14

How Facebook & Google Became Censors for the State

Posted by Vinay 4 months, 3 weeks ago to Politics
46 comments | Share | Flag

The Tech Giants have been co-opted into a system of Semi-Fascism even though the "Corporation" is a great invention of Capitalism and potentially enhances free enterprise.
SOURCE URL: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/is-the-corporation-anti-individualism-and-anti-capitalism/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by PeterSmith 4 months, 2 weeks ago
    Gotta love these "capitalism is really statism" and "individualism is really collectivism" posts from self contradicting and confused leftists.

    Only government can censor you.
    Tech companies are victims of massive violations of their rights by the government and scapegoating them because conservatives don't know anything about politics is pathetic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 4 months, 2 weeks ago
      “Censor” is too broad of a word to say that only government can censor you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by PeterSmith 4 months, 2 weeks ago
        That's like saying "dictatorship" is too broad of a word that only government can be a dictatorship.

        Sorry, but that's exactly how the words work.

        Conservatives don't know anything about politics and randomly string words together they don't understand. Their use of censorship is basically a category error, but it's a symptom of their larger problem of being politically illiterate and left wing.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Solver 4 months, 2 weeks ago
          “That's like saying "dictatorship" is too broad of a word that only government can be a dictatorship.”
          Not at all. The word “dictatorship” is much less broad, directly referring to government or government like.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterSmith 4 months, 2 weeks ago
            So is censorship.
            But you are misusing the term as are so many others.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Solver 4 months, 2 weeks ago
              Just maybe you are misusing the term. In 100+ years of American dictionaries, “censor” had never referred exclusively to governments so as to say only governments can censor you.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by PeterSmith 4 months, 2 weeks ago
                That's because in 100+ years of American dictionaries we didn't have to deal with this level of stupidity.

                Dictionaries aren't going to tell you HOW to use words.
                They just give you definitions for words.
                They assume you know what you're talking about.

                Just think about it for two seconds.
                If censorship described more than just government regulation of speech then what wouldn't be censorship?
                Didn't hire someone? Censored.
                Fired someone? Censored.
                Didn't want to do business with someone? Censored.
                etc.
                You're describing EVERYTHING which means you're describing NOTHING.

                Just use your brain for two seconds.

                The reality is you DON'T care what words mean.
                You just want to attack private enterprise you disagree with politically.

                This makes you a supporter of ACTUAL censorship.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 4 months, 2 weeks ago
    What bothers me about Google is that their You Tube division has demonetized most of the user platforms, from the Slingshot Channel to Sidney Watson, and Jon Mark. Also, many of the Gun Channels. Joerg Sprave of the Slingshot Channel which originates out of Germany formed the YouTubers Union to fight against YouTube. He has met with Youtube associates in Germany which failed. The Union has helped to pressure YouTube into further negotiations. Creator's originally had access to a small part of the advertising revenue stream, now that no longer exists. Many still submit videos on their own "dime". That ted Cruz video was excellent!
    I don't use Google as a search engine on my home computer. I do use it occasionally on my cellphone. I did notice recently that Facebook feed has slowed considerably but at this point, it hasn't become a problem.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 4 months, 2 weeks ago
    I'm not sure that Google and Facebook were ever private, free-market corporations rather than fascist tools. Government funding and influence was apparently involved from the beginning. This article on the government's pervasive involvement in the tech sector (with the focus primarily on Google) is long, but very informative. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligen...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 months, 2 weeks ago
      Good point. Google certainly grew out of the State. Not so sure about Facebook. But it doesn't seem to matter. The State has too many tools to co-opt them into being their agents, given that even in the U.S., courts are not protecting the rights of free contracting.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 months, 1 week ago
        Neither Google nor Facebook "grew out of the state". There has been government funding throughout science. The science and technology were developed for scientific and commercial reasons, with a lot more investment funding, not a statist plot.

        Government has both valid and invalid reasons for exploiting technology. The mass surveillance developed and implemented inside NSA and other agencies also makes use of the mass surveillance by "Big Data" for its own purposes. Some of that has been co-opted and some through raw power and deception. The courts certainly are failing to defend the rights of the individual across the board. It is all made possible by the destruction of individualistic philosophical premises and the failure to apply them to new technology, such as proper definitions and defense of property rights in information now being stolen and disseminated everywhere.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 4 months, 2 weeks ago
    Another great article from Vinay.
    The article opens with a pic of a cityscape. This is a reminder of the opening pages of Atlas Shrugged.
    The view of gray sky, low sun, and new-brutalist architecture (Melbourne, Australia) is clean and modern but the gloom reminds the viewer that the human construct of the city is a tool indifferent as to its use.

    Note the tower in the center, it could be thrusting heavenward to achievement and knowledge, or it could be looking down to control and oppress the city streets.
    The city can inspire and facilitate human life as a romantic adventure, or it can house Orwell's HQ of Truth, Peace, and Plenty, more correctly described as propaganda, war, and rationing.
    Cities are becoming more of centers of corporatism- banking, government, executive management, and less of trade. Trading is done but not of goods and services but of abstractions such as licenses (permissions), amounts of money are in billions, the ownership of this money is veiled.
    There are daytime crowds of tourists at the corporate sponsored galleries, but art and production are elsewhere.

    With such symbolism, and (too much maybe) imagination, I question the title-
    The “Corporation” Is Pro-Individualism and Pro-Capitalism.
    Cities today are dominated by corporatism and are tools both for pro-individualism and the institutions of central control, de-humanized and anonymous.

    The main theme of the article is Social responsibility. What is this? The current focus of interpretation is not on individuals, their rights and achievements but the needs of society as set by our (re/pro)gressive elites who control education and the communication media. Our big corporations, in banking, the media, pharma, utilities, airlines and etc. are in it, maybe only as participants going with the flow, but putting their resources at the service of the propaganda elites. The article correctly labels this as fascism, the use by the state for the ends of the state (the elites, the ruling class). The central state gets its work done not by ownership of major corporates but by subverting corporate executives so that the corporates act properly and responsibly - as defined by those elites.

    On this site, recent bad behavior of the big IT corporates has been discussed and defended by the claim that the corporation is private property and management acts with their own money.
    In Atlas Shrugged recall what Dagny Taggart and Hank Readon thought about the corporate-government axis controlling prices, resources, and the market. Is that what we have today, is government controlling the corporates, or are corporates controlling government? Same difference?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 months, 2 weeks ago
      Many thanks for the compliments, Lucky. Yes, the image of the gray sky is deliberate although I was not thinking of any parallels with Atlas Shrugged.

      Yes, Tech Giants have the rights to censor. But their hand is being forced by the State's intrusions. Intrinsically, the corporation is pro-Capitalism and pro-Individualism.

      Thank you for your comments. And feel to share on social media.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by PeterSmith 4 months, 2 weeks ago
        Tech giants don't have the right to censor, nor any ability to do so.
        Tech companies choosing who they host is them exercising their free speech. Among numerous other rights, like property rights and freedom of association, etc.

        Articles like this are simply confused about the most of basic political terms.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rhfinle 4 months, 2 weeks ago
    I'd like to add one point about Kolhatkar's article. He stated "Indeed, banks, by undertaking widespread “social-justice” home lending, sparked the global financial crisis". Bill Clinton modified the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995, to require banks to admit more loans for minorities and other underprivileged classes. The number of Hispanic homeowners doubled in the next few years. All well and good, but the banks began competing for high-risk loans, as it became evident that the government and/or media would end up making an example of any bank that failed to do so. Worse, the government made no provisions for assisting either the homeowners or the banks when this failed. As a result, there were thousands who had mortgages they had no business owning, and no way to pay them as the economy tightened. Then gas prices doubled and these people were left with a choice - drive to work or own a home, and they defaulted. So it was Clinton, not the banks, who "sparked" the collapse, and caused minorities to lose their homes, credit ratings, and whatever equity they had acquired. The Interbank Loan crisis came 13 years later. Just another example of government coercing corporations.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 4 months, 2 weeks ago
    I think "Corporation" is the beginning of the decline of Capitalism. Even Dagney could not stand "Jim's Board" and they ended up being the downfall of TT. People incorporate to get out of individual responsibility and accountability. It brought the downfall of mom and pop businesses.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  edweaver 4 months, 2 weeks ago
      I don't think it is the corporation as much as it is the corporation that became to big to fail and therefore used the government to survive. It doesn't matter the make up of the company if they have to survive without government assistance. Live or die, on your own!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 months, 2 weeks ago
      "Corporation" is the beginning of the decline of Capitalism."
      Should people not be able to form "trusts" or similar entities where ownership is completely separate from management?
      I do not know the answer. Ownership being spread among many shareholders who are not involved in running the business and who do not have liability is just a fact of life for me. But it's not the only way things could be.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 4 months, 2 weeks ago
        It's not the "only way" anyway. There are sole proprietors, and tightly-held private corporations, and family-owned ones, too. And there are trusts and charities and various other forms in different jurisdictions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 4 months, 2 weeks ago
    Our Government is controlled by two private Corporations. The Democrat and Republican Party.
    Yes they are private corporations. . Only the shards of the Constitution keep the country from descending into a monarchy run by the Royal couple these two corporations make. Once it a while we get a President like Trump ...of the people...for the people who puts up bulwarks against the encroachment of the Marxist ideology (read 1984) and flushes some corruption out of the swamp. . .At least makes the people aware of the creatures in the swamp so they can be replaced with hopefully less carnivorous ones.

    However the system is completely and fatally broken in the USA. No amount of tinkering by Congress or the Supreme court or the President can arrest the decline. The only effective way is by repeal and replacement of Constitutional amendments. And then keeping them. You have a republic if you can keep it. - Ben Franklin. He knew what would happen. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The minute Political Parties came into existence the death spiral was initiated.

    See http://www.TheSocietytProject.org For a complete analysis and solution..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  25n56il4 4 months, 2 weeks ago
      I don't agree 'the system is completely and fatally broken in the USA.' But then, I am an Optimist. If it's broken, fix it. Don't just bitch about it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  edweaver 4 months, 2 weeks ago
        There is no fixing a corrupt government. We are close to the place where replacement is the only option. I'm not bitching. All my life I've voted for people who have promised what I voted for and delivered nothing or the opposite. This system is at its end. I hope we can replace it with (real) capitalist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LarryHeart 4 months, 2 weeks ago
        If you jump off a cliff you can be an optimist but unless a miracle happens you will get smashed on the bottom. If you prepare and take a parachute or in this case a Convention of the States then you will survive even if you are a pessimist.

        Read the society project for how to fix it and go ahead and take action. .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo