Category Archives: Technology

PARLER, Hashtag #Bible, Is A Zombie Social-Media Network

China, Free Speech, Media, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Technology

Social media is supposed to be free, effortless and friendly. I’m just not getting that feeling from Parler, whose hashtags are dead to the news.—ilana

On Twitter I endure shadow-banning, throttling and the periodic wiping out of Followers in their hundreds. BUT at least Twitter is ALIVE. It is a clever interface, too. If not for the China-style censorship; Twitter would be perfect.

Parler—the conservative site we defended and had high hopes for (see “Deep Tech: Locked Down And Locked Out, First By The State, Then By Silicon Valley“)—is proving to be a zombie social-media site. I mean, just look how dead-to-the news the Parler hashtags are!

It is Republican Party cheerleaders, neoconservatives at their most stagnant, stuck in a time-warp; followers of Trump, but without an affinity or penchant for his radical spirit and message. Very Fox News.

Dissident thinkers—at least this one—will find it hard to get ahead or make friends. Not so Gab, which is not as good as Twitter, as an interface, but is so much better than Parler for dissidents (at least, myself).

A Parler email just arrived informing me that “Parler remains the world’s premier free speech platform.” To follow are instructions to do some wank activity like log-in somewhere to feel the Parler fabulousness.

You see, Parler, social media is supposed to be free, effortless and friendly. I’m just not getting that feeling from Parler.

I’ll be posting this up there on Parler, and will make myself scarce on that frosty, dour place.

WATCH: Dorsey Out, Even More Woke In; And The OMG! Variant Whacks The West

Britain, Business, COVID-19, Europe, Free Speech, Pseudoscience, Race, South-Africa, Technology

WATCH & SUBSCRIBE: “Dorsey Out, Even More Woke In; And The OMG! Variant Whacks The West”:

David has been banned by Jack Dorsey’s Twitter; ilana is shadow-banned and throttled. But for the Wokerati, Dorsey is just not woke enough. Enter Parag Agrawal. Twitter’s new CEO is even less wedded to the First Amendment of the US Constitution than Dorsey. Agrawal, whose ideas about American liberty come from Stanford, Microsoft and Mumbai, thinks his role is to make public discourse healthier. Oh, for the days when businessmen stuck to their mandate: doing business.

DOWNLOAD To Listen On-The-Go



UPDATED (11/16/021): WATCH: How ‘Renewable’ Technologies Trash The Environment, Hurt The World’s Poor And Its Critters

China, Democrats, Energy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Pseudoscience, Regulation, Technology

NEW ON YouTube: How ‘Renewable’ Technologies Trash The Environment, Hurt The World’s Poor And Its Critters:

Elon Musk, heavily subsidized by the State, trashes the environment with his “Commie Cars,” namely his electrical cars.

These discharge into the environment lead, cadmium and nickel—the byproducts of batteries. Their impact on the environment has been shown to be way worse than that of the gasoline-powered car.

The most important lesson in environmentalism—which is beyond the low-IQ left’s comprehension abilities—is this: The more efficient the source of energy, the less waste and pollution are involved in its conversion into energy. Think of the totality of the production process! The fewer resources used in bringing a fuel to market, the cleaner and cheaper is the process.

Yes, renewables are environmentally toxic: Instead of relying on glorious, clean gasoline — gaseous President Joe Brandon prefers to clear cut land—complex ecosystems—to make way for that ‘apex predator,’ the killer en masse of birds: the wind turbine.”

UPDATE (11/16/021):

I am a green, as in being particularly pro-environment, pro-ecosystems and animals, but not in the sense of being a Climate Idolator and worshiper. That’s a distraction from the Real World we inhabit.

UPDATE II (12/21/021): NEW COLUMN: Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech (Part 3)

Free Speech, Individual Rights, Justice, Labor, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, Technology, The Courts, THE ELITES

NEW COLUMN: “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” is now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

This column is Part 3 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication” and Part 2, “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.”

An excerpt:

It is inarguable that by financially crippling and socially segregating, and banishing politically irksome people and enterprises—the Big Tech cartel is flouting the spirit, if not the strict letter, of the Civil Rights Act.

For how do you make a living if your banking options are increasingly curtailed and constantly threatened, and your ability to electronically communicate with clients is likewise circumscribed?

Do you go back to a barter economy (a book for some bread)? Do you go underground? Cultivate home-based industries? Do you keep afloat by word of mouth? Go door-to-door? Return to stamping envelopes? How can you, when your client base is purely electronic?

Telling an individual he can’t open a bank account on account of the beliefs and opinions swirling in his head teeters on informing your innocent victim he might not be able to make a living, as do other, politically more polite Americans, and despite his innocence: Our only “offenses” as dissidents are thought crimes, namely, speaking, or typing or wafting into the air unpopular, impolite words.

“[I]n assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power,” Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, “what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

To paraphrase this Supreme Court jurist: Sure, there are alternatives to The Big Tech, but these make a mockery of the outcast. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s point about comparability, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes. “Have at it sucker.”

By Deep Tech decree, some Americans are worth more than others, based not on their actions, but on the voiced thoughts in their heads. This cannot stand.

The letter of the law needs changing. Do it.

Civil Rights Act

Thus, the preferred remedy to Deep Tech depredations would build upon existing Civil Rights Act jurisprudence.

As a reality-oriented conservative libertarian, I inhabit and theorize in the real world. From the conservative-libertarian’s perspective, Barry Goldwater got it right. Civil Rights law is an ass, for it infringes on property rights. But the onus is on flaccid Republican lawmakers to ensure that that ass can be ridden by all equally (with apologies to adorable, much-abused donkeys for the cruel metaphor).

These are existing laws that are already enforced. I see no reason to reject the application of civil rights solutions to wicked, woke bullies because existing laws that’ll never be repealed go against my core beliefs. What is libertarianism? The art of losing in life because of a slavish devotion to theoretical purity? …

NEW COLUMN, “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” can be read now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

UPDATED (10/26/021) I:

UPDATE II (12/21/021) II: “Berenson v. Twitter“:

Twitter is indisputably a messenger service. A longstanding California law regulates messenger services as “common carriers.” This means that they must accept all messages they receive. Twitter thus must accept all tweets it receives. It has no First Amendment rights to refuse them on the basis that it does not agree with them.
A federal law commonly called Section 230 “preempts” the California law, giving Twitter the right to reject tweets or ban users. (Whether that right is universal or whether Twitter must act in “good faith” in restricting service is a separate question; whether Twitter acted in “good faith” in this case is still another question. But put those issues aside for the moment.)
Section 230 is what enables Twitter to claim a First Amendment privilege that supersedes the California law and restrict my own First Amendment right to speak; thus federal courts have the right to review 230 on First Amendment grounds.