Written by TioChato TioChato
Category: News News
Published: January 16 2021 January 16 2021
Created: January 16 2021 January 16 2021
Hits: 275 275

1  2


Behold two of the most powerful and destructive fascists in America, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey. Having been created in the image of God, they have converted themselves into servants of evil—sanctimonious, self-righteous, power-drunken, just like their predecessors, the Pharisees.

Don't be taken in by the vapid justifications they proffer for forbidding you to join the American discourse of ideas if you disagree with them, one of those justifications being that they own the social media platforms, and that you are using them free of charge and, ergo, at their behest.

Many have told me that their rights are analogous to the rights of a home-owner to regulate the behavior of every guest who enters his home. I respond—this is bull shit.

Consider this analogy.

Imagine that I live on an island with thousands of other people. Imagine that I have enough money to buy every residential property on this island. Imagine that I use this power to buy all of those properties and “rent” them out, but without charging the tenants a penny. Instead, I charge the businesses on the island in exchange for the privilege of using my tenants as marketing targets and product testing subjects, without the consent of my tenants, and without their knowledge.

Imagine that the only way my tenants can find liberty from this tyranny is to leave the island. But, for the sake of argument, and to construct a workable analogy, suppose that they cannot leave, for practical, logistical reasons. For the sake of argument, imagine that there is nowhere for them to go but to live under bridges and on sidewalks.

Now that I have complete control over all of the residential real estate in my imaginary isolated island from which there is nowhere to escape, imagine that I begin controlling the private lives of all of my tenants. I dictate to them whom they can socialize and consort with, what they can and cannot read, what they can and cannot listen to, and what they can and cannot say.

I micro-manage what goes on inside their homes and in their yards by distributing to each home a wonderful electronic communication cylinder that make their lives so, so easy, with at-their-command, instant information, music, sports, and other entertainments and services. And, at the same time, this magic cylinder listens to everything they say, monitors all of their activities, and 'tattles' these things to my band of highly-paid, privileged, sheltered, protected minions. (I know that Zuckerberg and Dorsey do not market anything like this, but rather Amazon; however, they do work synergistically with Jeff Beezos in this enterprise.)

If a tenant says anything I don't like, anything that bucks against my control, anything that appears to threaten my power and potentially oust me from my privilege, they will find themselves cut off from everything: no place to live; no job on the island since I could destroy anyone on the island who dared to hire them; no way to contact the people they know and love.

My conclusion is simple: All of these actions on the part of this fictitious landlord are morally despicable. My owning the houses the people live in does not make me the master of their private lives, their souls, their minds their families.

Likewise, Twitter and Facebook are privately owned, but America is not their private property, nor is American discourse. The country and its discourse are the property of its citizens—all of us. The collective power of the social media moguls does not constitute ownership over the American discourse of ideas. Their power does not confer upon them the right to decide who can participate and who cannot. The reason is two-fold.

1) They have bought all of the real estate on the island, but they cannot buy America.
2) They have been granted legal protections for which they do not truly qualify since they are not impartial platform providers.

As for hate speech: who gets to conveniently define that? The self-righteous? The sanctimonious? The touchy, irritable, narrow-minded narcissists among us? The fascists?

As for speech that is dangerous: dangerous for whom? The Democratic Party? Zuckerberg and Dorsey and their bands of highly paid minions who have never had to actually work for a living and who hold half of American in utter contempt?

As for speech that incites violence: what is their excuse for not de-platforming BLM? Antifa? Maxine Watters? The only speech that truly incites violence would be something like, ‘Hey, guys! Let’s meet tonight at such-and-such an apartment building and burn it down! Whadayasay?’ That sounds a lot like BLM and Antifa, doesn’t it! Another example would be something like, ‘If you see them in a restaurant, at a gas station, you get in their faces and tell them they are not welcome here!’ Sounds a lot like Maxine Watters, doesn’t it!

Free speech is an American principal, not a privately dispensed commodity.

Yours truly. Tio Chato