Monday, January 11, 2021

The Beginning of the End for Big Tech

It appears, to all sentient observers, that Big Tech oligarchs have taken over. They are unelected. They have no special intellectual qualifications. And yet, they are deciding what you can and cannot read. They have determined that conservative thought is inherently provocative while leftist thought, even thought that encourages violence, is inherently valuable.

Over and over again the voices of the American left have encouraged violence, beginning at the Trump 2016 inauguration. From Twitter and the oligarchs of Silicon Valley, not a peep, not a word of condemnation. The ayatollah of Iran happily tweets about wanting to exterminate the world’s Jews, he continues to have the right to tweet such vitriol. Perhaps they all hate Trump because he is Jewish.


The hypocrisy is so flagrant that no one really tries to hide it. Only little people follow the rules. The rest simply obey.


One understands the chagrin of those whose speech has been severely and unjustly curtailed. One understands that those who feel silenced will be more likely to resort to action, even action in the street.


And yet, I suspect that this weekend will go down as the beginning of the end for Big Tech. Their Democrat satraps will only hold power for a limited period of time, and once the Republicans take over they will recover their inner Teddy Roosevelt and go after the tech monopolies. Trust busting will return with a vengeance.


As we read in the book of Proverbs:


Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before destruction.


People who think that they are immune from attack, who believe that they hold the world in their hands should learn how to duck. What would happen if some prosecutor decides that censoring the New York Post’s stories about Hunter Biden in the midst of an election campaign counts as an in kind contribution to a political candidate?


Surely, it will wipe that smirk off of Jack Dorsey’s face.


Anyway, civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald, a favorite on Fox News, has called out the tech oligarchs for their tyrannical ways. This, from the Daily Mail:


Glenn Greenwald has claimed 'far more violence' has been planned on Facebook than on Parler after Google and Apple removed the latter from their app stores and Amazon booted it off its web hosting service.


The journalist tweeted Sunday to accuse the tech giants of 'feigning offense to destroy' the app after Donald Trump was on Friday kicked off of most mainstream social media platforms. 


Greenwald, part of a team that won a Pulitzer for reports about government surveillance programs based on leaks by Edward Snowden, tweeted: 'For years, I heard it's invalid to object to political censorship by FB & Twitter because, if you don't like it, you can just create a competing social media platform. 


'Parler tried. And in 24 hours, Google, Apple & Amazon united to destroy it. That's what monopoly power means.'


Yes, indeed. Those who defended the rank bias of Twitter and Facebook and Google by telling conservatives to create their own social media platform just shut down Parler. Greenwald is quite correct to say that it shows monopoly power.


It is not only designed to create universal groupthink-- because dissenting ideas are dangerous-- but it is also designed to stifle competition:


The Daily Mail continues:


Amazon struck another blow Saturday, informing Parler it would need to look for a new web-hosting service effective midnight Sunday. 


It reminded Parler in a letter, first reported by Buzzfeed, that it had informed it in the past few weeks of 98 examples of posts 'that clearly encourage and incite violence' and said the platform 'poses a very real risk to public safety.'


Parler CEO John Matze decried the punishments as 'a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the marketplace. We were too successful too fast,' he said in a Saturday night post, saying it was possible Parler would be unavailable for up to a week 'as we rebuild from scratch.'

'Every vendor, from text message services, to e-mail providers, to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day,' Matze said Sunday on Fox New Channel´s 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 


He said while the company is trying to get back online as quickly as possible, it's 'having a lot of trouble, because every vendor we talk to says they won´t work with us, because, if Apple doesn´t approve and Google doesn´t approve, they won´t.'


Losing access to the app stores of Google and Apple - whose operating systems power hundreds of millions of smartphones - severely limits Parler´s reach, though it will continue to be accessible via web browser. 


It would be good if people could protest by refusing to buy Apple products. But if you are not using Apple’s smartphones, what alternative do you have-- Android, by Google.


Monopoly power, check. Limiting competition, check. Attempting a hostile takeover of the American mind, check.


Everyone thinks that these tech monopolies are riding high. And yet, when you are riding that high the air becomes thin. As of now they have nowhere to go but down. Obviously, the Biden administration is not going to do the job. But, the Biden administration is not forever.

10 comments:

Jkazak54 said...

And all this because of a "riot" that wouldn't amount to a warm up act for what BLM and Antifa have done across the country.

Lowghost said...

"They have determined that conservative thought is inherently provocative while leftist thought, even thought that encourages violence, is inherently valuable."

I'm no conservative, but I don't think Trump's thoughts are particularly conservative either. Some might even say he's a liberal.

Were I a conservative, given Trump's standing in the world, I imagine it would be best to distance myself from him.

Isn't it obvious by now that Trump will throw anyone who gets in the way of his whims under the bus? His most ardent supporters aren't immune from this.

It seems the American right is losing its ability to foresee the consequences of its own actions.

May I remind you that when the Supreme Court ruled in favor in a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, precedence was set. By your own logic, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple don't need to provide their services to Trump any more than said cake-baker.

Then there is the September memorandum defining “seditious conspiracy," which lays out in explicit language the sorts of actions that could warrant a sedition charge. This was AG William Barr's attempt to harshen the consequences for BLM protestors. In reality, it's going to make the lives of those who stormed the Capitol a lot worse.

This all reminds me on the young woman who died on the Capitol steps, trampled death, carrying a flag that read "Don't tread on me."

Conservatism will survive. But only if you all check yourself, take step back, and think for a second.

370H55V said...

"Their Democrat satraps will only hold power for a limited period of time, and once the Republicans take over they will recover their inner Teddy Roosevelt and go after the tech monopolies."

Oh, but that's what you think. They fully intend to arrange things so that that will never happen. "The rule of the Party is forever!"

Sam L. said...

Time for Samizdat.

Lowghost said...

Lol, Sam. There is not much Republican literature to suppress.

jadair04 said...

I have not heard of any woman who died by being trampled. I found the link, but there are serious questions if that is how she actually died. Lots of misinformation flying around, and truthfully, whenever you go into a large crowd you are taking your life at risk if there is even the remotest chance of excitement. So far all I have heard of (confirmed) is a police officer who died as a result of being hit with a FE, the young, unarmed, USAF vet shot at point blank range and three medical emergencies (which is not surprising in such a large crowd). Though I agree that PDT is not necessarily a conservative. He sure did a lot of things that conservatives have been claiming to be for (and always coming up short). Personally, at least in my country. I think that traditional conservatism is dead. They never actually get anything 'long-term' done. Always just reacting to the 'liberal' narrative. Much like most of the modern Church. Just fifteen years behind the world. We are living in interesting times (which for those unaware, is apparently a Chinese curse - as interesting times to someone who studies history, are hell for the average person to live through).

Lowghost said...

@jadair04

https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/roseanne-boyland-who-died-in-capitol-quit-drugs-and-fell-to-qanon/

https://www.9news.com.au/world/rosanne-boyland-trampled-dont-tread-on-me-gadsden-flag-donald-trump-us-capitol-riot/5d5c7251-e17c-4961-88a8-a906f38d7b54

David Foster said...

"May I remind you that when the Supreme Court ruled in favor in a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, precedence was set. By your own logic, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple don't need to provide their services to Trump any more than said cake-baker."

Not a good analogy. A small business providing a custom creative service for which there are many alternatives is not the same thing as, say, a transportation monopoly such as a railroad which provides the only service in its area and is a common carrier.

FB and Twitter have something very close to monopoly status because of the critical mass effect. While these entities are not quite the same sort of thing as a common carrier railroad, they are a lot more like that then they are like a small bakery.

jadair04 said...

Thanks for the links. Tragic for her family. Doesn't change anything in my mind. The past year and all of the deaths. To watch so called conservatives roll over for the so-called insurrection (where all the participants were back in their hotel rooms after supper). It is what it is. Too bad. I am praying that the USA can survive. Doesn't look good however. Again. Thanks for the links, I will look at them. js

370H55V said...

@David Foster

Just to amplify your comment: anti-discrimination law is intended to protect INDIVIDUALS, not products. Think of it this way: A gay couple asks for a wedding cake. The baker refuses. A straight friend asks for the same cake for them and the baker complies. That's discrimination. The baker who refuses the product for ANYONE is not discriminating. It would be like claiming discrimination when trying to order a ham and cheese sandwich in a kosher deli.