Hello. Trump signed an executive order to ban TikTok because it's owned by a Chinese company, and he felt threatened by China in terms of security - it was something like that, wasn't it? I guess there is a difference between a private company terminating its own social media platform and a government authorising the termination of a private social media platform, and the latter is an act of deprivation of freedom of speech, which is not good.

@Naomi Only a communist would see this as a game, and not tyranny. But that is how communists think I guess. Actually, let me rephrase that.... a communist would understand the implications of this... only a "useful idiot" would celebrate it who does not understand the implications. But that is what I see with lefties, they think its just Trump and hahaha. They have no clue what it means and that tomorrow it will be them. They have no protection, just an illusion of thinking this is left vs right, not realizing its got nothing to do with that. Its about power, and the moment useful idiots stop being useful they will be the other thing and they too will be oppressed and censured the same way.

In totalitarian communist parties or those that model themselves on it, the system tries to perpetuate itself at the cost of everyone in it. So no one is safe. The concept of loyalty does not exist in communism. Only power and atmosphere of fear and oppression. CCP in China is an example where no has immunity.

That is why people who promote the idea of one side being banned or censured are called useful idiots. Because they are temperarally useful for political reasons, but they are idiots because they think the system they are supporting will reword them because they have been loyal? What folly.

The establishment during 9/11 try to use the "threat" of terrorism to pas the laws for "patriot act" where they can gain more power.

The Patriot Act was written following the September 11 attacks in an effort to dramatically tighten U.S. national security, particularly as it related to foreign terrorism. In general, the act included three main provisions:

• expanded abilities of law enforcement to surveil, including by tapping domestic and international phones;
• eased interagency communication to allow federal agencies to more effectively use all available resources in counterterrorism efforts; and
• increased penalties for terrorism crimes and an expanded list of activities which would qualify someone to be charged with terrorism.

Now we are seeing the propaganda machine calling "American Patriots" terrorists. So they will probably pass a new law leveraging this incident of Capital Hill , "terrorist act" or something, where they can call anyone they don't like a terrorist and without trial and warrant... they would be able to do what CCP does. Oppress anyone in the world they feel like it. Part of this we have seen already during Obama years. Drone assassination of people they have in kill list. No accountability. Labeling people terrorists and putting them in Guantanamo where they can torture and abuse people with no trial indefinably. Look what they did to Julian Assange. Not a terrorist but a threat. In their mind that is how it works.

F. Fürstenberg wrote in 2007 in the New York Times [“Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons”, in connection with the French Revolution – upon the etymology of the word “terrorist”as well:

“… The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor, of course, to ‘Islamofascism’. A ‘terroriste’ was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during La Terreur. (Reign of Terror)”

La Terreur. (Reign of Terror) - refers to a period during the French Revolution after the First French Republic was established in which multiple massacres and public executions occurred in response to revolutionary fervor, anti-clerical sentiment, and frivolous accusations of treason by Maximilien Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety.

Several historians consider the "reign of terror" to have begun in 1793, placing the starting date at either 5 September, June or March (birth of the Revolutionary Tribunal), while some consider it to have begun in September 1792 (September Massacres), or even July 1789 (when the first killing took place), but there is a consensus that it ended with the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794 as this led to the Thermidorian Reaction.

Between June 1793 and the end of July 1794, there were 16,594 official death sentences in France, of which 2,639 were in Paris.

What we saw with Parler and Trump is the digital equivalent of "Reign of Terror". But how long before it goes offline too.
..............................................

“The Marxians love of democratic institutions was a stratagem only, a pious fraud for the deception of the masses. Within a socialist community there is no room left for freedom.” ― Ludwig Von Mises

“[T]he useful idiots, the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of the Soviet socialist or Communist or whatever system, when they get disillusioned, they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. [...] They serve a purpose only at the stage of destabilization of a nation. For example, your leftists in the United States: all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders. They are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed any more. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power—obviously they get offended—they think that they will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot.” ― Yuri Bezmenov

@Krunoslav Do you remember when Trump was going to ban tik tok - very orwellian!

@bastion You don't get the point do you? TickTock was designed to be orwelian, genius? What do you think CCP was doing on TikTok, watching cat videos? Or spaying its own people and other countries? You are not very good at this are you?

@Naomi Well Nazis or National Socialism was domestic German brand of communism. Socialism is just an empty term, acting as placeholder for various totalitarian regimes. Socialism cannot exist in practice since its economically impossible and politically very anti social.

And they did hate communists, not because of methods but because of lack of nationality which Hitler was promoting. And on both Stalin and Hitler side of things there was both paranoia that one will attack the other or team up with their enemies.

And off course they would take control over all means of communication. Just like we are seeing now being attempted online and short of seaszing Internet Providers like they do in China, they are really limiting all the political dissidents just like in Nazi Germany, Communist China, Russia, Cuba etc, North Korea and off course Fascist Italy was no exception. Ultimately they are all totalitarian regimes with various flavors. Off course UK with their hate crimes and hate speech laws being proposed and some in practice , the censorship in government buildings and universities and schools.... very much communist approach.

Development of Communist states

Lenin became the dictator of the world’s first communist state. Civil War broke out in Russia in late 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution. The warring factions included the Red and White Armies. The Russian Civil War ended in 1923 with Lenin’s Red Army claiming victory and establishing the Soviet Union.

During the 20th century, the world's first constitutionally socialist state was in Russia in 1917. In 1922, it joined other former territories of the empire to become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). After World War II, the Soviet Army occupied much of Eastern Europe and thus helped establish Communist states in these countries. Most Communist states in Eastern Europe were allied with the Soviet Union, except for Yugoslavia which declared itself non-aligned. In 1949, after a war against Japanese occupation and a civil war resulting in a Communist victory, the People's Republic of China (PRC) was established. Communist states were also established in Cambodia, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam. A Communist state was established in North Korea, although it later adopted its own ideology called Juche. In 1989, the Communist states in Eastern Europe collapsed under public pressure during a wave of non-violent movements which led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Today, the existing Communist states in the world are in China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam.

These Communist states often do not claim to have achieved socialism or communism in their countries—rather, they claim to be building and working toward the establishment of socialism in their countries. For example, the preamble to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's Constitution states that Vietnam only entered a transition stage between capitalism and socialism after the country was re-unified under the Communist Party in 1976 and the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Cuba states that the role of the Communist Party is to "guide the common effort toward the goals and construction of socialism"

Georgian-born revolutionary Joseph Stalin rose to power upon Lenin’s death in 1924. The dictator ruled by terror with a series of brutal policies, which left millions of his own citizens dead. During his reign—which lasted until his death in 1953—Stalin transformed the Soviet Union from an agrarian society to an industrial and military superpower.

The Great Purge

Amid confusion and resistance to collectivization in the countryside, agricultural productivity dropped. This led to devastating food shortages. Millions died during the Great Famine of 1932-1933. For many years the USSR denied the Great Famine, keeping secret the results of a 1937 census that would have revealed the extent of loss. Stalin eliminated all likely opposition to his leadership by terrorizing Communist Party officials and the public through his secret police.

During the height of Stalin’s terror campaign, a period between 1936 and 1938 known as the Great Purge, an estimated 600,000 Soviet citizens were executed. Millions more were deported, or imprisoned in forced labor camps known as Gulags.

Well said.

@TheMiddleWay I started on BBS' in 1984. Boards in CT, VA, GA and a bunch in Chicago. I was pretty well known in the Chicago BBS community and socially amongst the membership of three large boards (50+ lines). I was not on MySpace or Compuserve but was aware of them - busy elsewhere. I was a beta tester for Quicken and an invited user for the initial rollout of Google email and Twitter. We had a #1 website in search via Yahoo and then when Google pulled out of Yahoo we were #1 for 6 years on Google Search (for our law firm regionally). I did all the SEO.

Your opinion is worthless. You lie, you fail to recognize that this election was stolen, you deny the facts, you SOB have been harassing Trump for 4 years, you along with Clinton, Schummer and Steel are all fascist thugs. The MSM are no longer instruments of speech they are political parties in disguise. This is the NAZI in you. We beat you in 1940 and we will beat you again so watch your back because we are working to fix this. Free speech is where democracy BEGINS but you think it's your tool to abuse.
NO!

Trump is what? To you socialists who either can’t get out of bed in the morning to get to work or who are afraid the gravy train will end sometime soon are hilarious! Really? Jobs. Making a living. Those concepts might be alien to you but for most adults that is how they, dare I write it? Get ahead!

@bastion
Oh shut up, you fucking moron.

You and the rest of your little goon squad should pool your IQs. Then you could be a single idiot.

@Edgework ... I'm not in a banning mood today as it's understandable that people are on edge recently. Please consider this when others push our comment guidelines. One of my biggest fears recently is a growing level of contempt people have to those with different opinions. it's the #1 precursor to divorce and violence

@Admin
I've been banned elsewhere. Might as well go for the trifecta. My tolerance for organized lies has reached zero. Do what you have to do.

@Rick-A All opinions are worthless. Fact prevails even if not believed. The trouble with ignoring fact is it will catch up with you in the end. It is best to pursue the facts so you will be better prepared when they poke their head up.

Hey bastion, you might be right about that and I am surprised to hear about it. Are you able to provide some names that this is happened to? This is a genuine question as I am interested.

Also, do you or any other person here know any statistics on the percentages around who has been banned particularly around left or right political opinions?

I wish these companies published this kind of stuff

@Pand0ro What are the facts you are referring to?

@Admin I have to agree with Admin, WE have to be civil with each other!!! Yes, I know I have had a few moment myself and I will apologize to anyone I have offended, here and now!!!
The inventors of the sites being discussed, ALL leaned LEFT before they created their sites!!!
THEIR belief system has made THEM all rich beyond anyone's dreams!!!
Why would WE expect THEM to change their business profile?????
Eliminating competition is how THEY got to the TOP!!!

@Rick-A All facts. Everything that is real. Not "alternative" facts which are not facts. Anything that is true, not what people claim as true, not what they believe is true, but is demonstrable, provable and replicable by independent observers. Every thing that is real. Everybody is misled at times because truth is often difficult to determine, goes against how we would like things to be and can be disappointing to us. Fantasy can be comfortable and satisfying but does us no good when reality intrudes its head.

@Pand0ro To buddy, I do not need a lecture on the definition of truth. I can read for myself, and Dictionary.com is free and easy to use. How about elevating this conversation to a point of maturity and actually providing the "case in point" that you seem unable to articulate.

@Rick-A You seem to have missed the point.

@Rick-A lmao

@Pand0ro definitely agree with you. I argue with family and friends with facts because of all the derangement, lies, fraud etc we have seen in 4 years from the witch in the chair. She has created the hate, fed the hate and the MSM have been paid to drive to the extreme left, now to cover up and control.
Christians and Conservatives have to stand up and speak up. We are no longer the quiet polite ones. It is happening in Australia, we are so small in comparison to you in the US but the same is happening. We don’t have a witch in the chair but we have 3 left aligned states who lie, are supported by China and are preening themselves as they plump up their feathers

• "Private corporations are going to pursue what is most profitable. If leaning left is more profitable that is the way they will lean. It is just a matter of economics and an indicator of who has the most influence."

This is what I'm having a hard time trying to discern. Is this a case of private corporations purely looking out for their bottom line, (in which case, they are free to run their sites however they want, even if I don't agree with it), or is this foreshadowing into greater governmental control over online activities, including stricter regulations akin to what we currently see on big tech social media sites.

I'm having a hard time separating the two because big tech has been at court numerous times over the years. While Republican representatives were making their cases of unfair censorship, Democratic representatives were making their cases that there isn't enough censorship. I don't want governmental control on either side.

There is also the issue of the monopolies. (Which I would like to see broken up) Big tech dominates and as much as they don't want to be broken up, I don't think our government wants them broken up either. The flow of online information is a powerful tool to have, and currently it's in the Democrats favor. If the monopolies can be broken up, and more alternative social media sites are able to thrive under less restrictions, that also still leaves the possibility of the government taking control of them as well under the guise of public safety.

I may just be getting ahead of myself, and my perception could be skewed, though. I'm really unsure. Any thoughts?

@saramarylop3z Follow the money. Legislators get the lion share of their money from the wealthy and corporations. There are always rumblings of how corporations need to be held in check yet over the past 30 years have gotten pretty much their own way. Companies only political ideology is and always has been the bottom line and whatever political action that enhances it will be taken.

@dd54 You're talking of government regulation of corporations?

@dd54 What laws could be enforced to stop corporations from acting on what gets them the greatest profit?

For anyone interested, this is a decent site, and Minds is working on content creators being able to monetize their efforts-
[minds.com]

Would you be open to reclassifying social media as public utilities, and subjecting them to special oversight, like airlines or power companies?

@GeeMac No, even as they offer a service to the public would still not remove the fact they are a private entity, and not sure more laws would even work.

The game will have to be played more strategically, not just tactically, and especially not in spasms of ill-chosen actions that can be turned around against us.

You and I both on that.

Minds is another decent platform-
[minds.com]

It's unfortunately that almost every community has become an echo chamber.

@Admin It's no surprize. Polarization and divisiveness works like that. Some call Ad Hom and personal attacks, "debate" and often ignore the actual problem and concentrate on trying to undermine the oppositions position instead of strengthening their own with facts.

@maxmaccc Ad hom, personal attacks, trolling, venting, ranting... It's probably a hobby for many to come on social media to do those things because they can't do them in the real world. Lol

Is your goal to silence the libtards?

@Pand0ro no the Libtards will eventually silence themselves.

Never let a crisis go to waste...

@dd54 The reaction overseas is somewhat interesting. Many in other countries are wondering why American corporations have the power to censor heads of state.

@dd54 Even if we don't (or politically can't) move to limit or break them up, other countries will. In addition, the ad revenue and profitability of these social media companies comes at the expense of local print/broadcasting media. Many countries were already upset at that.

Twistor sounds very interesting. Thanks for the reference.

@Starlight In all fairness, the alternatives are filled with "a bunch of kooks and haters". That's simple logic. The fringe is expelled from mainstream media, so alt-media is filed with fringe.

It takes the determination of mainstream free speech advocates to use alt-media to defeat that perception. The more "normies" who use alt-media, the less fringe it will be populated with by proportion.

@ZuzecaSape Agreed. What was learned after mySpace, is that all social software has a time limit. Though the big tech desperately try to renovate what they have in order to hold on, something with fresh ideas will eventually take their place. Fundamentally, we need changes to evolve and propel us forward.