Billionaire Tech-Hipster Yogi Jack Dorsey sits atop the rhetorical sh*t wagon we call Twitter. Sh*twitter. A never-ending noise machine that creaks along the digital super-highway with a nearly-religious-like devotion to directing political traffic.
House rules, don’t you know. These words mean this here and that over there. Okay, not so much “rules” as guidelines that are not applied evenly to everyone in the name of equity.
There are leaders of brutal regimes guilty of treating women like property (or the mass murder of minority groups) who use Twitter with little objection from Yogi Dorsey.
American citizens who disagree with the sketchy antics of a suspect election or a recent variant of the flu get no free pass. Nor the same right to free speech.
Dorsey and sh*twitter are compelled to control the message. Hey, they paid for the “microphone.” It’s their party, and they can cry if they want to (cry if they want to), and they do. But is it as simple as a 0.0000001 percenter kicking ‘kids’ he “doesn’t like” off his wagon?
Sh*twitter is a willing partner with corrupt foreign regimes, including the impending Biden Administration. Their platforms are a place where the “speech” of the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism (supposedly on the far right) aligns with the murderous totalitarian Communist Chinese government (supposedly the far left), the American Democrat Party, and Billionaire Tech-Hipster Yogi Jack Dorsey.
And it does. These are the several faces of the same oppression. They (and their ilk) all agree that political speech that questions their antics or suggests abuses of power should be silenced, and they’ll call it whatever they like to excuse their censorious mayhem. (Because they are all left-wing totalitarians.)
Rick Klein at ABC News (he’s not just some cub reporter; he’s the political director) thinks Trump supporters should be cleansed. A fascist German government used that sort of language as a prelude to gassing the Jews.
The ACLU wants Twitter to cleanse Trump supporters as well, but its journey to the Dark Side is not quite complete, and it’s having trouble finding the words to avoid looking even less interested in Civil Liberties than usual.
John Harris, a founder of Politico, views sh*twitter’s Trump ban and subsequent digital putsch as something else. “a signal moment — a historic move, even before we know the consequences that will flow from it.”
Harris compares the antics of Dorsey et al. (beginning with banning the President) to the ancient media monopoly of the 1970s. Something Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey calls wanting to put the (speech monopoly) genie back in the bottle.
[T]he 1970s passive-consumer model collapsed when the Internet made it obsolete. Social media platforms are based on the exact opposite model. Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg apparently want to put that genie back in the bottle, and it’s simply not going to work out well for anyone.
Not while the people can find someplace else to go, and they do, but for how long?
If the left in all its forms is truly committed to using their resources to silence political dissent, what’s the difference between a big media monopoly, sh*twitter censorship, and the brutal regimes in Iran and China, or the promise of the Biden Administration? They all use force to silence speech and or perceived political opponents for the same reason.
Their opponent’s ideas are a threat to their power and influence, and nothing more.