Can a Presidential Executive Order end the blatant systemic censorship of big tech? President Trump’s social media executive order mandating that the largest global social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram be viewed as publishers instead of just content hosting platforms is a development that I will follow closely. Why? Because for legal purposes, it is believed that this distinction as a publisher versus a content host will push more legal liability and risk on to the owners of the world’s biggest social media platforms every time they throttle and censor content that opposes their agendas. As someone whose content has relentlessly been throttled by all these corporations, for personal reasons, I will be interested to observe if this executive order will result in more views and more subscribers for my channels on which I distribute content. For example, my Twitter account reached about 3,000 followers nearly eight years ago and since then has basically been stuck at a very tight range between about 3,015 and I believe about 3,100 followers. It has never been able to clear that top range number in eight years. I can’t prove that Twitter has throttled the number of my followers but, for example, if Trump’s executive order goes into effect and thereafter, my skwealthacademy Twitter account finally clears 3,100 followers after being unable to do so for eight years, then I will take that as fairly conclusive proof that Twitter executives had deliberately capped my Twitter account growth. In regard to YouTube, I’ve already discussed documented proof of YouTube/Google throttling my two YouTube accounts, including deletion of 70k+ comments from one of my videos, so I will not regurgitate that proof within this article. However, I will be interested to observe if my new channel suddenly starts growing much more quickly after President Trump’s social media executive order designed to lift the liability issues these social media companies will face in court if they continue to censor their content creators.
My solution, unlike President Trump’s, has always been not to increase their liability issues to forcibly stop them to end their censorship in fear of the monetary repercussions of censorship that will negatively affect their bottom line, but to simply flee their parasitic platforms so that the parasite will be without the host it needs to survive. We can end the unjust censorship of big tech simply be refusing to use their platforms. I have always stated that content creators on social media platforms are the hosts whose lifeblood feeds the parasitic giant tech firms and that without our lifeblood the parasite cannot thrive and would wither and die. Ultimately, of course, that means we wield more power than even the parasitic giant tech firms because without us, they are nothing. And a mass exodus would ensure their deaths. The argument, up to now, is that no viable alternative exists that will give content creators that use the social media giants’ platforms the same kind of reach and that is why no big content creators will leave the parasitic platforms on which they currently operate. Joe Rogan was the first big content creator to announce his exodus from YouTube, however, and if his podcast continues to be a huge success on an alternative platform, perhaps that will spark a mass exodus away from the social media platforms that have proven themselves to be a dark parasitic force in this world. In any event, even though the above argument made by popular YouTubers in rationalizing staying on the platform is a circular argument, for if no one leaves for alternative platforms, then of course, by definition, alternative platforms will never grow to provide the reach of a platform like YouTube, that specious argument may die as early as next quarter with the launch of kimdotcom’s k.im platform, a platform specifically designed to offer direct competition to YouTube, absent YouTube’s censorship aspects.
By now, most people understand that big tech likie Twitter, YouTube and Facebook all aggressively censor viewpoints that deviate from the tightly controlled narratives they wish to spread throughout the world, even if the opposition viewpoints are truthful and their agendas and narratives are peppered with lies. In other words, everyone realizes that social media giants today wield the very dangerous power of being able to “manufacture news” that fits their agenda, and in the process, to literally control people’s thoughts. In fact, mass media networks are guilty of exhibiting the exact same operational rules of only reporting “manufacturing news” that fits their agenda instead of reporting a balanced spectrum of factual sides on a story that allows the view to make his or her own informed decision about what to believe.
Earlier this year, when CNBC anchor Rachel Maddow was sued for libel by One American News, in court, she absurdly argued that when she slandered One American News by calling their stories “really literally [are] paid Russian propaganda” that she was only offering her opinion, even though the definitions of literally and really are the exact opposite of an offered editorial opinion and thereby implied that she possessed indisputable proof that One American News was paid by the Russian government to spread propaganda. And even more absurd than the fact that she argued, as a new anchor, that words mean nothing and when she uses the word “really” and “literally” she does not really mean “really” and “literally” is the fact that a US judge just dismissed the libel case against Rachel Maddow because he ruled that anyone that listens to a news anchor use the words “really” and “literally” when slandering people for lying knows that the anchor is only offering her opinion. I stated that Federal Judge Cynthia Bashant’s dismissal of the libel lawsuit against Rachel Maddow, even though Maddow committed the textbook definition of libel, was absurd but not unexpected, because we know that the legal apparatus is also part of the parasitic class and therefore will always rule in favor of other parasites like Rachel Maddow, and declare wrongful behavior as righteous.
In any event, most people understand everything I just stated above, that we should not trust news disseminated in mass media and on the large social media networks, because this news is manufactured to build consensus for certain agendas and not necessarily the truth. However, most people do not understand that Google’s search engine algorithms have been constructed in the exact same manner, and hide any search results, no matter how truthful they are, that deviate from the belief system that wish to artificially manufacture among the populace. As an example, search “gold standard” on Google, and you will find nothing truthful on their first page of results about the true definition of a real gold standard. Of course, many will partake in this exercise and believe my statement to be false because they will find results that align with everything they learned in school about a gold standard, but when all your information is being accessed through the systems the parasitic class has built for us, discovering truth is impossible (by the way, if you don’t fully understand what I mean, be sure you subscribe to my youtube channel and view upcoming podcast #102).
However, President Trump’s social media executive order to hold the owners of social media platforms more accountable for their censorship activity is not yet law and has to undergo a review process before it can actually become law. The Federal Communications commission is set to release guidelines today that will regulate how social media giants can make decisions to remove content from their platform, so I will wait with interest to read these specific guidelines when released. In any event, love him or hate him, if President Trump’s mandate succeeds in achieving its goals and provides greater discourse in the public arena that is necessary to determine truth, this will be a positive step for everyone to end the censorship of big tech. If Trump’s executive order succeeds in ridding the protections now afforded social media platforms when they decide to censor content, then they will no longer be able to deceitfully and cowardly hide behind their “Good Samaritan” rules, in which they remove content, no questions asked, under the guise of removing content as “harmful to minors” in which the removed content contained no content harmful to minors.
In the past, people that did not agree with the content of a YouTube video would simply falsely report it to YouTube as containing content “harmful to minors” and YouTube would automatically take down the content without conducting any type of review to actually determine if the voiced protests were true. Then the content creator would have to contact YouTube, explain that his or her video contained no content remotely harmful to minors, ask for a review, and wait for YouTube to reinstate the video, if they ever did. Sometimes YouTube would never even respond to the demands for reinstatement and unjustly used their “Good Samaritan” rule to act like an devil and censor content simply because it disagreed with their agenda (at least I experienced such a situation). And this is a tremendous waste of time for content creators to be forced to deal with a heavy handed and heavily flawed rule that social media giants exploit to simply censor content that does not fit their agenda under the false premise of a “Good Samaritan” rule.
In the end, I’m excited to see how this executive order plays out, because anything that weakens the parasitic nature of social media giants is one giant step forward for mankind.