"Dangerous" Paul Joseph Watson as you've probably never seen him discussing censorship...

just being himself.

Not only is he predicting his own future, but the future of free speech.

Facecrap figures strongly here.  I'm not overly bothered by the censorship on Facecrap, the adverts, or any of the other stuff people complain about.

My news doesn't come from Facecrap.  I don't look at their ads, and I don't spend an inordinate amount of time there.

The danger in that thinking is that millions upon millions of people do get their news from Facecrap, buy from their advertisers, and spend just about all day trolling the platform.

On the other hand I've learned over the years (many, many years) that people who are on the left (commies) are not going to be convinced by truth.  We've had many generations subverted by the siren song of the left and nothing is going to change their minds.

They've sent their children to state controlled schools who have indoctrinated them to the point of complete lunacy.  Instead of "Our Father, Who Art in Heaven", they now chant "Diversity is Our Strength" and "A Women's Right to Choose."

What do we do?

How about going direct to the source?  Nothing is stopping you from accessing these "dangerous" people on their sites - at least not yet. Will the left eventually get them off the internet?  I'm pretty sure that's where this is headed.

And if you think it's only the big sites being affected, you'd be wrong.  There is no doubt that I, as well as many of the other smaller sites, are being shadow banned.

The only thing I ever post on Facecrap is a link to my posts.  After culling my friends list it only has the potential to reach about 200 people directly.  I have several friends who "share" my posts adding another 1000 or so peeps.

In the past I would have at least 300 or more daily page views that came from Facecrap.  Guess how many I get now?  Zero.  That's right - zero.



You Can't Watch This from RWFS Distribution on Vimeo.
Release Date:  May 15th, 2019 3:00 pm ET




More:

American Thinker:  The Next Battlefront: Social Media



Amazon Today

Save 50% on the Sun Joe SPX 3500 Pressure Washer

Save on Men's Basics from Goodthreads  Shorts, shirts, pants, et all.

Should government intervene in "social" media?...

I'm not in favor.

Do I think Facecrap, Instagram, or any of the other time wasting unsocial sites sway elections?

No.

Listen - if you're a conservative, in particular a conservative Christian, you don't have a gaggle of commie Facecrap friends. In fact,you probably don't have any.

Now reverse that.  Do the commies have a basket full of deplorable friends?

Nope.

The uneducated willfully blind commies in this country do not give a fig what a conservative has to say.  And other than to mock them, we don't pay any attention to the commies.

I do have a problem when they start messing with the income stream of ordinary people.

Our local political brainiac, Brent Regan, had this to say today - on Facecrap.

There is much talk about regulating the SVMOTUs (Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe) for their censoring the free speech of conservatives. I am fundamentally opposed to additional government regulation both from the policy perspective of not giving government additional powers and from a practical perspective in that the probability of government improving the situation is essentially zero.

On the flip side you have a HUGE monopoly which is wielding its power in a perceptibly unfair manner. Arguments that the free market will eventually break the monopoly are not credible as the barriers to entry are massive. Any nascent platform would be crushed or subsumed by the ubiquitous giant.

SVMOTUs lobbied and received protections from the government against being sued for libel arguing that they do not supply the content and therefore cannot be held responsible. This "we are just a utility" argument is now crumbling because now they are filtering content to the extent that the "product" is significantly different than the "input".

If you own a bridge upon which red and blue cars cross and you decide not to let blue cars use your bridge then you have stopped being a bridge provider and started being a content provider even though you don't make red cars. Gold miners don't make gold, they just filter out the "not gold" from the stream of gravel. The essence of providing any product is that you start with a raw material and then modify it in some way. As a producer, you are responsible for your product.

It is time to remove the protections against litigation and let the free market regulate the SVMOTUs with legions of attorneys.

The standard would be easy to set as it already exists. Our basic right of the freedom of speech is limited in that you cannot advocate for the direct harm of another person. If a platform restricted speech beyond that basic limit then they should lose their liability shield because they have stopped being a platform and started being a supplier.

Protections should remain if the platform allowed speech that someone somewhere found offensive. This would create the situation where allowing speech is incentivized over censoring speech.

It is time to allow the free market to regulate SVMOTUs.

Geller Report:   Link-banning Is Facebook’s Terrifying New Censorship Tool

Breitbart:  Facebook, Google Pour Big Money into Lobbying Congress While Blacklisting Conservatives

Breitbart:   Beware the Big Tech Censorship Domino Effect

Sharyl Attkisson:  

How Media Narratives Became More Important Than Facts

"The effort to expose flaws and conflicts in media reporting is growing stronger, not weaker, despite the narratives. The desire to affect improvements is building. Make no mistake: Not all of us are free to speak publicly, but there are a lot of us. And we aren’t going away."