If you are keeping track, which I'm sure you are, you know that big tech is censoring conservatives. Certain men have lost their voice on the parent companies of twitter, facebook, google, and amazon. They assume that we will do nothing, because we do not have alternatives. They have even censored the alternatives, Parler deplatformed by Amazon, its cloud provider. Should conservatives stay with these companies when others are being kicked off? They'll be emboldened to do worse.
Roger Kimball writes at American Greatness that the United States is governed by a woke oligarchy. We have the government and then we have the oligarchy in control of them. We have the people who are addicted to what the oligarchy knows they have them addicted. They don't care, as they are amused to death. Are we, even Christians, perhaps just professing ones, part of the horde under the swami-like domination of the imagination? These tech titans and the mainstream media feed the bread and provide the circuses. Can we say, no?
I suggest that we've got to start working at it, at least. I understand someone not destroying every bit of their social media at one time. We've got to do something. I don't want to do it. That inconvenience itself is enough to stop most. It takes nothing to keep the account. The oligarchs, the tech titans, who already have billions, are counting on us to stay.
Some would argue that we shouldn't remove ourselves from these settings, because we've got a ministry there. They are the world. We're just staying in the world. Do we need all this stuff to do ministry? They were supposed to be a means to an end. Is that an excuse or reason for not leaving these forums? Should we say that we really "need" them? Could we not still just go directly to the people, walk right up to them and talk to their face? Hand them written material?
Until about three months ago, I had not been a part of facebook, except for about a month before I left. I got on for our mission work, to use for the livestream, which I didn't even use. And then people started following me, and I thought that it was helping me connect with supporting pastors. I don't know. Maybe. I'm probably leaving facebook this week, and I'm just letting you know. I have joined mewe, requested by someone and, I say, yes. We'll see if I stay there for the same reason. One motivation is that it isn't facebook.
So I will be gone from facebook and I've never been on twitter. How else am I connected? I am connected on youtube, owned by Google, Instagram, owned by Facebook, and Blogger, which is owned by Google. My blog is the biggest project. So what do I do?
I just took all of "What Is Truth" to another platform. I purposefully went to something that was detached from the usual suspects of the oligarchy. I haven't moved it yet, because I want to give others time to move too. For a little while, everything here will be there, until it isn't at blogger anymore. I don't know what I'm going to use for our videos yet, but I'll let you know. This is costing us something, because Blogger is free. We're paying to move. With all that being said, here is our new blog location:
That's going to be easier to remember. What Is Truth Dot Com wasn't available. I'm giving you time to move to our new site. You can already start looking at it.
Um, conservatives are not getting censored. Liars are getting censored. Trump for example was thrown off twitter because he lied constantly and his lies were dangerous. I would challenge you to post even one person that has been censored that was either not lying or not condoning violence.
ReplyDeleteI'll wait...
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe NYPost, one of the nation's oldest newspapers, was censored by facebook and twitter before the election for printing the truth, the plainly documented truth, about the Hunter Biden laptop. The media lied about it and they allowed and published their lies repeatedly. It's obvious that lying isn't the standard, because the left lies all the time and they publish their lies. I'm not even asking for censorship of the left for their lies, but you would have to, that is, ask for censorship for all lying, both left and right, to be consistent. I'm assuming you won't be consistent though, because that's not what you want. You just want censorship for who you want censorship.
I can give many more examples than this one, but I'm assuming you won't care. I would be surprised if you were honest on this one, which is ironic, because what I've written indicates that your comment is a lie. It should be censored by me in order to be consistent with your unconstitutional standard of censorship.
I knew this guy wouldn't come back. Good thing he's anonymous. That's why he's anonymous. He wouldn't want anyone to know his name. God knows though.
ReplyDeleteEveryone,
ReplyDeleteHe did come back, but I'm not printing his comment., because he is anonymous and not civil. If he printed his real name, he could come on here with those terms, but he won't. He said that the NYPost wasn't censored. He said that these companies can do what they want, because they're the owners, like a guy that doesn't want to bake a cake.
It is an interesting question worth discussing if he could remain civil. The Supreme Court took the cake bake case and said it was a religious freedom case, so it's not a good comparison. Do the tech titans not have to provide service for who they don't want, because they don't like the views? I think this is an interstate commerce type case to give my first thought. They don't own the internet, so they can be regulated by the government as a first amendment issue. They can't censure speech that qualifies as legal speech. The point of the first amendment was for political speech. Not all speech is protected, but "lies" are a big category. The NYPost had a validated article and it was preemptively censored for a political purpose that did affect the election. Polls were taken that said that enough people would have voted differently to change the outcome. This is what these tech titans had in mind was to put their thumb on the scale.
Anonymous said I purposefully didn't use Trump as an example, when he asked, as you can see above, about conservatives. Anyway, you can judge that for yourself. I gave an obvious one that was true, which is what he required.
George,
ReplyDeleteIt is appropriate not allow certain comments without it being censorship. It has nothing to do with your arguments. You are the only person we're doing this to, who says his name to us. We've told you why. This is not apples and apples with the tech titans, because they are ejecting from an entire platform, and they are being inconsistent with their application. I understand your thinking, but I also think it is wrong.