FaceAche Strikes Again

Posted on by

Well, that Terrible Twos developmentally delayed troika – Facebook and Gargle/YahooTube – have banned/suspended Jordan Peterson. This round goes to FaceAche, since it’s the one currently messing with him:

GoV readers know how much I loathe Zuck; but you may not know I traded in Gargle for DuckDuckGo a few years ago. YahooTube is a muddle of inconsistency: currently, Dr. Peterson’s 574,000 subscribers wouldn’t stop them from banning him, either – just as they did previously.

I didn’t investigate his experience with Twee; I’ll bet he’s living on borrowed time flying on the back of Stalin’s bluebird-brain, too.

What these totalitarians don’t realize is that Dr. Peterson is a force of nature. If they keep fooling around with his accounts, he’s smart enough to find/build alternative routes for his work. What he’s doing is far too important to be erased by The Totalitarians.

Just wait till the angry people start demanding these modern-day Robber Barons be brought to heel. They’ll get to learn a little history.

33 thoughts on “FaceAche Strikes Again”

    • We left FB after Zuck informed to Merkel on a German man who complained about the massive immigration. Man got in big trouble.

      I don’t use Google.

      I’ll use YouTube until they ban Dr Peterson. Besides, a counterjihad fellow I know posts to my account there occasionally. They have banned him.

      I use gmail too. I’ll have to switch — a pain, since I send thank you notes from there…

      We don’t put posts up at Twitter. It used to be automatic until the “auto” part quit working. Now I only go there randomly, to read here and there.

    • Cutesy but not practical. Eventually all of those channels will be cut off to the right, but there’s no sense in ceding ground before then. A well-received YouTube vid receives exponentially more views than dozens of dissident websites combined. Jordan Peterson would be virtually unknown without YouTube.

      Traditional sites will be important for a long time, but it’s not the way to reach the increasingly large and politically active under-40 crowd who use social media and will be the ones fighting the fight over the next 50 years.

      The long term solution is building your own platforms, given the cost it’s virtually impossible to do for video now, but places like Gab have done fairly well as a Twitter alternative and InfoGalactic will give Wikipedia (a leftist propaganda machine) a run for its money soon.

  2. Dymphna, in complete agreement with you on Freedom from totalitarians, and very well said, ma’am! I hold zuck and the rest of their leftist bunch, in massive disrespect. All those riches, power, no brains! No wisdom! No history!

    I’ve been doing duckduck and bing, using on rare occasions start page, as a check for certain scientific data. I had tested identical political connected searches, and switched from the gargoyles finally because of elections meddling of the gargoyles in the land of middle weird gargleistan, middle of 2016.

  3. I don’t know. The Left Totalitarians control social media, all of it. The thing is, and I am no techie, but how to get round it? We need our own social media. Thing is there is a significant capital investment needed in this respect, and then if such companies go public, they will always veer Left. So you need super-rich investors, with a non-left-wing outlook, retaining control of their companies, not selling them to other companies, nor going public. And where are these funds going to be coming from? From who exactly? Also such non-left-wing social media, or rather a tech media that did not engage in any censorship at all, and welcomed people from across the political spectrum, and let them have it out, would earn the contempt of the Left Totalitarians and our governments (the deep state in the US). And the governments may then move to shut them down, with the support of the MSM of course. You may object: that would be illegal. In which case, I respond, are you a little child? Left Totalitarians don’t care about law, ethics, facts, due process – they are totalitarians, with their hateful ‘hate speech’ laws and related. And they call the shots, they run the show.

    The only thing that will change things, is a revolution. And I don’t have hope, because there are always bad elements here… Also we are in the minority, most people are clueless lefties, yes even in Trump’s America and yes Trump’s own administration.

  4. The mobsters have now (well, not saying it hadn’t already happened, but now it’s super-clear) revealed their true colours.

    This is the suppression of inconvenient views.

    Censorship is real!!!!

  5. I subscribe to Jordan Peterson on Facebook, and his updates keep coming to me. (latest being 2 hours ago)

    If facebook, twitter or youtube do ban Peterson, they may find that he has a broad following extending considerably beyond the “alt-right” – and that this might just be a move that comes back to bite them.

  6. “Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi called for the deportation of 600,000 migrants from Italy, describing them as a “social bomb”.”

    Has he had a real epiphany or is he just bending in the wind? What was his prior record in preventing the current state of affairs?

    • Oh for goodness sake…..!

      Apologies Baron, this should be on your news feed thread….

      Would you please be so kind?.

      Ta.

    • Berlusconi has always veered more or less to the right in social issues, because he is a populist and a skilled politician. In his comeback, he has obviously tested the wind and judged the public mood. The fact that he has established an alliance with Matteo Salvini (Lega Nord) and Giorgia Meloni (Fratelli d’Italia), and rejected any coalition with the “center left”, is evidence of what he expects the political future of Italy to be.

      I always enjoyed the political news reports from Italy during Berlusconi’s tenure. I’m glad the wily old scoundrel is back in the game.

      Politics in Italy is at least 50% theater, and I expect Silvio Berlusconi to put on a good show. He can’t be prime minister again — unless the law is changed — but he will be a very public presence in the coalition that runs the government after the election.

  8. Not using fb, youtube, twitter, etc. and inventing snarky names for those outlets and their owners seems a little infantile and it almost looks like the counterjihad movement is inventing its own version of virtue signaling.

    To me, some of the content of these platforms has been invaluable for the development of ideas, alliances and strategies. As long as Peterson, Rogan, Shapiro, Rubin, the Weinsteins and many others present their thoughts on these platforms, I will support them there and participate in the discussion and follow the offshoots in the virtual and the real world.

    Social media can be used to undermine what their owners stand for. You just have to be smart about it. Our fight does not consist solely of reporting mohammedan abuse on a daily basis. That is legit, but it is also numbing and will not reach beyond a certain inner circle of like minded folks.
    While reporting daily occurrences is important, the fight can be fought and won only on a basis of LOGOS and vision.

    I suggest we do less complaining about the status quo and start building the future. If you want to get heard you have to go pick up the people where they actually are, not in a dark, obscure corner of the web.

  9. Bing, Duck Duck and Ecosia are good search alternatives.

    For browsers, Brave, Pale Moon, and Waterfox are good alternatives. Personally I prefer Waterfox because it seems to be very efficient with system resources.

  10. What scares me far more than the abuses of Facebook, Google and YouTube is the idea that government regulation will be looked to for the solution to private filtering of content. This will concede the right of the government to actually act on the basis of the content of the communication, which shreds the First Amendment and the absolute Constitutional protection against censorship.

    The US, however, does have anti-monopoly laws, which are based on the idea that monopolies are legal, but they cannot legally act like monopolies. Acting like a monopoly means conscious manipulation of the market to advance their own benefit. An example of this is lowering prices in one geographic area, such that potential, local competitors are driven out of business. This is a criminal action if it can be proven.

    It seems to me actions like pulling the rug out from YouTube subscription businesses after they built up a clientele, unsubscribing an email account and trashing thousands of emails related to the conduct of a personal or professional enterprise, is clearly a conscious manipulation of the business dealings of potential competitors or suppliers, and as such, ought to be liable to criminal prosecution and tort compensation.

    US anti-monopoly law, if it works, serves to either motivated companies to not corner the market or to scrupulously avoid using their market dominance to put pressure on competition. Lately, it seems corrupt, leftist, or simply stupid judges have allowed some companies to get away with monopolistic manipulations. It’s a paradox that the left, once viewed as being against establishment organizations, is now the biggest protectorate and beneficiary of government-mandated cornering of the market.

    I like to point out that enacting any of the numerous schemes to have the government ensure full access to communications media would generate enough regulatory requirements as to drive out of business the true, innovative journalist enterprises such as Gates of Vienna. Typically, it is the smaller businesses that do not have the resources to satisfy onerous and pervasive government requirements. Typically, government regulation of business “abuses” turns into a protection scheme for established businesses to keep out smaller, more innovative, competitors.

    The place for government is to determine what provisions of the terms of service of companies like Google and Facebook are applicable and which are not. For example, the Supreme Court in 1948 ruled that restricted covenants in property contracts were not legally enforceable. That is, if you bought a house and the contract said you were not allowed to sell to a Negro (the term was generally used in such contracts), no one could sue you if you did, indeed, sell to a Negro. There are other ways to ensure ethnic neighborhoods, but the courts would not be one of them.

    In the same way, the the courts might rule that although you implicitly “agreed” to onerous terms of service which specified your service could be stopped anytime and for any reason, the company might still be liable for damages if they ruined your enterprise through arbitrary actions designed to put out of business those people they don’t agree with.

    • I totally agree. Let Google and Facebook etc. do what they want; they’re private companies. If they work against the interests and wishes of their clientele, they will lose market share, and eventually collapse. Which is what seems to be happening right now with Newsweek.

      Our job is to abandon these Leftist monstrosities and leave them to their own devices. Eventually they will only be able to stay afloat if they are totally funded by Soros’ foundations.

      • Except anyone who leaves Facebook may have to contend with the fact, that

        1) it may be harder to keep in touch with friends

        2) their friends may not be present on whichever new social network takes their liking.

        Of course, one may point out that the (virtual) world is not limited to the likes of Facebook – indeed, everyone on this blog is testimony to that – however could it be true, that for many in Generation Snowflake, it’s simply too mucb of an effort to leave their comfort zones of FB, twitter, youtube and maybe the Guardia or CNN, and consider another perspective?

        As for “let them do what they want”. Not as simple as that.. Or if Facebook were to start to ban pages, due to them being run by black people, would that be OK?

        • It’s OK with me. They’re a private company; their policies are up to them.

          People managed to communicate and network with each other before Facebook. I’ve never been on Facebook, but I manage to stay in touch with the people I want to be in touch with.

          Radical liberty is sometimes hard to get your mind around. Not impinging on others’ liberties means that some of them will sometimes do things you find disgusting and abhorrent.

          But surprisingly, the most well-constructed, harmonious societies — mostly Scandinavian — came into being and maintained themselves without any coercion by the state. I’m talking about prior to the arrival of Socialism, of course.

          That is, when people are entirely left to their own devices, they form stable homogeneous social structures that don’t require coercion. Until they experience a natural disaster, or an invasion from outside, such societies enjoy a high level of trust and a low level of violence and destructive behavior.

          Nowadays, of course, such a society can no longer exist. Modern technology makes sure that people of different cultures are forced to live in each other’s laps, unless a strong centralized coercive state acts to prevent it. In either case, the old ways are gone.

          • “People managed to communicate and network with each other before Facebook.”

            Absolutely true. Back in the 1980’s with our Commodore 64’s, 8088 PC’s and 2400 baud modems we had tons of fun on the BBS’s. There were BBS’s focused on programming, gaming, all kinds of hobbies. People helped each other with programming problems, shared software, held contests and were socializing up a storm on those BBS’s. It was great fun. A lot of us met up in real life after meeting on the boards. Still miss those days.

  11. Just curious, Lawrence – everybody is talking about “revolution” these days. So are you.

    What will “revolution” actually look like? How many dead are you willing to accept? Camps for the incorrigible?

    But most importantly – what will this society look like AFTER the revolution? What will you build when you have torn down everything? Or do you just want to return to the status quo ante of let’s say the 1940s?

    I’m asking out of real interest. This is not meant to be ironical.

    • That’s a question I have often asked on these pages. Sometimes it seems that these ideas fall under the rubric of “All You Have To Do Is____”.

      Sometimes, in real life, I got them regarding my health and learned to simply ignore them. Which is what I do now. Mostly.

  12. The following link will may give us a clear picture of the selfish megalomaniac character of ‘Sugar Mountain’ (that’s what the name ‘Zuckerberg’ means’).

    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/mark-zuckerberg-buys-big-chunk-of-hawaii-builds-wall-and-angers-locals-1.3952399

    The native Hawaiians are clearly not happy with his presence there, and this for a good reason!

    What’s most surprising is, that this would typically be a case that SJW’s would want to exploit for their own anti-Western agenda, had it been someone else acting like this.
    However, the otherwise so aggressively vocal SJW’s are completely silent about this, because this time it’s one of their wicked (anti)-‘heroes’.
    Therefore, in their complete lack of phantasy, they continue to be more interested in hungrily exploiting every ‘locker room remark’ once allegedly made by Trump, even if this happened decades ago, and if it isn’t not even sure if he really ever made those remarks (who has such a good memory anyway about insignificant remarks without further meaning).

    Zucky’s willing collaboration with Euro-dictator Merkel to assist her ‘Reichskammer’ in persecuting innocent German citizens, who are merely exercising their democratic civil rights to speak up against her catastrophic immigration policy and their dire consequences, was already another indicator of this extremely dangerous character with the treaterous, quasi-innocent ‘college-kid’ appearance.

    The story goes around that this Sugar Mountain ‘whizzkid’ plans to run for president in 2020, but (Thank God)I have not found any material yet that confirms it. So far, all the articles are based on speculation.
    Let’s hope it’ remains only a rumour. If this turns out to be true, we can only pray that he doesn’t win, and that Trump will run another term and win.
    The problem is, that presidents can only run two terms, which is good in itself as a principle for protecting democracy. To compare, see Germany being run by Merkel already for 13 (!) years, so the era Trump will last to 2024 at most.
    Another factor to consider is that Trump is already of age, so let’s pray he will manage another term.
    There is also a logic pendulum in the US elections between Republicans and Democrats, so we have to be prepared for a Democrat winning the elections once again within a couple of years.
    Let’s really hope and pray that this president then will NOT be Zuckerberg!
    If he ever becomes US-President, the entire Western World will end up in the most dangerous totalitarian regime ever. He knows almost everything about most citizens, because most people have been too naieve or too much driven by their ego to ‘show off’ on Fakebook.
    The necessary distinction between big business and high politics, which until now at least is maintained on a formal level, will also be gone completely.
    Any liberal trying to compare this with Trump is clearly wrong, because the real estate business does not provide any tools for totalitarian control, and Trump is not really interested in one’s political opinion, but only in one’s professional competence.
    By contrast, Fakebook is the ultimate tool for control, and that Zucky will be sniffing out our opinions and will start persecuting us for this, if they do not fit his PC malls, has already been proven, most grotesquely in Germany, where he already collaborates with the persecutors.

    • I’d love for Zuckerberg to run for President.

      The US press is not quite as tame as the German press, so chances are, a rough campaign would be extremely damaging to Facebooks image, although not fatally damaging. But, it should serve as an insurance policy against Facebooks being able to add paid-for political influence on top of its natural oligopolistic position in information technology.

      I presume Zuckerberg would run as a Hillary leftist, with the usual coalition of the fringes: Jews, recently college-educated professionals and seat-warmers, government bureaucrats, “public service” employees, and black and brown minorities. Zuckerberg would have exactly the same problem Hillary did, only more so. Why the hell would a black or brown take the trouble to go out of the house to vote for him? At least with Hillary, there was an association with their welfare checks and affirmative-action jobs, but Zuckerberg won’t and can’t project that image.

      So, I see a Zuckerberg candidacy as a good thing. Very damaging to Facebooks ability to operate in the shadows, and very, very little risk of his actually being elected. I won’t say it’s impossible for the “stupid party” (Republicans) to screw it up, but maybe after 4 years of enjoying the perks of being the majority party, they’ll actually be ready to show some backbone.

  14. As Dr. Peterson made clear in a recent lecture, Facebook, Google and Youtube are FAR more powerful than any government. This is an absurd situation.

Comments are closed.