A government that can ban social media sites is going to base their choices of which ones to ban on their preferences - not yours.
WatDabney
joined 1 year ago
Trump has owned hotels and casinos for decades now, and hotel housekeeping and groundskeeping are among the most common occupations for undocumented immigrants, so Trump is fully aware of the role that they play.
The thing is though that this has never really been about undocumented immigrants. It's really just a strategy to divide the common people against themselves so that we can't effectively oppose the coming autocracy.
And it's working.
Of course they will, because otherwise the Toddler in Chief will throw a tantrum.
With the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a destructively self-serving few, there are only two groups of people as far as that goes - those who would do something to stop it but can't and those who could do something to stop it but won't.
When future historians analyze the collapse of the US, they're going to marvel at how blitheringly insane it was on the way down.
Meta has officially adopted the Musk/Trump conception of free expression - promoting bigotry and hate and silencing dissent.
Easily in my top 5 all-time favorite movies.
"A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything."
Just the latest salvo in the proxy class war.
The bigoted, hateful hard right-wingers have been and are being very deliberately and methodically indoctrinated into serving as the footsoldiers in the privileged parasite class's proxy war against the left.
And Meta is ready to play its part.
We're Not Gonna Take It by Twisted Sister. Of course.
Gotta love the brazen irony of eliminating fact checkers in order to encourage political content in the wake of Trump's election.
This is the part that gripes me the most.
It would of course be best if more people had sufficient empathy to oppose the oppression of others just in and of itself, but I recognize that empathy isn't sll that common (and has its own drawbacks), so I don't really expect that.
But at the very least, anyone should be able to follow the simple chain of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that a system that's empowered to oppress someone, no matter who it is or what the excuse is, is a system that's empowered to oppress me if it happens to turn its attention my way.
It's as if people stand in the middle of a crowd as gunmen walk around, shooting people in the head, and they completely ignore it (or worse yet cheer it on) right up until the moment the gun is pointed at their own heads. And then and only then - far too late - do they think to oppose it.
Whether or not this particular ban is enforced is irrelevant. The point was simply to establish the precedent that the government can restrict citizens' access to social media.