Archives for posts with tag: Twitter

Back in 1985, which, for you math whizzes out there, is one more than 1984, Neil Postman wrote a book detailing his fears that the authoritarian dystopia featured in the novel 1984 was not nearly so prophetic as the Aldous Huxley novel, Brave New World. It was titled Amusing Ourselves to Death, and it analyzes the dizzying amount of information glutted upon us by television at that time. The thesis of the book is that the medium through which an idea is communicated intrinsically impacts the very content of that idea. His formative example is that one cannot communicate deep, philosophical dialectic through smoke signals.

Postman then goes on to describe the greatness of the written word. One of his arguments is that typography necessarily requires statements that bear an inherent truth or falsity. For example, an advertisement that claims, “Drinking this beverage will make attractive people desperately want to have sex with you” is either true or false. Compare that to an image of a celebrity holding a beverage which is neither true nor false, but empty of any real content.

PEOPLE KNOWLES PEPSI

“Beyonce is holding a beverage and pointing at it.” That is the textual equivalent to this image. Doesn’t work so great in text, but as an image it conveys something beyond rational argument.

Images, and television which is simply a series of them, don’t convey truth but rather emotion. Beyonce holding a Pepsi and pointing at it makes you feel a certain way, and Pepsi is hoping that feeling is going to be associated with their product. The two ways of communicating, differences innocuous at first, are radically distinct. One necessarily requires rational argument (however blatantly absurd the propositions within it may be), the other requires entertainment value.

Postman goes into significantly more detail than I have here, and offers many more examples, but I just wanted to give an idea as to how the medium of an idea affects the type of communication available within it. The written word requires context and logic; television requires quick cuts and soundtracks. However, 1985 was a long time ago, and communication has come a long way. How does the medium of social media define the content of ideas within it?

Those familiar with this blog will know that I have shown many different limitations imbued within the communication framework of social media, but I want to discuss one thing further that is quite topical in today’s news. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll know that data firm Cambridge Analytica gathered information on 50 million Facebook users without their consent (stole it, hacked it, whichever), and then used that information to aid both the Trump presidential campaign and the Brexit Leave campaign. Social Media is notorious for selling its users’ data to advertisers, so allowing it to be harvested for political gain, regardless of consent, is not all that surprising.

mark-zuckerberg-oculus-connect-venues-concert-music-7505

By reading this blog, you are telling whichever organization that’s tracking your online habits that you are a chump. Sell that to the Russians, Zuckerberg you pasty-faced twat!

In addition to this, Twitter tends toward fake news, and YouTube’s algorithms tend toward conspiracy. The explanation for this seems to be that far-fetched ideas are more entertaining, and thus receive more hits. Getting more hits means it’s more popular, and popular things receive more attention from data algorithms. Conspiracy nuts like InfoWars can take advantage of this, and get away with promulgating stories like Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are operating a sex-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlour. Bullshit sells, and so the owners of social media allow this manipulation to dominate their programming because social media is ultimately a business.

Which brings us to how the medium of social media determines the content of the ideas within it. Social media are owned by monopolies that make their business by harvesting information that people willingly give them, and then manipulate those people based on that information. A collection of Facebook ‘likes’ can predict personality better than a person’s spouse, and that information is owned by an amoral, profit-driven monolith. Those who communicate within the medium of social media are inherently being driven by behind-the-scenes machinations of whoever has the money to do so, be it advertisers, political parties, or foreign influences. The content is inherently bent, the longer we participate. It is no longer our message, but becomes that of another.

This is not entirely new. He who owned the printing press determined the content of its papers. The oligarchy that developed from media consolidation owns American news media, and they determine what we consume in traditional media. The difference with social media is that we are the content creators. The manipulation of communication has become far more intimate. We determine what is produced, therefore we must become the thing determined by others.

One of the greatest tragedies of the modern age is social media: a technology that begs for greater human connection seems only to divide and isolate us. We have unprecedented access to one another, and we use that access to police behaviour and get in furious arguments about female Ghostbusters. Further tragedy is that the “debate” of the digital age is not about privacy and security since we all seem fairly blasé about that access being sold to advertisers and stolen by defense companies, but instead we “debate” free speech and censorship. I would be air-quoting the shit out of “debate” if I were vocally delivering this message, but this is text, so I hope the intense sarcasm that I’m intending is conveyed in regular quotation marks.

It’s not a debate. It’s idiots howling at one another in futile rage and impotence. It’s one side getting upset that they can’t publicly hate women anymore, and the other getting people’s lives ruined for a misinterpreted joke. The defendants of free speech are championing the hatred of women since to condemn it would obviously be censorship. The prosecutors of hatred see it everywhere, and use the public commons of social media to use their collective power to silence it, regardless of its legitimacy as actual hatred. They are warring groups of ravenous wolves that have a collective intellect smaller than those same groups of wolves.

I’ve written about free speech before, and don’t intend to dwell on it this time. I want to look instead at censorship as it relates to social media since the greatest attack on libtard regressives, feminazis, SJWs, and leftist cucks is their blind acceptance of the elimination of a basic human freedom: freedom of speech. The elimination of free speech is to some extent rightly decried as fascist, and so accusations of hypocrisy are leveled at those who use the same criticism against Donald Trump and his followers.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the left is promoting censorship. They are. It’s not a difficult assumption. But let’s assume it is censorship to such a degree that it is a fascist repression of hapless misogynists who have a God-given right to hate whomever they please. Censorship in the context of fascism is used to maintain the grossly imbalanced power structures of society. Dictators censor newspapers because they don’t want dissenting opinions contradicting their rule. If a ruler tried to discredit the media when they are critical of him, or tried to change the laws to reduce their effectiveness, that would be fascist censorship.

So what about those on social media? Fascism necessitates the clandestine perpetuation of power, so which power structures are being maintained by libtards on Twitter? What kind of power do ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ community, women, etc. have that they would use censorship to maintain? And I don’t mean shit like ‘Obama was president for eight years,’ because Obama is not the King of the Blacks. Since leftist cucks started oppressing poor, defenseless bigots, has the percentage of black people in prisons gone down? Have transgendered people gained a significant influx in senate seats? Are fewer women being grabbed by the pussy? How have poverty rates changed along gender and racial lines? What are the statistics saying? Given that hate crimes are on the rise against these demographics, I would say that the power that they’re perpetuating is depressingly inconsequential.

That’s not to say it isn’t completely negligible. On an individual level, people are losing their jobs. Their lives are being scrutinized, pilloried, and publicly shamed by a mob justice that relies solely on sensationalized stories that are very unlikely to be a reflection of real events or attitudes. This mob justice even has some degree of power on the mezzo level, as organizations will often pay the proper lip service in order to maintain appropriate PR. However, this mezzo level is only a veneer of appeasement. Companies and politicians will claim to be feminist or whatever, and might even put out memes to present an image of conformity to the ideological rigidity of the social media left, but in practice will continue as they always have. It does not take much to soothe the vitriol of morons if you get in early enough. Beyonce could shoot someone on 5th avenue alongside Donald Trump and lose just as many followers. Since the only demand is ideological conformity and not any significant change, most companies and leaders are content to say whatever the mob desires, since their behaviour will always escape unscathed.

You know, shifting the social dialogue to focus on SJWs on Youtube and Twitter and how they’re stamping out free speech instead of parsing the admittedly deeply buried subtext of what they’re trying to say could be a way of maintaining dominant power structures that are victimizing minorities in the first place. Which group holds power when we purposefully ignore what the disenfranchised are saying? If we found a way to distract from what the left is saying, rather than address it, then the status quo could very well continue unabated. Which censorship is thus the more fascist? The censorship, or the censorship of the censorship?

So no, fascist censorship does not exist on social media, sorry. If you’re worried about the stifling of intellectual debate, since the merits of white supremacy surely require that degree of respect, don’t fucking have an intellectual debate on social media.