Twitter has a rival, Telegram. As it is evidently a non-profit organization, it isn't feeling the pressure to censor certain people or face business reprisals. Yet, that doesn't mean the oligarchs can't find a way to suppress it -- possibly by refusing to permit it to conduct business electronically (oh, but now that there is cryptocurrency everywhere, that idea might flop).
Telegram message service
https://telegram.org/
Here are the Telegram accounts of some of the media personalities un-personed by Instagram last week:
Alex Jones – https://t.me/real_AlexJones
Milo Yiannopoulos – https://t.me/officialmilo
Laura Loomer – https://t.me/loomeredofficial
Paul Joseph Watson – https://t.me/pjwnews
Faith Goldy – https://t.me/faithgoldy
"Already leftists at The Daily Beast are freaking out conservatives are finding new mediums through which to express themselves," chortles InfoWars.
Again, I do not necessarily condone or endorse the views found at InfoWars or elsewhere. I object to their contributors being muzzled as "dangerous" persons. Speech is inherently dangerous, and yet in America it is free anyway.
The data collection practices of Big Tech are dangerous, as forms of mass surveillance. Yet, the "dangerous persons" who run these Silicon Valley firms don't expect that they should be muzzled. They doubtless think that you are able to make up your own mind about what they have to say and that, if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere. Of course, they have the conceit that their nice liberal reasoning makes them non-dangerous. Yet could not a case be made that they should be silenced so as not to defend their pro-mass surveillance business model?
What about Big Liberal's heroine, Hillary Clinton? Is she not a "dangerous person"? She's taken to the airwaves lately as the replacement of Michael "Say Anything" Avenatti. Who can forget when she laughed out loud on hearing that a man was murdered. She has promoted a crazed Russiagate conspiracy theory that has been picked up by a controlled media and rent the country in two. Why doesn't Big Tech muzzle her?
Telegram message service
https://telegram.org/
Here are the Telegram accounts of some of the media personalities un-personed by Instagram last week:
Alex Jones – https://t.me/real_AlexJones
Milo Yiannopoulos – https://t.me/officialmilo
Laura Loomer – https://t.me/loomeredofficial
Paul Joseph Watson – https://t.me/pjwnews
Faith Goldy – https://t.me/faithgoldy
"Already leftists at The Daily Beast are freaking out conservatives are finding new mediums through which to express themselves," chortles InfoWars.
Again, I do not necessarily condone or endorse the views found at InfoWars or elsewhere. I object to their contributors being muzzled as "dangerous" persons. Speech is inherently dangerous, and yet in America it is free anyway.
The data collection practices of Big Tech are dangerous, as forms of mass surveillance. Yet, the "dangerous persons" who run these Silicon Valley firms don't expect that they should be muzzled. They doubtless think that you are able to make up your own mind about what they have to say and that, if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere. Of course, they have the conceit that their nice liberal reasoning makes them non-dangerous. Yet could not a case be made that they should be silenced so as not to defend their pro-mass surveillance business model?
What about Big Liberal's heroine, Hillary Clinton? Is she not a "dangerous person"? She's taken to the airwaves lately as the replacement of Michael "Say Anything" Avenatti. Who can forget when she laughed out loud on hearing that a man was murdered. She has promoted a crazed Russiagate conspiracy theory that has been picked up by a controlled media and rent the country in two. Why doesn't Big Tech muzzle her?
No comments:
Post a Comment