Posts Tagged ‘internet’

Net Neutrality Lunges In The Wrong Direction

Thursday, May 18th, 2017

The Left specializes in creating mental spam. Every few weeks, there is a new distraction that they hype into an end-of-the-world style issue, not so much because they care about the issue, but because they need to keep their base panicked and angry so that they become a personal army to crush opposition and demand Leftist power.

Currently the Leftism media-political establishment is raging about net neutrality:

Federal regulators will move to roll back one of the Obama administration’s signature Internet policies this week, launching a process to repeal the government’s net neutrality rules that currently regulate how Internet providers may treat websites and their own customers. The vote on Thursday, led by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, will kick off consideration of a proposal to relax regulations on companies such as Comcast and AT&T. If approved by the 2-1 Republican-majority commission, it will be a significant step for the broadband industry as it seeks more leeway under government rules to develop new business models. For consumer advocates and tech companies, it will be a setback; those groups argue that looser regulations won’t prevent those business models from harming Internet users and website owners. The current rules force Internet providers to behave much like their cousins in the legacy telephone business. Under the FCC’s net neutrality policy, providers cannot block or slow down consumers’ Internet traffic, or charge websites a fee in order to be displayed on consumers’ screens.

As usual, the Left wants to confuse one method of addressing a problem with the set of all methods, so that their voters think there is only one way to fix the problem and any deviation from that is treason.

First, we should talk about net neutrality. The original idea of the net was that every node could forward packages to every other node, based on the idea of mutuality, or that each did the same to others. This works in a subsidized or military system, but not in a market, where some sites are massively larger than others. This means that the little guys spend their money and energy supporting Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, Apple, Facebook and Twitter, while the big companies owe them nothing.

This means that net neutrality, as a concept, was dead the minute that the internet was commercialized.

Next, we should talk about monopoly. When a large search engine like Google, or massive site like Amazon or Wikipedia, controls most of the eyeballs, the policies this site uses to list links on its pages regulate who lives and who dies. A site with low Google rank disappears and its business evaporates; a concept that Wikipedia refuses to mention — in a model like that of the mainstream media, excluding its ideological enemies — just drops out of public consciousness. Any concept of neutrality is long dead.

With those in mind, we can turn to a solution. Regulation adds expense and litigation to otherwise thriving industries, displacing little guys and favoring big guys. The consumers ultimately want the ability to see anything they want on the net without consideration of what it is. But they have already lost that, long ago.

Instead, it makes sense to let the market cure this one. If an ISP is blocking your traffic, you can sign up with a competing ISP… except you cannot, because regulation keeps the market small and so you have few options. Instead of piling more bad regulations on top of that, it is time to repeal more laws and let the problem work itself out.

If consumers desire net neutrality as much as they claim they do, they will be willing to put market pressure on their ISPs instead of relying on Big Daddy Government to do it for them.

A Solution For The Fake “Fake News” Outrage

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

Tim Berners-Lee on how to fix the internet:

Today, most people find news and information on the web through just a handful of social media sites and search engines. These sites make more money when we click on the links they show us. And they choose what to show us based on algorithms that learn from our personal data that they are constantly harvesting. The net result is that these sites show us content they think we’ll click on – meaning that misinformation, or fake news, which is surprising, shocking, or designed to appeal to our biases, can spread like wildfire. And through the use of data science and armies of bots, those with bad intentions can game the system to spread misinformation for financial or political gain.

The internet was originally designed to be decentralized so that if in wartime a city was taken out, the internet could simply route around the damage and keep communications working. The web was theorized as similarly decentralized, with many different sites offering content and users choosing from among those.

However, thanks to the consumer mentality, the internet is now centralized in the hands of a few successful but dying companies, making them arbiters of what is seen and heard, and therefore enforcers of a type of censorship of viewpoints that these companies perceive will offend some of their desired userbase.

As Berners-Lee points out, the solution is to “redecentralize” or stop our reliance on a few big sites and search engines, and instead to have many more variants such that the audience can find its own content without going through mediators, who have the exact same problem that big media does, which is a tendency to cater to the audience that uses them most, over normal people.

End Of The Internet

Thursday, March 2nd, 2017

Smart money got its start in the internet before the collapse began, working on the new frontier in the days antecedent to the time when the herd took over. Since then, the internet has become a popularity contest of highly similar ideas, each claiming to be distinct.

This is consistent with an aging market. When a technology is new, it is rewarded with high-margin results for those who conquer new spaces; as time goes on, it becomes a part of the background hum, with thin margins which encourage a competition death spiral in which all participants emulate one another and thus approximate a mean.

We are now seeing the downfall of the internet as people recognize that the internet corrupts source material by forcing it into this form designated by this dying market, which is the opposite of the “wild west” the internet once promised:

But she found that publishing on the internet often had the unintended and unconscious effect of causing her to cater to the aesthetics of those platforms. “The internet should be a place with no rules, and freedom, but it’s not,” Piñero said. “There is a certain pressure to conform to certain aesthetics.” It was something I had noticed myself. Each social-media platform tends to reward certain behaviors and styles of posting, all in the interest of building fans and followers who are invested in the performance of a persona (maybe even more so than the Geppetto-like person orchestrating it all). Instagram is a place for intimate-seeming photos, Twitter for clever quips and collaborative memes. Facebook demands an unmitigated rawness that can be terrifying at times. With all, the works are often made to fit the platform, not the other way around.

Much as content adapts to its audience, it also adapts to the medium through which it is communicated, which on the centralized internet means relatively few sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Reddit. As a result, the message is being contorted to not just fit in the medium, but to do what the audience rewards, a sort of consumerism based on imaginary internet points.

After all, these imaginary internet points determine whose content is at the top of these sites and therefore, who gets the benefit in search engines like Google and Bing. That means that social media itself has become a market for popularity such that the content which appeals to the broadest segment of the market dominates, crowding out the voices that do not conform.

This reveals a weakness in demotism itself, as expressed in systems like democracy, capitalism and social popularity. What is most popular is always wrong; what is least popular is a mix of crazy and the hard-to-identify rare moments of sanity. As a result, the herd outweighs sanity and demands that what flatters it become the norm, even if it is insane.

What this means is that the free riders game the system and by appealing to the sympathy of others, corrupt the dialogue with nonsense information:

As CBS2’s Jessica Borg reported, chances are you have probably seen something like this on your Facebook feed – a friend shares a heartbreaking photo of a baby or a teenager with a life-threatening illness.

The post urges you to “like,” “comment,” or “share.”

…Barrios said such fake posts are part of a scam called, “like-farming.” They can put your computer security at risk, or your personal data if you donate.

Humanity is learning in this century that when we set up “games,” or proxies for purpose measured by method, people take advantage of them, and the result is corruption and opportunism. The internet falls into this difficulty because of its tendency to standardize content to form, which means that the lowest common denominator clickbait wins out.

This shows us the end of the internet: a once decentralized system, which aimed to be decentralized because it knew the fallibility of centralized systems to “gaming” or other attacks, became centralized because the herd came in and demanded the same entertainment they got from their televisions.

As a result, it has now lost truth value, not so much because of the “big corporations” but because the users rapidly destroy anything good in a quest for individual self-importance, attention and profit. This mirrors what happened to Western society as a whole when individualism took over.

Someday we may learn that people are either geared toward some purpose in common, whereby they can cooperate, or they turn into bickering monkeys who tear apart everything good for the benefit of the individual. The internet was once a refuge from this, but now it merely exemplifies it, and has lost utility as a result.

How They Will Censor You Without You Even Knowing

Monday, February 13th, 2017

Oh look! The forces that can be have discovered that common carrier barriers to liability vanished in the 1990s, and so they can put pressure on the parts of the internet that are vulnerable, namely the parts through which the bulk of traffic flies. In order to impose control, they are censoring the backbone:

Several Pirate Bay users from ISPs all over the world have been unable to access their favorite torrent site for more than a week. Their requests are being stopped in the Internet backbone network of Cogent Communications, which has blackholed the CloudFlare IP-address of The Pirate Bay and many other torrent and streaming sites, reports TorrentFreak.

Here is the beast of it: they pitched the internet to you as a space, or something self-sustaining. But really, it is data that is contained on wires, hard drives, routers and terminals. As a result, it is susceptible to physical attack, namely that the person who controls the physical parts can alter the “virtual reality” in any way they please.

If one is a manic censor, the only goal is the end result, so it makes sense to find the highest-traffic areas through which most internet packets go, and to use those to rip the heart out of the open internet. When maniacs like myself talk about “redecentralizing” the internet, what we mean is to move it from using a few key points of transit to many, so that this cannot happen.

It is clear that we can no longer trust our species. Everything we do must be anarchic, or designed to work around the control gambits of others. They have much to lose, and they will do anything they can to coax, convince, brainwash and deceive us into following their agenda of manipulation.

Reddit Blames Content Censorship On Form

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

Every message has content and form. Content is what it communicates, and form is how it communicates. A message can have perfectly good content, but be expressed in a form — for example, obscenities and epithets — that renders it into spam for most audiences.

When a social media site censors user-submitted data, the question is whether they are objecting to content or form. Consider these two messages:

  • “Multiple racial groups cannot coexist in the same society without destroying it.”
  • (string of racial epithets, obscenities, pejoratives and attacks)

Maybe they express the same idea, if we distill it to its absolute core. Maybe both are relevant. But it is more understandable if the latter is removed because it is closer to graffiti, linguistic vandalism or spam. This is not categorical so much as a question of its direction and intent. Does it aim to communicate, or to hammer people with a viewpoint in a form designed to provoke them?

Reddit claims that it removed the subreddit (sort of like a hashtag) “/r/altright” on the basis of form, as as co-founder Alexis Ohanian argued recently:

This is our trust and safety team enforcing a violation of our content policy regarding personal information—doxxing is the shorthand for it—but basically, these communities continue to violate our policy, and we shut them down.

However, Reddit banned three subreddits: /r/altright, /r/alternativeright and /r/identitarian. These were not engaged in the same behavior, but did share the same topic. This proves that Reddit was not censoring for aberrant behavior, but for content which did not fit within the narrative that Reddit is advancing.

In other words, Reddit admins disagreed with the content, not the form, and as a result used a claim of a violation — doxxing, which normally means revealing the identity of a user on the site, which did not happen here — to remove ideological non-conformists. They are doing this in order to provide a “safe space” for users to feel unchallenged, as if they were in a shopping mall or other commercial establishment.

The thing is… that model will not work. People need open spaces for interaction, and that interaction will sometimes be contentious. Debate and discourse originate not in conformity, but in people probing multiple different approaches and then bringing them together to create accurate portrayals of reality for as many aspects of it as are possible at this time. Over many interactions, this view gradually clarifies to a greater degree, but that requires the ability to dissent from whatever the dominant group opinion is at the time.

Social media has been unable to provide this space because social media is centralized. One corporation, such as Facebook, “owns” the space of interaction and censors it to create the type of inoffensive shopping experience that it is believed consumers want. However, that approach is incompatible with the internet, which is based on groups separating by perspective to clarify those views.

This is why social media is dying:

A new report has revealed that out of the total 66 ads that aired during Super Bowl LI, only 30 of them included a hashtag – while 41 percent displayed the firm’s URL.

The shift was a new strategy for corporations to bring more traffic to their websites, rather than just gaining popularity on social media – with just five mentioning a Twitter handle, and four a Facebook page.

Centralized media does not work because it tries to be like a publication, where strict editing is enforced, when it is more like the local pub. At your local, people debate hot topics and it grows contentious, which causes some to separate out into their own groups. The old internet, where people visited many sites for different outlooks, functioned by this principle.

However, profit demands getting as many warm bodies as possible into a single place at the same time. To make that happen, social media companies have dedicated billions toward removing any viewpoints which might conflict with the perception of harmony, agreement and safe shopping. That approach has died because social media companies, under the guise of removing objectionable form, removed merely controversial content.

People on the internet do not want the managed experience that they might expect in a regulated social space like a shopping mall. They want the interaction that a pub provides, and that can only happen when we redecentralize the internet and get away from the 6-10 really large sites that control most of the traffic, and have a fiscal interest in making it as bland and inoffensive (but salacious) as possible.

Twitter Censors Top Alt Right Accounts In “November Purge”

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016

twitter_purge

Flailing social media site Twitter, which seems unable to sell itself despite that being the endgame of its ruling junta, following the departure of its Chief Operating Officer Adam Bain and consequent dive in stock prices, embarked on a censorship tantrum targeting top Alt Right accounts today in what many are calling the “November Purge.”

Each account now displays the well-known Twitter “account suspended” page and all of the user content — years of witticisms, news, memes and conversation — has become inaccessible to these users. This shows the problem of social media and The Cloud, which is that when the powers that be choose to censor, the user loses all that they have contributed twice: first, in that they cannot see it, and second in that the others for whose benefit it was written cannot see it.

If this keeps up, the internet will decentralize from having a few big sites — Facebook, Wikipedia, Reddit, Amazon, Twitter and others — having control over the content, to many tiny sites which are independently maintained each having their own content. While this is positive, the next battle will be over thousands of SJWs writing to internet webhosts to demand cancellation of the accounts of “problematic” sites.

“I Do Not Understand” Is Not An Argument

Monday, July 18th, 2016

The internet is the ultimate extension of democracy in that all get a voice, and through what they are saying, we see how the problem with humanity is us: as a group, we make poor decisions, and most individuals do not understand or focus on the issues at hand.

A common trope in comments is the “I don’t see” or “I don’t understand” argument. In it, the person arguing wants you to believe that because they do not comprehend the particular argument, it cannot be true, because everyone must understand and agree in order for something to be true.

This is obvious nonsense. Besides the Dunning-Kruger effect, there is raw history. Throughout the human story, there have been a few brave people who saw what was real and unrecognized, and spoke it, earning the ire of the crowd. Truth is always elusive because most humans are bigoted against truth.

You Are The Product

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

attention_whores

The web gave us the rise of the personal blog. At first, the blog was a place to post links of interest, but with the rise of search engines, this became less important, and instead bloggers competed for traffic on the basis of personality and pleasant visions of life… that may be very far from real.

But with this change, the blogger altered identity. He or she was no longer the chooser of links, or the finder of oddities, in which case the links were the product. No: the blogger was the product. People were tuning in to partake of the personality and the lifestyle which they admired.

This clinched the trap. Where previously bloggers had been susceptible to vanity, now they were what they were selling to the audience, and sometimes they bought their own product… as every drug dealer or arms merchant is cautioned not to do. Bloggers got no such warning.

In doing so, they pioneered the postmodern condition: when everything is a product, individuals are products too, selling themselves in exchange for jobs, status, popularity, fame and opportunities. We have made our society into a herd of attention whores through our insistence on selection by the masses of what is the “right” answer.

Look at what a creepy, proctological world we have made:

“The other bloggers in your community won’t share your content with their readers [if it’s not cheery],” she explains. “And if the [blogger] networks don’t share the content, then your own numbers suffer.”

…“I felt I could somehow control things as long as it looked good online,” says Denise

…“So there we all are, family time, grilling on Father’s Day with peach iced tea, but you can’t enjoy the moment you’re having with your kids, because you’re taking endless photos and it’s all stage-directed,” says Denise. “You’re worried about getting the company logo in the frame, and your kids smiling, and you’re taking shot after shot.”

In other words, bloggers — We The People — have become just as sold out as big media. But there is another catch: if your blog is a personal one, or one in which you sell yourself, you find yourself altering who you are to make the audience happy. Your personality, life and soul have become a means to an end of getting more attention.

Validation creates a validator. If we are all equal, that situation creates competition to be validated as more than equal. That transfers power from the individual, who ordinarily through self-esteem is alone responsible for his self-image, to the crowd which approves or disapproves. The validators become the tyrants, and bloggers alter themselves to be more pleasing, like concubines after a feast.

Another blogger expressed it this way — basically, needing attention makes you a slave and a whore to what other people think:

and you know what? even though i was fretting all along about my absence, i finally let go of all that self imposed stress and just enjoyed life. it’s been great to take a breather from the ol’ internet- my pal and yours, but let’s face it: sometimes the internet can feel sorta… eh at times, you know? pretty easy to get caught up in it all. all the tweeting, chatting, flickring, facebooking, stylehiving, myspacing, friendstering, tumblering, bloglining, etc. it’s a lot, isn’t it? sometimes so much that you forget to interact with the people right in front of your face. instead, you find yourself neeeeeding the updates. who’s doing what. did so-and-so post new pics? has so-and-so returned from their vacation? what is so-and-so making for dinner? what’s the latest celeb scandal? and what is so-and-so wearing today.

crazy, i know. but the time away provides an excellent reminder: you will be just fine if you didn’t check in with all that stuff as much as you think you need to because your own life is pretty good. and that it feels a lot better to live through your own experiences than through someone elses.

This echoes the meltdowns that other bloggers — in this case, the type of “look at my perfect life” blogger called a mommyblogger — have experienced. For example, Heather Armstrong (Dooce) had a very public meltdown in which she admitted to being in therapy, divorced her husband and fled her “perfect” life:

I find this so confusing because according to Dooce, the two of them have been going to therapy for years together. Dooce has praised her husband and openly loved him for years. I don’t get how this happened. Was she lying to us about how things really were?

I’ve noticed that many very successful and/or famous people do not stay with the partner they were with prior to that success and/or fame. But Dooce has been successful and famous for a long time now. The marriage had the outward appearance of surviving not only Heather’s mental illness, but also her career. Jon doesn’t seem like the kind of man who would begrudge Heather her success. He seems to really love and respect her.

Other bloggers have had similar meltdowns. Early blogger Justin Hall experienced a meltdown at the peak of his fame and as he was forced by post-college life to make himself into a product. Jorn Barger, the guy who invented the term “blog,” experienced an intense meltdown that left him homeless.

So what does this tell us? That the need for validation creates a need to manipulate image, and that soon the false image replaces reality…

Most women don’t necessarily do it for the money, Denise noticed, but rather for validation — the feeling of importance that comes from working with big, national brands like Bigelow Tea and Coca-Cola.

“They aren’t very honest about what’s going on in their lives,” she says. “I was certainly one of them.”

…“I’m not playing that game anymore. I’m moving on from writing posts about chicken and cupcakes. These days, if I’m at a park with my kids now, I’m there, at that park. I feel a real sense of community — not the false kind I tried to create online.”

The image must conform to what others want to purchase as a product. They do not care about reality. They want a pleasant reality in which to lose themselves and feel better about their lives. You, the blogger, are the product: a celebrity whose forum is not the movies in which you act, but your own personal drama and lifestyle which you sell like a used car to whichever warm bodies you can induce to click on your links.

The creepiness continues because with the idea of a “personal” connection comes the notion that people can share emotions, truths and viewpoints:

As a result of such heated controversy, Armstrong began connecting with others in the blogosphere, and her readership continued to grow. Since then, the relationship between her and her readers has been invaluable. They have helped her through extremely dark times in her life, particularly through her postpartum depression.

“I would give hints about how I was feeling, and people would respond,” Armstrong said. “Many of them reached out to me with their own story, saying, ‘Please take care of yourself.’ I really credit their support of me to the willingness of me to accept that something was wrong.”

In other words, this is the formation of a hive mind: a huge group grooving to the same emotion, moving through the same motions, and motivated by the same fears. This is a dangerous condition at best, and a horrifying abyss of human moral awareness and self-discipline at worst. When the herd validates you, you have no reason to change for some reason as piddly as adapting to reality.

FreckleWonder, the (freckled) blogger cited earlier, eventually retreated from blogging and left instead this statement about how profoundly being a self-centered celebrity had ruined her life:

If my math is correct, it’s been 99 days since my last post. I didn’t intend go dark but the thing is, the more the days went by, the easier it was to not blog and just live. The idea of sitting down to edit images and compose a post just seemed totally unfulfilling. I’d rather take the 1-2 hours and hang out with my kids, connect with my husband, enjoy the outdoors with my dogs. Cook, exercise, read a book. Lounge on the sofa in the sunshine and stare at the ceiling. Really, anything but comb the internet for ideas and images to write a blogpost.

The last thing I want to do is apologize for not sitting down to blog because I’ve been busy living and experiencing that wonderful thing called real life. I don’t like it when bloggers apologize for not meeting some number of posts because of x, y and z. The kids were sick! We’ve been SO BUSY. My internet was out! I promise to be back next week!

These things happen and it’s called life. Blogging ≠ Life.

My perspective has definitely shifted over the last couple years. You may have noticed, I rarely share images of my kids anymore (here or elsewhere) and don’t really blog about anything very personal. I decided about 2 years ago to reclaim the private moments in our lives, saving them (for the most part) just for us to experience instead of plastering them all over the www. It wasn’t anything I announced or talked about, and there wasn’t any single incident that pushed me towards making that decision. It’s just what felt right to me and to my husband and what felt best for our family. It’s almost like I woke up one day and hit my limit on sharing. Let’s face it, the internet isn’t what it used to be.

I do miss the good old days of blogging, long before every little slice of life was monetized in some way. Snacks, outfits, family trips. I’ve struggled with this for years. Some people handle this delicate balance really well – and I sincerely mean that. But I truly believe that in many cases, the money behind a post really changes the author’s voice. A blog post reads like an advertisement. From a reader perspective, things feel less genuine, less reader-blogger connected. Instead things feel at times competitive and incredibly superficial with product pushing, mile long gift guides riddled with affiliate links. Those posts are not fun to put together, I know from experience. They’re also not fun (for me) to read. I have ZERO interest in spending my few spare moments on something like that. I’m not singling out any one blog/blogger, but rather speaking to the overwhelming feeling I have that everywhere I turn, I’m being sold something.

I miss the days of having a real community. Of sharing for the sake of connecting. Of being genuinely inspired. Maybe I’m looking in all the wrong places. If you know of well written, honest, non-sponsored content, please share. Because nowadays a lot of folks are up on their writer-editor-tastemaker high horse and images are curated to the teeth and WHAT IS LIFE because I’m not so sure about all of this. I’d be the first one to admit that it’s easy to fall into that perfect image trap. You want to share something lovely, you want to share something nice. But at what point does lovely and nice turn into phony and absurd? (This a bit of an aside and I am going out on a limb but: I don’t consider myself a writer. I don’t want to offend the real writers of the world. However, it is important to me that I hit the submit button on a post that is not just visually beautiful but also well written (to the best of my ability) and free of any spelling and grammatical errors. I do spend more than a few minutes editing and revising because it matters. For example, this post currently has 34 revisions and I’ve spent more than two hours on it. I feel like it’s the least you can do (especially if you’re getting paid to do it).
 Grammar Girl is your friend. Also, things like aThesaurus! The Idiom and Phrase finder! Put those in your bag of tricks. Just might be enough to sink a ship.

ANYHOW, I wonder why I even want to be a part of it any more. Is it more out of habit? A pull that I feel because it’s something I’ve done for so long that it feels weird to not be involved? It’s a total yes on this one. And it’s funny because sometimes I still wake up in the middle of the night and write blog posts in my head. The blog weighs on me like a ton of bricks. At 4 am they always seem really great and share-worthy. But it’s the middle of the night! And I should be sleeping! What the hell am I doing! And then morning comes and with it my ability to see things more clearly. I go about all my usual business, which as of late does not seem to have any space for this here blog.

It’s a square peg, round hole kind of situation.

I’m pulling the plug at the end of the month. It feels so silly to pay hosting fees, etc. for something I’m just not doing with any kind of regularity (or enthusiasm) anymore. If I can muster up the energy to figure out how to export over to a free platform, then maybe I’ll do that. Maybe the mood will strike – it’s been a LONG WINTER after all.

The last time I quit a blog, it was so emotional for me! I agonized over the decision and it felt like I was jumping off the edge of something because it had been a part of my life for so long. This time it’s a no brainer – it was fun until it wasn’t. I’m truly ready to move on to different things. I’m enrolled in spring classes and I’m so excited about it. This next year is going to be a really busy one as we focus on selling our house and beginning a new chapter for our family. New house, new hood, new schools, new work, all off the blog.

I have so much appreciation for all of you loyal readers and customers throughout the years. Your support, your kindness, your friendship. Thanks for reading and being a part of this thing for so long.

I will leave you with one last thing: I stumbled across a quote online last year sometime, probably on one of those silly Pinterest boards with all the quotes (I used to have one, no worries) and it read: DO ONE THING AND DO IT WELL. And that sucker smacked me sideways. I’ve been a proud multitasker for as long as I can remember, but the minute I decided to clear my plate and put my energy towards fewer things in a more effective way, the better I felt. And the better I was at those things. Win, win.

In the experiences of these bloggers, we see the modern parable: people made responsible to the Crowd through self-image, which in turn forces them to edit that image until it appeals to the Crowd, not just so they can get ahead but so they are not left behind. Every whitelist — list of good people — also contains an implicit blacklist — list of bad people — because if you are not on the whitelist, you are de facto on the blacklist.

This creates a horrific world where nothing is authentic, where everyone is a salesman, and where all “truths” are image designed to manipulate you, and nothing more. The experience of bloggers and their meltdowns is nothing less than what our society as a whole faces as its attention whoring falls flat and it must confront the emptiness of a life lived for image in denial of reality.

Female moderators

Sunday, January 10th, 2016

rosie_the_riveter_-_we_can_do_it

I hate female moderators because they cannot do their job. To them it is more important that people are politically correct than that those people form their own opinions.

If you think about it, moderating means to make moderate. In practical terms, that means “to make equal.” You remove every spike and alley so that everyone can fit to a normalized standard.

Have you heard the story of Procrustes? He was the son of Poseidon and a black smith of old Greece. Known as “the stretcher,” this is his story. He had an iron bed and offered passerby a night’s rest. Then he would make them fit the iron bed. If they were too tall, he would amputate parts to make them short. If they were too short he would stretch them out to fit. Since no one matched his bed exactly, everyone who slept over would be dead in the morning. Moderating is like this.

Procrustes was one of the earliest moderators. Moderating requires the removal of any upsetting thought and to actualize conformity to the crowd. Intelligent people are in bad luck since they cannot express anything without standing out. That is because they make accurate observations and think for themselves, rather than adhere to groupthink. A stark contrast to the crowd that repeat and spread false or poor information.

So the intelligent have their voices silenced. Wherever they go the crowd works against them. Oftentimes they are called trolls for stating the obvious. But the real trolls are all those people on the forum with ten thousands of posts. They are parasites of the system, getting along all too well by flattering others and repeating known tropes. They succeed because they speak in lukewarm crowd-speech and nothing else.

Female moderators are by far the worst group of moderators. Because women to begin with are more about getting along, they take to the role of cutting the traveler to fit the bed. They do not understand those who poke, stir, joke or express themselves. They deny the obvious: To create the opportunity for good outcome you have to stir the pot. To get through to people you have to be upsetting.

By its nature stirring the pot is risky business; it is a gamble. You could get yourself into trouble and you will face inevitable criticism. Yet it still has to be done and males do it best. Women do not know how to challenge people. After a few turns she’ll ask “why would you do that?” There is a simple, honest answer.

Because we are males. Do you trust our efforts, or not?

The motto of the age is we-can-do-it and female moderators carry out the unconscious conformity of the herd to make sure that women are seen as doing everything a man can do just as well as he can. To achieve this, modern women resist advances and deny the value of males in their lives. She cannot recognize the good you do, all she sees is the damage you do to her ego by not being inferior. In matters of sex, she is afraid to lose privileges by having less than a dominant role, so the subject is taboo.

As a moderator she will sentence you for being necessary and banish you to troll-land. She will call you a troll and a sexist simply for being male and not preemptively conforming to her control. And when you cal her sexist in return for her bias, that makes you the devil, and the course of action is equally obvious. A devil is to be banished and that requires removing its ability to speak.

A moderator is an equalizer. Equalizers destroy the exceptional. Female moderators interpret this as destroying anything which rises above the norm or threatens the group conformity. As a result, in the name of ensuring discussion, they murder it.

Banned in L.A.

Thursday, October 8th, 2015

banned_in_los_angeles

A reader writes with this pictorial proof that Amerika.org is banned on the Los Angeles public internet. As usual, Leftists work together to exclude anything that presents a competing point of view to their normal lock-step, hive-mind, lynch mob group think.