Social media regulation daybook.

One of these things is not like the other. One of these people is wrong, or both are right. It is fair to say that random bannings have an effect on the average person akin to random alcohol breath tests — the former means that you don’t talk truth on social media, and the latter means restaurants go broke because you are too scared to have wine with your meal if you are the designated driver. Shot:

Look, unless a writer or an artist is pretty explicit in his/her opposition to a tyrannical regime there is a good chance they’ll be left unmolested.  Frankly, explicit or not the overwhelming chance is they’ll be UNNOTICED unless someone denounces them.  And even then, the ones that end up arrested have EXPLICITLY spoken out against the regime, in ways that can’t be ignored.
An East German poet I met in the eighties said that mostly the regime had contented itself in saying he was mad.  And while his poems could be read as very explicitly anti-communist, he never mentioned any of the figures of the regime at the time, and was therefore largely ignored.
Yes, tyrannies sometimes step, with disproportionate force, on normal citizens who just “said something” but those instances are usually fairly isolated and the principle of it is “unpredictable.”  (Which means they might step on you for something you never anticipated, too) Yes, this silences a lot of people who then think that it could happen to them (we are seeing some of this right now with social media banning and silencing) and moderate themselves before they speak.
BUT again, this is rarely — I would say “never” except that I don’t actually know all the outrages perpetrated by evil regimes — visited upon people who are allegorical or allude to or simply make some sculpture or painting they say “means” something.

Sarah Hoyt.

Huffpost believes it is not enough. All who allude against the narrative should be banned. Chaser:

Two days later, Vice’s Motherboard published a story that shed new light on Dorsey’s unwillingness to crack down on Nazis. In the piece, an anonymous employee explained that, though Twitter had done an admirable job algorithmically scrubbing ISIS propaganda from the platform, the company won’t do the same with white supremacist content because the algorithms would flag Republican politicians and their followers. Twitter advertises itself as politically neutral, but the company’s failure to check far-right extremism is in itself a political decision. Large numbers of white nationalists support Trump, according to extremism experts. Those “conservative” voices Trump wants in full throat on social media are often goose-stepping online with the “very fine people” who rioted in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. In May, the administration cited free speech concerns in refusing to sign an international call to action to combat online extremism in the wake of the Christchurch massacre.
“These extremists have manipulated social media to move from the margins to the mainstream,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, at New America this month. “The idea that Facebook and Google and Twitter can hover over the rest of us and that they bear no responsibility is just plain wrong.”
Social media platforms are private companies. They can regulate content and users how they see fit. Earlier this month, Facebook banned several far-right extremists for promoting violence and hate. Among them: conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, neo-Nazi Republican candidate Paul Nehlen and white nationalist British political operative Milo Yiannopoulos, who was so upset that he took to Gab, a social media platform popular with neo-Nazis, to promote civil war in America.

Most of the traffic to this low traffic site comes directly. Very little comes from social media. The woke are overplaying their hand. Expect multiple corporations to leave facebook. If you need to remain zucked, then at least take it off your phone.

You are not merely eyeballs to be monitored and monetized.