Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Twitter purge of accounts "Undermining Faith In NATO"" video.

  1.  @Ratimir101  Yes. The military-industrial complex needs a never-ending source of external threats to justify its existence and its life-ending income stream.
    5
  2. Yes. And it's going to blow back on them in a big way. Society's evolving beyond its traditional institutions and leaving the stuffed-shirts behind.
    3
  3. C'mon now, Alex. You argue on the one hand how powerful Twitter is and then you scoff at them taking down accounts for swaying public opinion in a "wrong way." That's not the argument you should make. It's more "partisan" or "pro-Russian" position than principled position. Yes. Twitter is trash. Yes. Twitter is in it for the globalists and the stuffed-shirt, white-collar liberal elites and not for the common people. These platforms really should do more to ensure that the accounts on their platforms are actually held by real people and that those people don't have multiple accounts. I think that BOT accounts are a problem that could be solved very easily. But that still wouldn't address the thousands of 50-cent soldiers that any country can hire to spam their propaganda far and wide. It only takes a few HUNDRED to make it appear there is a groundswell of public opinion one way or the other, if they target certain things and say certain things, catalyzing thousands more goofballs to fall in line. That's the problem with the stuffed-shirt/white-collar elites. They don't MINGLE with regular people. They just use a bunch of electronic tools to test the political waters, remotely, which doesn't really tell them what's happening, let alone how to solve any problems. They see a "mob" of a few thousand people and conclude that's what everybody's thinking, which is why policies coming down from elite circles make absolutely zero sense to the vast majority of people. As always, the "elites" see which way they THINK things are headed, and rush to the front of the parade with their giant batons, pretending to LEAD. You see them proudly marching and brandishing the baton, and they get that wonderful photo opportunity for which they seem to live. Then 5 minutes later, they turn around and they're all alone waving a baton, while the actual parade is marching off in another direction.
    1
  4. The trouble as I see it is that government really wanted these social media platforms to exist, and followed a drug-dealer's methods: Give the stuff away for free, and extract money, later. The trouble with that model is that people balk at paying for something they're used to getting for free. And so to make the platforms economically viable, they sold user info to advertisers and started censoring content to please those advertisers. Everybody complaining about FB, Twitter and YouTube needs to think about their own role in creating these monsters. You want it for free AND you want it to be perfect. Good luck with that. When you're taking charity, you get what you get, and you're grateful. People who are pissed-off at Big Tech platforms need to support alt-tech platforms. I used to think that buying Premium on YouTube would help separate them from the corporate BORG, but about a year into my wonderful Premium YouTube, they pulled some of their worst shit, and so I canceled my premium. When/if they wise up and become a true platform, I will gladly pay for premium. I just don't see that ever happening under their current leadership and their current business model.
    1
  5. I never saw the attraction in Twatter, when I saw how Tweets were limited to x-hundred characters. Heck, I have a hard time staying under 200 characters in realtime chat. And almost nothing I want to weigh in on and say can be said in a few hundred characters. You can float witty one-liners and post memes, I suppose, but you're not really being informed or informing anyone with one-liners. As for FaceBook, it was a wonderful platform for putting people in touch across the country/planet. Then its ownership saw how the free thinking libertarians and anti-establishment conservatives were DOMINATING, quite organically, because their IDEAS were dominating. Since then, FaceBook's been wanting to suppress conservative/libertarian ideas, and looked for any and every excuse to justify doing so What SHOULD be happening, now, is these platforms need to restrict themselves to PLATFORM duties. Instead of policing their own content, they should be creating and marketing content filters from which their clients may choose, to customize their feeds. The minute they start policing their own content FOR their customers, they SHOULD be held to the standards of publishers and LOSE all the special protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I personally think the entire CDA should be abolished. It's not government's job to enforce "decency," and it is DEFinitely not government's job to give a handful of Big Tech companies special protections not afforded to the rest of us. Equal Protection Under Law is a principle pre-dating the U.S. Constitution, and explicitly a part of the U.S. Constitution, in the form of the 14th Amendment.
    1
  6. Instead of a "Report Abuse" that goes to the FB/Twatter/YT gods/parents, there should be a button for one-click blocking of assholes, and a variety of filtering apps from which to choose, so that custom-ers can custom-ize their feeds. For kids, I'm reminded of my primitive hacker-fighting days on an early Linux server. There's a hosts:allow and a hosts:deny. For adults, basically allow all until the customer decides on what to get rid of, with a free or almost-free filtering app. For kids, parents should just deny:ALL and then add the sites they deem appropriate for their children.
    1