Throughout history, censorship has occurred whenever government or private groups attempt to impose their political or moral values on others. One would imagine that this could never happen in the most free and prosperous country in the history of the world. This type of activity clearly seems incongruous with the founding principles – not to mention the Constitution.
In fact, our nation, our national ideals and our very democracy thrives on vigorous debate of strongly-held beliefs. The key element in this process is the debate. We, as Americans have always valued a spirited debate, whereafter the best ideas come to the fore, are refined, and people can support them because they are confident that they have had input into that process.
We, the members of the firearm industry, are certainly no stranger to the vigorous debate needed to defend our constitutionally-protected freedoms. Our industry is perennially targeted for encroachments to limit and chip away at Second Amendment rights. Those attacks come from all directions, including politicians, activists and even sitting and retired U.S. Supreme Court justices.
This is familiar ground for us.
But what’s happening now is different. De-platforming, canceling and outright censoring of speech by some in big tech is something entirely different. It’s truly Orwellian. It’s un-American, and it’s a dark omen for where we are headed as a nation.
The silencing of dissenting voices is a rejection of the nation’s first motto – a motto that is carried in the beak of the bald eagle on the National Seal: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a watchdog for our constitutionally-protected rights, is troubled by all this. They’re hardly an advocate for conservatism, and we in the firearm industry are often at odds with their willing embrace of gun control over gun rights.
But the ACLU’s senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane wrote in a statement, “… it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions — especially when political realities make those decisions easier.”
Newsweek magazine hosted an op-ed by Jonathan Tobin that condemned big tech’s overreach to silence dissenting opinions. He wrote, “…the response from Big Tech illustrates that fears about these companies using their unique power to shut down content they disapprove of is no longer one about a mere ‘slippery slope’ to censorship. That censorship is now at our doorstep.”
The difference between a newspaper not running an op-ed and Google, Twitter and Amazon shutting down entire businesses is that The New York Times has competitors. The Wall Street Journal or New York Post can, and often do, offer a decidedly different viewpoint.
But Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter and other tech giants have a complete monopoly on the internet. In fact, when competing companies like Google and Amazon collude to set the rules and eliminate competitors, it can be argued that they are swerving into the lane of antitrust behavior.
These tech giants say they’re private businesses and can do as they please. Yet, they also profit from government protections that don’t apply to more traditional news outlets. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives these tech companies immunity from what others post on their sites. These companies are now using that protection to silence the voices that that section of the law was intended to protect.
Familiar Cold Shoulder
The firearm industry has long argued that the internet is the public square. Along with that, sites like Google, Facebook, Amazon and others are where modern Americans go to learn about the news of the day, gather information, and use that information to make their own judgments and opine on those ideas.
The Pew Research Center found that about half of U.S. adults get their news through social media. When big tech colludes to quash dissent, like what happened when Apple and Google simultaneously de-platformed Parler, they act irresponsibly. Silencing opposing opinions is about as un-American an idea as there ever could be.
Even the Washington Post, never mistaken to be a bastion of conservative ideas, adopted the motto “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Now, these tech giants are pulling the plug and turning out the lights on ideas with which they disagree.
It’s not just social media forums. They’re canceling gun-oriented websites too. GoDaddy, an internet service provider (ISP) owned by Jeff Bezos’ Amazon, pulled the plug on AR.15.com. The reason for flipping off the switch was an alleged violation of the terms of agreement. The answer was final. There was no method of appeal or redress.
So where does this all lead to? The first thing I would offer is that all Americans, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they come from, should be appalled by the indiscriminate silencing of opinion and debate. We should expect our elected representatives to passionately investigate policies that have a direct impact on the lives of their constituents. They must also jealously guard their oaths of office – to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment to the Constitution specifically protects free speech and our lawmakers should embrace that as sacrosanct, just as we expect them to on the Second Amendment.
Surrendering freedoms to a few corporations to arbitrate isn’t just dangerous for the firearm industry. It erodes all of our rights as well as this nation we all dearly love.
We are constantly barraged with complaints about squelching free speech on the internet. Yet, we seem to have no one who can build successful alternative platforms (hosting, not just renting space for content). What’s up with that?
The long haul telecom companies are regulated as utilities. All the “platforms” require data transfer across the utilities. Google cannot keep someone from creating new end points where new platforms can be established. If “our side” does not have the financial wherewithal to compete with the giants of social media, then we are well and justly doomed.
Building the equivalent of AWS takes billions and years of work. Even the likes of Microsoft and Google have not caught up (and those guys have the same political views). All these companies kept saying for years that they are neutral, until they were not. To get to the same level we now have to build two tech economies, one for the left and one for the right? Seriously? These companies were given leeway because of their stated neutrality, that leeway now has to go, so they can be sued like everyone else including for monopolistic collusion.
“Building the equivalent of AWS takes billions and years of work.”
You are making my point: proclaiming that alternatives are too expensive and take too long means those words are our entire contribution to free speech.
01. Google, et. al. didn’t print new currency: they got actual money somewhere
02. Removing 230 protection from social media giants is a good thing, but entirely dependent upon which party is in power; easily overturned
03. Alternative platforms don’t need to appeal to a worldwide audience, which cares nothing about the Second Amendment
04. Alternative platforms can protect American voices from being entirely eliminated from the internet public square; breathing space provides opportunity for the message to grow
05. Depending on courts to “fix things” is also politically dependent
06. Every “new thing” fights the status quo
07. Whenever there is sufficient money to be made, people will show up to make it, even if “it” is bogus in the end (see “Dot Bomb” collapse)
08. Internet backbone (infrastructure) is owned and operated by regulated utilities, not social media platforms
09. If our message(s) excite the public, alternative platforms will succeed (consolidation will happen in building critical mass)
10. When you say you “can’t” do something, you are absolutely correct
You’re seriously underestimating the difficulty level here. This isn’t just a situation of working against a headwind; it’s like trying to build a beachfront resort in a hurricane.
If you want to see how hard this “build a new platform” business truly is, take a look at the history of Gab.
They’re the only company I’m aware of that has made a really serious run at it, and they’ve got all the pieces in place…microblogging, video hosting, a web browser, and even a smartphone OS…and they’ve been limping along with 3 million users, doing business through a local bank by snail mail and paper checks because what happened to Parler was only the start of what happened to Gab. No data center will host them, so they had to build their own; they were on and off again for months while DNS providers repeatedly dropped them, and I have no idea how they’re getting through the DNS gateway now. Meanwhile, for most of their existence, they’ve been blacklisted without appeal or recourse not only as a company, but as individuals, from almost every payment platform and source of credit that exists, including crypto.
I’ve been on Gab since almost since the beginning and have really enjoyed it, but I have to admit that it’s been completely ghettoized and is mostly useless for practical purposes (unless you consider memes that would get you banned on Twatter a practical purpose). You can’t connect to a Gab account from any other digital platform because they’re too small, and I’m pretty sure that places like Twatter and Farcebook won’t let Gab use their APIs, so whatever you say on Gab can’t get out.
It’s not that nobody will invest in them, but that nobody really can, seeing as how they’ve been banned from the machinery of modern finance. Even the people on our side who are really into finding alternatives to people that hate us still act like Gab doesn’t exist, and that’s probably because if they make it their home base, they’ll never reach anyone who isn’t already on it. I’d love to see Gab somehow bootstrap itself into some kind of relevance, but realistically, I have to operate on the assumption that it can’t.
And all this because of the company’s stubborn insistence that it will operate in accordance with the First Amendment. If the First Amendment would protect it and it isn’t porn, you’re good to go.
It’s no exaggeration to say that you place your life and your entire future livelihood in the balance if you try to build something that runs counter to the biz/tech oligarchy. And Trump is a perfect example of what will happen to anyone with the financial muscle to back an alternative platform; whatever his net worth was when he started his presidential adventure, it has to be greatly diminished by now. I wonder what odds Las Vegas would put on his going bankrupt within the next 3 to 5 years.
Anyway…yeah. Rant over.
“You’re seriously underestimating the difficulty level here. This isn’t just a situation of working against a headwind; it’s like trying to build a beachfront resort in a hurricane.”
If the requirement is an alternative hosting platform must be at the same level of penetration of the large social media sites upon launch, they yes. It is an impossible task, one that shouldn’t be undertaken. Then, we are better off as beggars before the giants.
Tech won’t have their protections removed, or lose their ability to censor right now with Democrats in control of both the legislature and administration. If anything it will get worse, and they’ll have more freedom (and even active government support) to use their power to crush alternatives.
“The first thing I would offer is that all Americans, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they come from, should be appalled by the indiscriminate silencing of opinion and debate.”
But many are anything but appalled. When so many have said, “it can’t happen here,” well, this is exactly how it happens.
I’d be happy to monetarily support a provider that can divest itself from all those that would seek to censor it.
I’ll pay a reasonable subscription fee to help it happen.
Might also help fund it (but I’m not rich).
The rule must be no censorship without a court order.
Gab is the opportunity you’re looking for, gentlemen. https://gab.com/
Sam I Am,
Creating computer servers and bringing them online at a data center with huge Internet capacity is reasonably inexpensive. (We are talking thousands of dollars or at most a couple million dollars.) I am not concerned about that.
What keeps me awake at night is the question, “How long before Internet gatekeepers decide that a website is “objectionable” (denigrates Far Left platforms) and pulls their listing from DNS servers and stops routing traffic to that “objectionable” website?”
A very small number of people — deeply immersed in Big Tech group-think — control DNS servers and Internet routing. It would be a fairly simple task for them to make an “objectionable” site unreachable.
A very small number of people — deeply immersed in Big Tech group-think — control DNS servers and Internet routing.”
That is certainly a non-trivial concern. The “alternative” environment proposed is merely a stop-gap, because, eventually, there will be a one-world government that controls literally everything (I read the back of the book), and it will not be for the protection and prosperity of humanity.
There are trchnologists working on decentralized internet that will be out of the reach of the current masters of the universe:
The guy that developed the world wide web is working on a new open source version that puts users in control of their data.
All good news, that.
“Nadal’s version of this idea is called GUN, which stands for graph universe node. It’s a decentralized database that facilitates the creation of dWeb sites and apps. The network runs on just about any device that has a processor and access to the internet.”
Given this Nadal guy’s taste in acronyms, it’s possible that we PotG might be able to find common cause with him.
As far as I can see, there is an extremely high probability that this alternative approach to the Internet will fail.
“The Internet” is simply a bunch of private networks that are interconnected at “peering points” — and it is up to those private networks to faithfully send traffic to the correct destination within their own networks or to other networks (through peering points). Even if a “cancelled” Republican manages to create his/her own server and manages to find a private network where he/she can connect the server, all the other private networks can refuse to exchange traffic with the “cancelled” Republican’s server. That could be as “benign” as not routing traffic specific to that server. Or, the other networks could refuse to exchange ANY traffic with that private network — as punishment for accepting the “cancelled” Republican’s server — effectively making that private network useless and worthless.
For example: Trump builds his own website/application on his own server and pays AT&T for connect his server. Within a few days, several/all other networks (e.g. Level3, Verizon, Sprint, etc.) stop exchanging Trump website traffic with AT&T — and then threaten to stop exchanging all traffic with AT&T if they don’t remove the Trump server from their network. Guess what AT&T is going to do? Of course they will remove the Trump server from their network before their customers lose their ability to reach all the web servers on all other networks.
And I did not even mention how companies could update their popular web browsers to literally refuse to interact with Trump’s server in the example above.
I don’t see any simple/easy (e.g. feasible) way around this.
“For example: Trump builds his own website/application on his own server and pays AT&T for connect his server. Within a few days, several/all other networks (e.g. Level3, Verizon, Sprint, etc.) stop exchanging Trump website traffic with AT&T — and then threaten to stop exchanging all traffic with AT&T if they don’t remove the Trump server from their network. ”
The internet backbone providers are not destinations, forums, platforms, but transmission hosts, regulated as utilities. IIRC, should the backbone providers start targeting destinations based on content enroute to, or hosted at the destination/sender, the providers would be in violation of their utility protections.
Sam I Am,
I am not convinced that Internet carriers have to operate their networks as utilities. For example a few years ago Comcast and Netflix had a dispute. Netflix was inundating Comcast and Comcast simply began limiting how much traffic Netflix could shove onto Comcast’s network until Netflix later agreed to start paying Comcast a lot of money. (And that may have actually been justified/righteous if Comcast had to pay significant money to increase their capacity — an expense that only arose because Netflix was dumping an inordinate amount of traffic onto their network.) I never heard about any legal liabilities in conjunction with that kerfluffle.
Perhaps even more problematic, even if state and/or federal laws require Internet carriers to operate their networks as utilities, there is an extremely high probability that state and/or federal justice departments will simply refuse to enforce those laws if the violators are advancing the “right” causes.
The problem that we are facing is quite simple:
Righteous governments are supposed to keep bad actors in check. And capitalism provides the alternative means to keep bad actors in check when governments fail to do their job. When both government and capitalism fail to keep bad actors in check — as we are seeing with respect to various Internet-based functions — there is no viable alternative to keep bad actors in check that I am aware of.
“When both government and capitalism fail to keep bad actors in check ….there is no viable alternative to keep bad actors in check that I am aware of”
“If we don’t try, we don’t do. If we don’t do, what are we here for?”
“There is no try; there is do, or not do.”
al gore can fix this.
“al gore can fix this”
Al got bored, and moved on to greater profits exploiting science-fantasy (climate change).
This is a good thread. We ought to continue to try to puzzle it out.
Madison could not have imagined, when he wrote the 1A, that any private company could monopolize the “public square”. Congress didn’t think much at all when it wrote Sec. 230. Yet, we shouldn’t be surprised. Given enough time, technology changes and we have to rise to meet the challenge.
I acknowledge that it takes a lot to build a platform that could compete with the likes of Google, Facebook or Twitter. Yet, it has been done. DuckDuckGo does compete with Google; they haven’t been shut-down yet. Parler tried to compete with Twitter; but they were shut down.
It seems to me that the vulnerability isn’t so much a lack of gigantic amounts of capital; though that probably IS a factor. Rather, it’s the fact that every small site is vulnerable to an attack such as DDOS.
The guys with the huge platforms like Amazon can offer services to publishers. Amazon can stand-up to a DDOS; it has the iron and muscle. But it can also shut-down any of its customers that it doesn’t like.
We need to find some platform somewhere – I’ll call it De-Nile.net (for the river, like Amazon is a river). If some De-Nile platform could stand-up to DDOS attacks (and the like) then that platform could be the place from which freedom-of-speech might publish.
The difficulty is – I think – that the owners of De-Nile have sentiments themselves. There will be something they will not tolerate on their site. Perhaps it’s child pornography; or, international terror. Doesn’t matter what it is. They will also de-platform some sub-set of their customers who meet with their disapproval.
Somehow, to get out of this paradox, I think we have to think about a new paradigm. One that conforms to the internet as a public square with no restrictions whatsoever on who can play.
The radical idea I can see is this:
Admit that there is nothing that can possibly be done to control the internet.
(I invite you to consider the proposition:
Admit that there is nothing that can possibly be done to control guns – to keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.)
Once we embrace this ugly radical idea then we have to acknowledge that there will exist the “Dark Web” where all sorts of nasty things occur. Telecom about trafficking in slaves; illicit trafficking in small arms and nuclear materials. Terrible things which none of us people of good will (and guns) would tolerate. And yet, it exists. And will continue to exist.
If the Masters of the Universe could clamp down on the Dark Web then we could eliminate all the evil things that exist there. But, then, China would be delighted. And we would not be happy that China could crush OUR dissent.
I think we must advocate for an internet which is the “Wild West” where nothing can be stopped. Not even international terrorism; nor China nor any other ugly threat. For it is only in such an internet that no one will be able to crush OUR dissent; nor the dissent of any other voice no matter how illegitimate we might deem it to be.
I think the internet we have is a platform which is hard to control; not even by the Masters of the Universe, nor China nor the US Federal government. How can we use this internet (that we have) to make our voices invulnerable to any power of censorship?
Looking to Congress to reform Sec 230 is like asking the fox to protect the hen house.
Looking to the DoJ to initiate anti-trust action against the Masters of the Universe is equally naive. The best we might hope for is a handful of Red states changing their laws to harass the Masters of the Universe with litigation. But not even Texas can wield the muscle of the Masters of the Universe.
Looking to any single platform – any SINGLE “De-Nile.net” – creates a single-point-of-failure. A viable solution will be a distributed set of platforms which can’t all be controlled even by the Masters of the Universe. Too many ISPs supporting too many domain names which have too many back-up sites. Such that attacks from any central or distributed source can’t successfully silence.
How to do that, I have no idea. But this is the direction I suspect we need to go.
To get there we will need people (far more clever than I am). But we will also need to imagine a goal where not even WE – the righteous – can maintain any control over the speech of the un-righteous.
The “single-point-of-failure” for the internet will always be the power grid.
The world does not stop just because the internet does.
Think harder. Solutions are as old as humans- the internet is just a blip.
You bring up interesting things, but we may have a “cart before the horse” question. Discussing how the platform should operate is good, but first there must be a platform. Are there wealthy patrons who see the crisis in the nation, the same way we do? Are these people looking for a means to protect their voice with the public?
Outlining some of the operating principles may be a necessary part of “selling” the vision, but it seems identifying the need (which we can easily do), then filling the need are the first considerations. If there are no wealthy patrons who share our vision, the operating details become of no significance. Based on the national situation, I perceive that our vision, our message is not shared by individuals who can bring financial power to bear.
@Sam I Am – I take your points; they are valid. However, I have some differences with you.
First, I’m not comfortable relying on a US-domiciled platform. We are fearful that the US Feds will use their power of the sword to cut-down their opponents. I’m pretty sure that any platform we might try to rely upon should be off-shore in a jurisdiction where it would be harder for the US to swing its sword. Just off-hand, I’m thinking of Iceland and Panama; albeit there are undoubtedly better choices.
Second, yes, I’d like some rich American patron to put up the capital to create a refuge platform. A couple of difficulties. First, some rich American patron is apt to think he has all the right ideas and we would be putting our future in the hands of one guy with “If I were king” attitude. We would be somewhat better off if several groups of individuals formed off-shore corporations and funded the construction of multiple platforms.
Third, we need not do this ourselves. It’s a big world out there. There must be lots of existing platforms owned by people who are money-grubbing capitalists who care not for any particular ideology other than finding a market nitch and serving that nitch for profit. If our collective patronage produces enough profit to justify their defending their servers on our behalf, that should be sufficient. If, following our patronage of such platforms, Americans as rich individuals or collectives of individuals with a few hundreds or thousands of dollars to spare also build such sites, all the better.
This is a conversation in which I thank you for contributing. I make no claim to the best ideas; just a few ideas that might be critiqued and built upon. There are probably people who know how the internet really works (I don’t) who can tell us which ideas are worth pursuing and which will dead end. If there are solutions, someone please tell us about them.
An off-shore host is an intriguing idea. So long as the USG stays out of it.
As for a patron, a single entity wouldn’t be reliable, as you note. However, one lead can attract others, diluting the power of the first. The issue in any event would likely be the potential profitability. Are there enough anti-leftists to entice big money?
Has everyone forgot actual print as in paper ? Lots of info on the shortwave channels also.
“Has everyone forgot actual print as in paper ?”
Not really, but the world has little use for us cursive-trained fossils.
The Washington Post adopting a motto like “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is like calling North Korea the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. They can plaster it all over themselves, shout it from the mountaintops, or get it tattooed on their schlongs – doesn’t change the fact that it’s a lie.
Leftists censor opposing viewpoints. Full stop, end of story. Any further elaboration or “whatabouts” are just apologists trying to conceal the lies.
“Democracy Dies in Darkness” isn’t a motto, it’s a statement of intent. Democracy does indeed die in darkness — and they intend to make it happen.
There was a time when the average person truly thought that AOL *WAS* the Internet. Too many people think that Facebook/Twitter/Google *IS* the internet.
Its all part of the same thinking that believes computers, tables, and other devices are of no value WITHOUT the internet.
It might be the ‘public square’ but social media is only a PART of the web. There is more here.
“Its all part of the same thinking that believes computers, tables, and other devices are of no value WITHOUT the internet.”
I miss the days of being able to buy software (license) and not having to ever pay anything else. Everything now is subscription based, and/or requires connection to the internet. It isn’t necessary, it’s just their way of squeezing more money from you.
That’s just it. Not everything requires the internet. A lot does but a lot doesn’t. People of bought into that hook, line, and sinker.
This subscription based system is not an absolute. It derives it’s power from the large number of people willing to do it. Facebook and Twitter are no different. Everyone is at their mercy simply because they CHOOSE to be. I for one have been perfectly happy without those two.
Yep. I don’t get it.
I’ve never had accounts with any of big social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok, etc.) and never used them.
I did have a Parler account and I do have a Gab account and I just setup a Telegram account but I don’t really use them.
You can also setup your own “cloud” and DNS. Universities and big corporations do it all the time. The telecommunications systems that are the backbone of the internet are utilities regulated by individual State PUCs.
You can certainly do those things. All it requires is enough motivation.
There are other things too. The NRA became a force to be dealt LONG before there ever was an internet. Limbaugh made it happen on AM radio….on AM radio!
There are ways of doing things.
“The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a watchdog for our constitutionally-protected rights, is troubled by all this.”
Not anywhere nearly troubled enough…
Now they voice concern? The 1st Amendment is 1st for a reason. Those stifling free speech are truly the enemies of the state. Will they meet a tyrants fate? Praying for it.
Agreed, but for this particular case, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
At least, for now, and for this. Though we behoove ourselves to watch our six.
Agreed. ACLU is a powerful voice.
A large fraction of the leftest base are fundamentally liberal in the classical meaning of the term. There are things important to them. Freedom of speech is one of such things.
The Masters of the Universe are playing a dangerous game in attacking the freedom of speech. ACLU has the clout to undermine the support for their efforts.
“A large fraction of the leftest base are fundamentally liberal in the classical meaning of the term. There are things important to them. Freedom of speech is one of such things. ”
Yes, freedom of their speech, yours not so much. They are the same people who declare that disfavored speech is violence.
They’re getting away with it everywhere else, who wouldn’t they try to silence the defenders of personal rights!?
I don’t think so, Tim.
An appalling number of people simply want what they want and don’t care if/how the process of acquiring what they want ends up hindering or harming anyone else. That applies to politicians, government bureaucrats, and the masses.
In other words countless millions of people in our nation — in our entire world for that matter — are morally bankrupt, as has been the case for all recorded history. And as history amply demonstrates, those types of people frequently and reliably try to take whatever they want from others. Plan accordingly.
^ uncomically sensible.
Human nature- our natural enemy.
That’s why it’s imperative to design, implement, and defend a system of self-governance where “…politicians, government bureaucrats, and the masses…” who “…are morally bankrupt…” and “…simply want what they want and don’t care if/how the process of acquiring what they want ends up hindering or harming anyone else…” are prevented from subverting the system (integrally- by design) for their own personal gain.
There is no “end” celebrious enough to justify “by any means”. And if you honestly believe there is- you are the problem.
Stealing a presidency is a “dark omen”. Ditto 2 senate seats. We had a revolution for less(2 if you can’t 1861).
Meh. There was no Revolution when the Russians stole the presidency for Trump in 2016.
You can prove an assertion to be incorrect with hours and thousands of pages of documents, but you can’t make him understand he is wrong if his mind is full of excrement.
Profiles in idiocy, more like.
There was a gigantic, two-year investigation into the whole Russian collusion thing, and it didn’t find any. Maybe you should’ve got a better investigator…or maybe, just maybe, they didn’t find any Russian involvement because there wasn’t any. You’re clinging to a conspiracy theory that has been conclusively debunked by people that YOUR SIDE appointed to confirm it.
It’ll be alright as long we remember the camps aren’t as nice as home and the showers don’t spray water.
It’ll be all the denial, delay and wishy-washy gonalong to get along crap that’ll do us in.
There has long been a free-ware/open source movement in the computer world. It used to be derided as a bunch of dreamers, commies and hackers. No more, perhaps?
Look, the first way to attack this is to start migrating away from those that seek to censor you. Website owners should begin planning and executing host migrations now not when SHTF and you’ve already been deplatformed.
Users should do the same.
Example; Amazon Prime has 126 million US users. If, let’s say, 30 million of them believe in things like free speech and they all quit the service then 23.8% of their customer base just sent them a pretty strong “market signal”. You can see that this has worked with the NFL which is now trying to figure out how to stop the “wokeism” in it’s broadcasts because of a drop in viewership, tickets and merchandise sales.
Change your OS, browser etc. Actively block the shit you don’t want from the companies you don’t like. Cancel memberships and move away from companies that support this kind of shit and do these things sooner rather than later. Don’t know how? There are people who walk amongst you who will guide you. It’s really not that hard. Shit, you can even test drive this shit before you migrate in most cases.
“There was no method of appeal or redress.”
Oh, but I assure you that there is. And when it comes, nobody will like it.
Some/many will smile greatly in silent satisfaction.
I’m moving all my domains over to Epik from Godaddy. The cost is better and they respect our rights. Lots of pro firearms sites are moving over. I strongly suggest everyone do this.
Also, if you’re in the industry like I am, watch your bank account and merchant account. I just got set up with Epic for my merchant account. Yes, I know those two names are very close, but are different.
It’s time we dump those who don’t want us.
“I’m moving all my domains over to Epik from Godaddy…..It’s time we dump those who don’t want us.”
You mean like this?
Thanks for the tip.
Just transferred my domains from Godaddy to Epik.
Before I transferred I checked and Wikipedia had the following slander below.
I knew I was transferring to the right place if Wikipedia and Vice call it RAYCISS!
Nowdays, being called RAYCISS from the Left is a badge I proudly embrace.
Epik is a domain registrar and web hosting company known for providing services to websites that host far-right, neo-Nazi, and other extremist content. It was described in 2019 by Vice as “a safehaven for the extreme right” because of its willingness to host far-right websites that have been denied service by other Internet service providers. Epik was founded in 2009 by Rob Monster, and is based in Washington State.
It’s no longer a matter of denying them revenue or market share it’s now about stopping them from assaulting us. It would be nice if the authorities were at least willing to defend or help us instead of taking their side.
Just found out my “gunbroker” app didn’t work. The message said that it wasn’t available in the App Store.
So, I logged in through a different server.
This is quickly turning bad. It’s the digital equivalent of the brown shirts burning books.
And they call the right nazi’s.
I sez: if’n they break contract (230) by acting as publishers, void contract & sue for breach thereof. If’n they conspire & racketeer, there be RICO laws for that. And, if’n they behave as monopolies, there be Sherman Antitrust Act for that. All’s it takes is political willpower. Wez gots any left of that…??
I think the Internet providers such as Facebook should be organized as public corporations. In ye olde days corporations had a charter, a goal and a lifespan.
Our new immortal legal fictions have become monsters. Undead and amoral, these abominations have turned on their creators. Too big to fail , too powerful to restrain. We have only just begun to reap the whirlwind.
Break em up like Standard Oil or Ma Bell. At the very least prohibit the federal government from doing business with these clowns. No government contracts or investment eligibility for State Pension funds will clear a lot of this foolishness up.
Don’t allow the left to define reality / morality. Speak up when hearings are being held about these companies. Steer your peers to the competition and tell them why.