Share this: Facebook

Reddit

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

More

Tumblr

LinkedIn



WhatsApp

Print



