Real Talk on Social media, DNC & Free speech

I thought Brett got banned from YT or something like that?

I will have to listen to this. The 2 people that woke up to the wokeness they were partially responsible for pushing on the idiot college kids.
 
k4PpHgeqmy-2.png
 
samUwell said:
I thought Brett got banned from YT or something like that?
Click to expand...

His twitter account for his Unity2020 campaign was banned and never restored. They claimed his account was tied to bot accounts to spread his unity hashtag when in fact that was not the case. Twitter also blocked the link to his unity site.

Bret's Unity campaign was an idea that the American electorate could vote against the DNC and RNC by electing a candidate from each party who were far more centralist and would govern in cooperation such that the American people would feel as if they had a voice in the room when it came to policy.

If you don't watch the video posted, the TLDW is that Bret's facebook account was also banned (which he seldom uses and has only recently discovered). The message said that his activity was against the terms of service, it had been reviewed and confirmed to be the case and there will be no appeals on the banning. Bret posted this message on Twitter (where he has a large following), it got a lot of attention until some communications directer from facebook replies with 'oh it was a mistake in the algorithm, we restored your account' - to which Bret poses the question; if it was an algorithm, why did the message state it had been reviewed and confirmed? Also, Bret is a public figure and has a lot of followers - what recourse do normal people have when this happens?

So Bret looks into this communications directer from Facebook and she's a former DNC insider tied to Nanci Pelosi. Bret looks further into twitter and Google and find other former DNC employees who have now taken private sector jobs at these companies and are in charge of policy regarding what can and cannot be posted on their platforms.

Which raises a big question about people's freedom of speech. The Internet is supposed to belong to the public, and yet it has been privatized to the point where any public discourse happens on private platforms where constitutional rights don't apply. This isn't good when you see party insiders leave the DNC to work at these companies and shape policy which pushes their party's agenda.

Worse than censorship of private citizens, you now also face the reality of domestic interference of an election - everyone got worked up over the possibility of Russia using social media to influence an election - well right now we have Twitter blocking the Hunter Biden story by the NY Post by blocking their account. So Twitter gets to pick and chose what stories the public can read about and discern the truth of for themselves.

We find ourselves transitioning more to these digital platforms and already we have a political party interfering with free speech and freedom of the press... and this censorship (across the biggest social media platforms) is coming from the DNC. And yet everyone is worked up about Trump? If the RNC pulled this shit you'd have a million blue-haired snowflakes taking to the streets setting fires and looting.
 
Atreides said:
So Bret looks into this communications directer from Facebook and she's a former DNC insider tied to Nanci Pelosi. Bret looks further into twitter and Google and find other former DNC employees who have now taken private sector jobs at these companies and are in charge of policy regarding what can and cannot be posted on their platforms.

Which raises a big question about people's freedom of speech. The Internet is supposed to belong to the public, and yet it has been privatized to the point where any public discourse happens on private platforms where constitutional rights don't apply. This isn't good when you see party insiders leave the DNC to work at these companies and shape policy which pushes their party's agenda.

Worse than censorship of private citizens, you now also face the reality of domestic interference of an election - everyone got worked up over the possibility of Russia using social media to influence an election - well right now we have Twitter blocking the Hunter Biden story by the NY Post by blocking their account. So Twitter gets to pick and chose what stories the public can read about and discern the truth of for themselves.

We find ourselves transitioning more to these digital platforms and already we have a political party interfering with free speech and freedom of the press... and this censorship (across the biggest social media platforms) is coming from the DNC. And yet everyone is worked up about Trump? If the RNC pulled this shit you'd have a million blue-haired snowflakes taking to the streets setting fires and looting.
Click to expand...

Yes. All good tho. Gonna scorch those nazi censor happy fuckheads off the face of the earth after election for what they have done to us all. Think I am kidding? Cool. Watch it happen.
 
youtube is a service for selling ads on freely harvested video content. the customers are ad companies. the entire value of youtube is its ability to 1.) solicit content that draws impressions and 2.) track impressions via user data. it is about as suitable for the free exchange of ideas as a highway billboard. the question you should be asking when you upload a video to youtube is not "am i being censored" it is "why am i letting youtube sell my ideas without paying me for them?"

if you want to use the internet as you believe it was intended for public speech then you can buy a domain called tribalwardotcom which anyone can find and post all you want for everyone to see. even if almost no one ever visits your website or watches your youtube video, you are still getting astronomically more exposure for your ideas on the "Censored" internet than you would without it.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree that you get more exposure on YT, but the question has increasingly become "at what cost?"

This is a reflection of where we were, where we are now and what we are trending towards in regards to the Internet as a means of communicating ideas, relative to first amendment rights.

Ultimately, the Internet was built by the government using tax payer dollars. It belongs to the people. There needs to be some sort of provision which protects freedom of speech especially as we see party insiders leave their government jobs to work at these top tech companies in positions which influence policy because this just gives a loophole around the constitution - especially so when the forums for discourse have narrowed to just Twitter/Facebook/YT. But even YT I would give exception to because it's not a written format - It doesn't foster a 'back and forth conversation'.


I find it unnerving that you had congressional hearings delving into Russia's role in electoral interference in 2016 and yet nobody seems to care that private companies (the very ones Russian's allegedly used to skew public opinion) are doing the exact same and they are staffed with former party members from 1 particular party. We're seeing trends of members of government leaving for private sector jobs to continue doing their party's bidding. How far does that have to go before we can just simply call that government censorship? It looks sketchy now - What about the next election or the one after that?

Specifically to the point of 'hey you're free to just start your own domain' - It's worth pointing out that these party insiders left their government positions to work at the top social media companies on the merits that they were the top companies. For the sake of argument, lets say the population objects to that and somebody starts up an even more popular forum called 'not twitter' - what is to stop those people from gaining those same positions in that company over time? There will always be a 'most popular' forum and that is where they will seek to staff their party members. So while the argument suggests that we are all free to go elsewhere, it comes at the concession that the most popular and most widely used platforms will be influenced by party interests - and that is the issue of concern.

Specifically with Bret - Twitter locked out his unity idea because it posed that both political parties are influence peddlers who do not serve the American people. At the point he was gaining 'astronomically more exposure'; Poof - It's gone. If neither of your options on the ballot will do anything for you, how can the electorate ever break out of that cycle when the mere attempt is shut down at the point it gains traction? It looks like you need a grass roots movement that isn't allowed to leverage any MSM outlet or use social media. GL with that. Even if he used Joe Rogan to talk about this; how many people will that even reach? 1-2M?
 
Atreides said:
I don't disagree that you get more exposure on YT, but the question has increasingly become "at what cost?"

This is a reflection of where we were, where we are now and what we are trending towards in regards to the Internet as a means of communicating ideas, relative to first amendment rights.

Ultimately, the Internet was built by the government using tax payer dollars. It belongs to the people. There needs to be some sort of provision which protects freedom of speech especially as we see party insiders leave their government jobs to work at these top tech companies in positions which influence policy because this just gives a loophole around the constitution - especially so when the forums for discourse have narrowed to just Twitter/Facebook/YT. But even YT I would give exception to because it's not a written format - It doesn't foster a 'back and forth conversation'.


I find it unnerving that you had congressional hearings delving into Russia's role in electoral interference in 2016 and yet nobody seems to care that private companies (the very ones Russian's allegedly used to skew public opinion) are doing the exact same and they are staffed with former party members from 1 particular party. We're seeing trends of members of government leaving for private sector jobs to continue doing their party's bidding. How far does that have to go before we can just simply call that government censorship? It looks sketchy now - What about the next election or the one after that?

Specifically to the point of 'hey you're free to just start your own domain' - It's worth pointing out that these party insiders left their government positions to work at the top social media companies on the merits that they were the top companies. For the sake of argument, lets say the population objects to that and somebody starts up an even more popular forum called 'not twitter' - what is to stop those people from gaining those same positions in that company over time? There will always be a 'most popular' forum and that is where they will seek to staff their party members. So while the argument suggests that we are all free to go elsewhere, it comes at the concession that the most popular and most widely used platforms will be influenced by party interests - and that is the issue of concern.

Specifically with Bret - Twitter locked out his unity idea because it posed that both political parties are influence peddlers who do not serve the American people. At the point he was gaining 'astronomically more exposure'; Poof - It's gone. If neither of your options on the ballot will do anything for you, how can the electorate ever break out of that cycle when the mere attempt is shut down at the point it gains traction? It looks like you need a grass roots movement that isn't allowed to leverage any MSM outlet or use social media. GL with that. Even if he used Joe Rogan to talk about this; how many people will that even reach? 1-2M?
Click to expand...

we're talking about a guy who features regularly on the biggest podcast in america. i host a podcast with a listenership of about 12. i'd have bret on anytime, he's welcome to my audience. we have total free speech on my podcast, although we do try to steer clear of politics, as it's a nasty topic. i debated years ago with my editor on whether we should bleep swears and we eventually ended on no. since then there has been no censorship on the cast. it's a platform for us to speak freely and publicly and no entity has the right to infringe upon that, as it's hosted on our own property.

but you seem to think that isn't speech because it isn't popular? i am not suggesting someone open a domain to start up their own competition with twitter. i am suggesting they do it to speak freely and publicly, which is no guarantee of popularity. some people have slingshotted their speech off an ad sales company called youtube and a data sales company called twitter to reach more ears. they are beholden to the ad sales company and the data sales company if they want to continue using these benefits.

these 'dnc' run companies have nothing to do with speech. i don't use twitter or friendbook because i'm not selling my personal social data, and youtube i use as a cheap hosting site for clips that i know are nearly valueless. it's fine with me if they want to try to sell them for pennies. you can communicate with any american user of these services through other (internet) means free of oversight. the first amendment does not guarantee services to drive people to your house to listen to you talk.

edit: though to be entirely fair to your position, i do believe that democracy is broken and over. i do not know what will replace it, but a system of voter participation has proven not to scale to the exploding population of the 20th century. ad salesmen end up exercising outsize power when people are so disconnected from their government. it's just another tv show.
 
Last edited:
Atreides said:
Ultimately, the Internet was built by the government using tax payer dollars. It belongs to the people. There needs to be some sort of provision which protects freedom of speech especially as we see party insiders leave their government jobs to work at these top tech companies in positions which influence policy because this just gives a loophole around the constitution - especially so when the forums for discourse have narrowed to just Twitter/Facebook/YT. But even YT I would give exception to because it's not a written format - It doesn't foster a 'back and forth conversation'.
Click to expand...

The internet is still free, and you're free to create your own website and post whatever you want. You still have freedom of speech on the internet. Twitter/FB/YT are NOT the only forums that exist, there are literally millions.

What you aren't entitled to - is free hosting/traffic/money/anything on someone else's website.

There's a difference.
 
what do party insiders have to do with anything anyway? you know party insiders go work at coke and influence soda bans and they go work at army and influence defense spending etc., it's a government OF the people

party insiders in your state!! go work in the education system and the judicial system and the transport system where they influence far more tangible decisions than which videos youtube is willing to sell
 
bowl of blood said:
what do party insiders have to do with anything anyway?
Click to expand...

Well to Bret's point, neither of the two major parties serve the American public anymore. In his own small attempt to offer an opposition to the duopoly, he found himself locked out of the social media platforms necessary for reaching a national audience. Upon looking into who at these companies would be responsible for policy regarding locking accounts, you find individuals who worked with some of the biggest names in the DNC.

You live in a democracy where you're shut out of electing a (real) 3rd option for yourself. It's farcical think you have any real power to elect your government at all. I think Trump can credit much of his electoral success to the fact that he was such a political outsider, American's voted in earnest to 'drain the swamp' (which is a joke of a slogan but there's real truth that resonated with people who are fed up with both sides).

If you watch Bret's first Unity streams, you'll see the polling of his followers show that people interested in his ideas come from both sides of the aisle and agree on much - which is really counter-intuitive if all you watch is any form of MSM. In reality you likely have 40% or more of the electorate who would vote for a third real option if one was offered. That's a big threat to both the DNC and RNC because their business is to sell their electorate to the highest bidder. If they have that taken away then they lose everything.

So there is big incentive to control the narrative and the conversation being had. People are starting to figure out that each election they are either to vote for Kang or Kodos.

As to the point about insiders being everywhere so it's OK - Well, yeah it's everywhere but I don't think that makes it OK. Bribing government officials is illegal. So instead of offering cash up front, you now see high paying jobs being offered once those individuals leave office (conditional that they voted how the industry wanted) which is the same bribe but with a cleaner workaround. Doesn't make it OK.

Gotta get to work. Have a great day all.
 
As much as I like weinsteins, I smell a jew.

am I doing this right?

(really though, Bret is awesome, I am scared of Heather, like I am scared of most strong women).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top