Big Tech/Social Media & The Political Correctness autocracy, against Trump and the "immature" American citizens

Twitter’s explanation:

“After close review of recent Tweets from @realDonaldTrump … specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter” 

So, Twitter is specifically declaring that Americans are not mature enough to read Trump tweets. I guess we Venezuelans are more mature @maduro_en

Are they still mature enough to vote? Is this a Neo-Inquisition agreement between Big-Tech-Social-Media and the Big-Brother-Political-Correctness autocracy?

“So, we must beware of a tyranny of opinion which tries to make only one side of a question the one which may be heard. Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage” Winston Churchill

PS. How do you communicate when only either red or blue can be seen? In response to social media’s massive influence, humanity is mutating to suffer specific colors blindness. How far away are Americans from never be able to hear/read/see violet again?

PS. It's now 6:30 pm Saturday night, less than 39 hours away from when Wall Street opens. I just told my wife that Twitter shares will fall 20% at least... and that Jack Dorsey might not survive as its CEO... but, of course, I could be wrong... not the first time... not the last time

PS. If you advertise on Twitter, would you be somewhat concerned?

PS. I just saw Arnold Schwarzenegger comparing some utterly surprised selfie-taking clowns unbelievably being able to enter the Capitol building, with the Kristallnacht Pogrom against the Jews, that which would end with the gassing of millions of them. Mind-boggling!

PS. Instead of allowing Trump to tweet his heart out, they silenced him. Unifying or polarizing? What if Trump’s followers now start taking notice of who advertises on Twitter and Facebook? 

PS. Ron Paul: What if Twitter/Facebook is an old mans only communication with the world, and being able to use these is the only thing that gets him out of bed, is not then sending him to isolate incommunicado down in the basement, an act of sheer cruelty?

PS. Can it be that the Senior Advisory Committee of the Institute of Politics at Harvard does not include even one of those 74 million Americans who voted for Trump? Please tell me I’m wrong.

PS. If the Senior Advisory Committee of the Board of the Institute of Politics at Harvard ignores that Trump got 12 million more votes than when he won in 2016, and except for Biden more votes than any candidate in US history, then perhaps students of politics should ignore Harvard.

PS. Not the first time I have written about the threat of Big-Tech and Big Brother entering into a joint venture.

A different take?

The storming of the D.C. Capitol by some selfie-taking clowns utterly surprised by being able to enter it… is the mother of all tempest in a teapot.

I have some ideas about what could compete with Facebook/Twitter

Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, a co-chairman of the Economic Security Project and a senior adviser at the Roosevelt Institute opines in the New York Times:

“No one knows exactly what Facebook’s competitors would offer to differentiate themselves.”

I have some ideas (most apply to Twitter too):

1. That it guarantees that I am always messaging or receiving messages from parties that I can clearly and absolutely accurately identify, with ease.

2. That I am targeted in an at least a 95% perfect way, so that my already way too scarce attention span is not being further wasted away by irrelevant/useless advertising/information.

3. That it shares with the participants 50-50 all advertising revenues generated by exploiting their data. Either to each one his respective production quota, or by means of helping to fund a universal basic income.

4. That it does it utmost to keep out all those redistribution or polarization profiteers whom, with their messages of hate or envy, can destroy our societies.

5. That it swears never ever to form any type of joint venture, with any type of Big Brother.

PS. Should we at least, as a minimum-minimorum, not require all social media with over a million followers, to openly publish the algorithms they use to maximize their ad revenues?

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2017/11/those-bothering-us-and-wasting-our.html

Who’s to save me from an auto-incestuous intellectual degeneration, when being fed info based on my own preferences?

I have some preferences and Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media feed me based on these. And so the more Goggle, Facebook, Twitter and other social media gets to know my preferences the more I will be entering into an incestuous relation with myself… in other words the more I run the risk that my intellect might incestuously degenerate.

Who is to supply me the diversity I need in order to find out any new preferences in life?

So, for a starter, it looks that, as a minimum minimorum, I need a copyright of my own preferences.

Who wants to be my agent, marketing my attention span of 64 30-second ad spots daily, so as to maximize my returns?

For 8 hours I am willing to look at adds 1 minute an hour, and for other 8 hours 3 minutes per hour.

That adds up to attention span availability for ads per day, equal to 64 30-second spots.

Who is willing to be my agent marketing my attention span of 64 30-second spots per day so as to maximize my returns?

The agent would have to guarantee I am not bothered over this attention span allotment of 64 30-second spots per day.

I would accept payment in cash or products, like being able to see a movie that interests me. 

I would accept paying my agent, either in cash or by ceding to him, some of my 64 30-second spots per day.

Ad-blockers might be especially interested in representing my attention span.

For 1US$, I will look for 30 seconds, with reasonable interest, at any unsolicited ad, directed to me on the web.

I need legal advice of how to register a copyright of my own preferences as a consumer and as a human being. Why should that not be possible? Does that not include even more intimate and I would hold creative content than what most copyrighted books have? 

Now if I get that copyright then I would make the following public offer: 

For 1US$ (revisable), I will look for 30 seconds, with reasonable interest, at any unsolicited ad directed to me through any social media or any other site I visit while travelling the web. 

I hereby declare that I am a great consumer and I have a good history of easily falling for offers on the web. That said, nothing here should be interpreted as a commitment to purchase anything or to otherwise follow or do what is suggested in any ad for which I have been paid a royalty.

I will then contract an ad-blocker so as only those advertising sufficiently interested in me so as to be willing to pay me to see their ad have access to me. Depending on the efficiency by which I am served, and the little I would get bothered by unauthorized access to me, I will offer the ad-blocker up to 30% of any income derived by me in royalties on my copyright on my own preferences.

Google, Facebook, Twitter take notice: I already bought the tuxedo shirt I was looking for! Take me off that ad list!

How long is my already fulfilled intention to buy a tuxedo shirt, now going to pursue me on the web… on social media? I mean sort of every hour and ad on tuxedo shirts pops up.

There should be a way to notify the googles, the twitters and the facebooks of this world, that I already bought a shirt and have no intentions to buying another one soon… but then they might not be interested in doing such a thing… since they might prefer to keep alive the advertising tuxedo-shirt vendors’ illusion that I will buy a shirt from him.

PS. Can I get a copyright on my preferences and my life?