BIG TECH

New Platforms Will Fill The Vacuum Created by Big Tech’s Evil Empire

The free press in America is dead.

Dead as a doornail. Deceased. It has assumed room temperature.

Call it the late, great First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Anyone can be censored, canceled or suppressed by the official “mainstream media” and its masters ruling from atop Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter – even a sitting president, Donald J. Trump, can be silenced.

Each day brings the names of the latest victims of eradication, ex-communication and blacklisting.

The words are still legible in the Constitution, but they no longer adhere to current reality: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Our country is in big trouble.

The words above are excerpted from a recent article on WND promoting another potential competing platform to Big Tech.

As you well know, Big Tech are (in my opinion) racketeering and monopolizing most of today’s online “speech”.

Just look at the absolutely incredible number of people and organizations who have been de-platformed and silenced by the Big Tech evil empire. Those who tow the far-left narrative are allowed to stay. The rest are cast aside.

Well, the reason I’m writing this today, is to point out the massive “vacuum” that Big Tech has created within the online sphere. Conservatives and many, many others are looking for alternative platforms.

Although Big Tech is MASSIVE and RICH and POWERFUL, the fact is there are millions upon millions of Americans who know what’s really going on. That’s powerful too.

Eventually there will be alternatives that actually “stick” and begin to gain traction. Unless we go full-on Marxist here, there will be no stopping the logical outcome (it seems).

For example, look at what has happened with Newsmax. They have shot to the top among conservative news seekers. And it happened fast. Especially after FOX turned to the dark side.

I heard that Parler is back up today after having been de-platformed about a month ago. They had to build their own server farm instead (of renting). That’s what’s happening. People and organizations and alt-platforms are getting back up after having been bashed to the ground by the Goliath.

If leftists Big Business and Big Tech choose to cancel our businesses, our platforms, well, we will build our own. Separate from them if that’s what it takes.

CHOOSE AN ALIAS NAME
Affirm you're human... not a Bot
45 Comments
Sort by Oldest First
Sort by Newest First Sort by Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

for all intents the whole constitution and bill of rights has been torn up and thrown away and unless something is done very quickly this will no longer be the usa but will be known as the USSA or the SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA
which makes me glad i have more years behind me than ahead of me because i dont want to see what these 7920ing slime do this country

I read a book when I was a kid called USSA–United Secure States of America. All done for our safety, of course.

There is a long list of retailers that are boycotting My Pillow sales, GAB has lost their banker, ZeroHedge has been blackballed and numerous other voices are being silenced. But this will turn around on them as the 1st amendment cause will succeed and overcome. Not just wishful thinking, it is happening.

What sort of coercive tactics do you suppose is being used against retailers, bankers, lawyers to close down conservative talk? Blackmail?

Threats for those who are weak and don’t want boycotts or demonstrations outside their homes and plain old cowardice on their part. They have a choice.

Now that platform is up we need for conservatives to start their own Bank and credit card company. Think what would happen if 75 million voters walk away from Visa/Mastercard and the large banks. That would be financial disaster for those institutions. As the saying goes “MONEY TALKS AND BULLSH-T WALKS”

I wonder… if these new platforms are made and the marxists try to influence with lies and threaten people on it like they did on their own platforms, would they be banned? is it about free speech or is there a limit to it?

I personally feel psychopaths should be committed or stay the hell away from our platforms

Stardust,
a free speech platform is just that, free speech. if platforms start censuring for content then it is no longer free speech, but what is going on now with FB, Twitter and others. ignoring first amendment rights.
it’s their right to state their opinions, but it is our obligation not to respond to them and give them the attention they crave so badly. it only emboldens them.
just ignore the psychopaths and marxists. it’s not hard to do.
its like we are supposed to do here. don,t feed the trolls

I feel private groups can choose what they want. Because the government allows males to compete in women’s sports now doesn’t mean a private group of women playing tennis has to allow a male to play. It is a private choice.

facebook, twitter etc were given special ‘rights’ because they were supposed to be open to all opinion. When they started eliminating certain opinions they were supposed to lose that special right. There was some weak attempts at congress to address it but of course nothing happened.

If these new companies stay out of the .gov contract trap they should be fine with whatever rules they want to set. I like the “If you don’t like it, block it” attitude. People see those trolls and simply block them.

Ken has restrictions here, so it is not a complete free speech forum. I think it is only right to limit what is posted.

Examples posting lewd and lascivious words and behavior. Pornography, pediphelia, sexual acts, and other things unless it is in a news report, and there are limits like in Ken’s comment policy.

It is not wise to allow these things to be posted and just ignore them.

Giant Meteor

case in point

P-f-f-f-f-t

There’s one thing you have forgotten. The government is involved by the protections of section 230, the social media companies are receiving government protection from libel and slander suits Americans could otherwise bring. If 230 is removed, then you may have a point.

Big Tech names=crooked govern.ent involvement.

You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.

You pad my wallet, you’ll get the same in return.

All these forementioned sites were cool, from the start, weren’t they?

Then the deals are made, the payoffs, and the censorship began.

Kinda like the products we used to buy. Companies we used to support. Movie stars, musicians we past supported, Sports leagues, etc.
Then they seemingly follow where the BIG money is.

‘They’ feed those that will help promote their overall takeover.

What have they got to lose? Consumer support?

Govern.ent bailout is right around the corner.

So explain how free speech is enhanced when ZeroHedge is being demonitized by Google “because it disapproved of the language in our comments “?

Solis
You said: “Google shouldn’t be obligated to give a platform to companies that violate their terms.
Are you saying that:  private companies shouldn’t be obligated to give a platform to others that violate their terms.?

(in the future when you address me start your comment with my identification.)

Bummin’
. . . .
Looks like more and more sites are currently not allowing comments. American Thinker and Legal Insurrection come to mind. It does dampen discourse among readers of those sites, but also shields the sites from cancel culture shenanigans.
. . . .
I think MSB is very smart to let denizens of the saloon police the place, rather than attempting to edit comments for content or just letting the trolls run wild.

I tend to agree that these tech companies have gotten too big for the public’s good and would like to see more antitrust action against them. Bust them up and make the resulting companies compete against each other. But I think one problem is that all these companies may be huge now but they all started out small at one point. How do you draw the line with deciding when they are too big to continue acting in the same manner as small businesses like yours?

Then how come the government could force a bakery to bake a cake for a homosexual couple against their principles?

I wouldn’t be surprised to see former Pres. Trump and or some of his immediate family create their own server farm and replacement platforms for Twitter, Facebook etc. Consider the potential size of his audience! The advertisers will be breaking their doors down to buy ad space and he’ll have a massive profitable platform…uncensored

he has the ways and means, and financial backing of others to do it.
here’s the thing.
anything he does like that will bring unending lawsuits, and the wrath of the left in the form of house and senate investigation committees without end. if the guy was to fart right now they would investigate him for polluting. pelosie would have him brought up on charges of destroying the ozone layer. that’s just how scared they are of him. they are terrified of him and us.
BTW, you don’t have to present any proof to file a lawsuit, only an accusation. then it’s left up to the plaintiff to disprove the charges in court.

i meant to say defendant instead if plaintiff in the last post.
Clarence Darrow i am not.

No Lawyer here either – However, the Civil Lawsuit area is often populated with non-Government Plaintiffs and Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges some wrong or damage done by the Defendant that needs to be fixed (usually by $$$$) or some behavior that must stop or start.

Remember that the Defendant is assumed innocent of the alleged wrong until proven otherwise by the Plaintiff to the satisfaction of the Jury (usually), however, the Standard of Proof is different than it is in Criminal cases.

Criminal cases must be proved by the State “beyond a reasonable doubt” and that translates into unanimous concurrence by the Jury (usually 12 – 0 to convict)

Civil Juries usually need to be convinced by “the preponderance of the evidence” ( > 50% probable) that the Defendant “did it.”

Another difference in many jurisdictions is that Juries don’t need unanimity and are often fewer than 12. In some places 4 votes in favor of the Plaintiff out of a 6 person Jury is enough to find for the Plaintiff.

Still “Innocent till proven Guilty” but just by a different standard

<bb

bb_in_GA’
you are exactly right, and the left won’t stop.

The sticking point is whether our “inalienable rights” as enumerated in the Constitution are given to us by the gov’t, or ours without reference to the gov’t. If they are ours, then it is our responsibility to make sure that even commercial enterprises abide by them.

If these rights are given to us by the gov’t (the prevailing train of thought), then commercial enterprises are not and cannot be affected by them unless the gov’t decides to intervene.

I tend to believe the former. My god-given rights are restricted ONLY by the One who gave them to me.

No one gives you your natural liberties, you are born with them…just like you are born with a body.

It is government, which has no rights of its own, which are not provided to it by those it governs. The Constitution does not give you rights, it protects your rights from government, which is subordinated to them.

The government does not allow you to own your own life, and give you permission to protect and defend it, and to take actions to sustain it, your mere existence is sufficient for these things.

You have the same rights, living on a deserted island by yourself, as you do, living in downtown Los Angeles among millions.

If you cannot exercise a “right” without the efforts, or the property, of another…what you claim to be a “right” is not…and cannot be so. There is no “right to enslave,” or “right to loot,” or a “right to desired results.”

Well said

Ision,

Thank you for stating this so perfectly! We’ve been so conditioned for so long, even those of us who know this is true need to be reinforced and reminded. Fortified, if you will.

Lauren
. . . .
You might want to examine where property rights fit into your equation. Does my right to freely express myself extend to behaving as I wish on the private property of others or the public property of all? Google is private property, owned by its shareholders. As are all social media websites who sell or allow access to their platforms and services. Nuances of Section 230 aside, if you have a right to control who comes into your house, or speaks from your porch, doesn’t Google? Or must that baker provide his services to every engaged couple that walks into his shop?

Again, the question is natural rights (granted by God) vs. legal rights (granted by the law).

If I have a piece of property and someone deliberately blocks all the roads and then calls the sherriff on me for refusing to pay them for access, who is in the wrong? Not legally, but morally and ethically.

I have the right to speak. Google has the right to control what happens on “their” property. But when they take special privileges from the government and use those privileges to block me from “my” property it goes over and above the rule of law. It is then squarely in the area of natural rights.

If they are denying me my rights, I can either go elsewhere (denying them the “right” to block my access, maybe a helicopter ride in this scenario) or I can fight them on their own land, with the sheriff solidly on their side. Which is ethically in the right? Which is legally in the right?

They are not the same thing. Can that person then shoot the copter down? The sheriff/law might say yes.

Tech giants are in the process of “shooting down” everyone who disagrees with them, with the law squarely on their side. That does not make it right, either morally or ethically.

Anony Mee: If the question is “does a private company have the right to deny the rights granted to you in the Bill of Rights” the answer is no according to judgments against cafe’s in the South that displayed “No Negroes”, or owners of a private bakery that the court said had to bake a cake against their morals because if they didn’t they would be denying the accusers of their civil rights.

How is Google, FaceBook, Twitter protected from having to observe civil rights when small business owners are not? Because of a connivingly crafted legal protection.

Your private property is legally distinct from business property. What you have the right to not allow on private property you do not always have the right to deny to allow on business property.

What you probably do not know is that the bakery, which refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, WON HIS CASE in the U.S. Supreme Court. He CAN refuse to bake such a cake, legally. Why? Because doing so is against his religious convictions.

Imagine that.

Ision,
I never heard the final outcome. Imagine that, the media not advertising the S.C. verdict – what a shock!

Okay, I’ll try to tone down the snarkiness.

Ision – I was aware of that but did not mention it because of the reason why they won, infringement on their constitutional rights. Can Twitter, Facebook claim that?

Actually, Ision, to add to your comment, or maybe correct it a little…the baker won his case where he refused to use his artistic talents to decorate the cake. The baker never actually refused to sell the gay couple a cake, he just refused to use his God-given talents to artistically bake and/or decorate it with a message that went against his religion. I think that’s what helped him win the case – He told them that he would be happy to sell them a pre-baked cake, but could not put any message on it that went against his religion.

I’m here in Colorado, and was watching that really closely. I was SO happy to hear that he won.

Unfortunately, his troubles aren’t over. The LGBT crowd are determined to shut him down. He was sued a 2nd time in 2019, and a 3rd time last year…both by someone from the LGBT group.

John Adams’ words on the Constitution being designed only for a moral and religious people and that it won’t work for any other kind go directly to the heart of this problem of censor/no censor of these public forums.

Obviously we have always had a blend of all types of people from the beginning, but the dominant standard has been the Judeo-Christian one. That is GWTW…

We fundamentally lost the understanding of the difference between Liberty and License.

Liberty is connected to Freedom and Freedom is always coupled with Responsibility.

License has at its root – Licentiousness – which means without restraint.

“I can do any Damn thing I want to any time I want to…” is Licentiousness written large.

Most people believe the above line expresses true Freedom.

The J-C based ethics draws you in the direction of carefully considering how your words and actions affect others and whether there is Love there…Even when you have to do and say hard things.

We always need external restraint – Laws, LEOS, and Courts to restrain those who will not do it for themselves.

<bb

Two good points in the article pretty much says it all to me.
# 1 The free press is dead, as a doornail.The (big ) media is completely controlled . Citizens hear what they want us to hear and finding truth has become almost impossible.
# 2 Our country is in big trouble . The Constitution has been slowly eroded. When the 2nd Amendment is discarded ,what is left of the Constitution will be gone as well.Our elected people in leadership positions lie and steal (taxes) and give it to themselves and their friends.

Prepare for the worst and pray fro the best.

I installed the Brave browser on an iMac, which worked fine for some time, but now big tech disabled it.

Contact Brave. They’d be glad to know that there’s an issue and try to fix it. The team is volunteer, so it might not get fixed right away. They will want to know what operating system and so on, including the version of Brave.

The only contact to Brave is FAQ. That’s okay, I only use the Mac occasionally.

support.brave.com/hc/en-us

Bummin’

You might want to find out if you have the latest version for apple products. Apparently, the latest version fixes issues based on the previous version “not being compliant” with Apple’s guidelines – something about the Basic Attention Toke (BAT) going against Apple’s rule about “tipping” people.

Their latest version removes that. Check to see if there is an upgrade. If not, try uninstalling it then downloading and installing the latest version.

One reason to get off of Apple products. They are too controlling and greedy.