Over the past few months, I’ve lost quite a few followers on Twitter.
I attribute this to deliberate action on the part of the social media giant, although I can’t prove it.
We know social media corporations are under fire for allowing the expression of opinion and recalling of facts on their platforms contrary to the stream of propaganda put out by corporate media stenographers, which they denounce as Russian bot activity or the behavior of useful idiots for Vladimir Putin.
There are a few topics that will get you banned outright at Twitter. For instance, insisting there are pedophiles in government—famously, PizzaGate—or insisting there are “crisis actors” participating in mass shootings and false flag terror events.
Tweeting about either on a regular basis—depending on your reach and number of followers—will ultimately get you banned from Twitter.
There are caveats. For instance, if you have a huge following—say like Infowars or Mike Cernovich—social media will give you numerous “strikes” before threatening to shut down your account (and not following through).
The reason is simple. These accounts drive a huge amount of traffic to the site, as do the accounts of celebrities and well-known political figures. It would be counterproductive for Twitter to close down these accounts, even if they disagree with them politically. Doing so would be a bad business decision.
The “three strikes” paradigm was used by YouTube, owned by Google, against Infowars. It didn’t follow through and this allowed Alex Jones to rant about being “censored” by YouTube, which drove even more traffic to the platform.
Another example is Paul Joseph Watson. He has the much coveted blue check mark and is closing in on a million followers. If he had say 20,000 followers, he would be banned for his Islamophobic rants. However, because Watson, like Infowars and Cernovich, drives a huge amount of traffic to Twitter, his sins—as defined by progressives—are tolerated.
There is another angle here. Although Watson trashes Muslims on a regular basis—a cardinal sin for progressives—he also promotes the highly divisive war between liberals and conservatives which serves to distract from larger and more important issues, for instance the national security state (often referred to as the Deep State) and its wars and the economic sabotage of the financial class.
The state, however, is pushing for laws and regulations narrowing discussion on social media, regardless of the business model. The state will only tolerate activism to a certain point, and then it responds, often violently (for instance, COINTELPRO). The Russian meddling meme created by the state is—despite its absurdity and demonstrable falsity—the preferred model for squashing dissent and criticism of the national security state.
If pursued to its logical conclusion, it will ultimately result in the expulsion of all state-defined “hate speech” from social media.
The First Amendment is increasingly irrelevant. Consider South Carolina. It recently passed a law making criticism of Israel illegal, defining it as “hate speech,” specifically antisemitism. This follows an outrageous effort across the country to outlaw boycotting Israel for its apartheid policies.
Again, I have no evidence Twitter is chipping away at my followers. It may be that they are leaving for other reasons, I have no way to tell for sure.
A few months ago, I closed down my Facebook account after ignoring it for more than a year. If I keep falling on Twitter, I may do the same there. We know the social media giants are twiddling with statistics, metrics, and devising algorithms to push down traffic to accounts the state regards as dangerously influential.
I am amazed how quickly social media has become a willing tool of the state. There is evidence Google and Facebook were created or at minimum assisted by intelligence agencies.