I'm running out of entertainment options here!

I stopped watching the mainstream media, for the most part. It's a rare occasion I watch network or cable television. Why did I stop? Left leaning agendas that I could not stomach were making their way into most every broadcast show. But there was Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube and several other options. 

Amazon Prime is grotesquely woke, I never watch it, even though there were shows on there I wouldn't mind seeing, I can't support it. Jeff Bezos is a leftist and it has infected the entire Amazon Prime platform. It's exactly what happened to CNN; Ted Turner's leftward bias could not be held out of it's newscasts, and now like a plague, it's infected every corner of the company. Bezos has stepped away from the day to day of Amazon but Amazon is already what it is, a progressive platform. So it's out.

YouTube is a Google platform that's even further left than Amazon.  It's become my number one source of entertainment but the content creators I watch have been squeezed out slowly and systematically by YouTube. That's not to mention that despite the heavy leftward bias of Google and YouTube, YouTube has fallen heavily in love with a ridiculous volume of commercials. It's unwatchable from that perspective. I find myself on YouTube less and less and have become much more selective. From 6 to 12 seconds of ads to 60 seconds of unskippable ads every few minutes is not sustainable. It isn't for me at least. And I'm certainly not going to subscribe to a platform where all my favorite content providers are treated like dirt through shadow-banning, shadow-unsubscribing, ad revenue racketeering or through some other means.

Disney+ was a non-starter for me. ABC is ultra-woke, Disney itself has gone ultra-woke, so why would I buy into that to begin with?  The platform as it turns out, unsurprisingly, is also ultra-woke.

The last refuge? Netflix. Netflix has not been any sort of paragon of neutrality they have worked with the Obama's, trashed history, presented ultra-woke content, etc. But they did have some decent content as well.

 That unfortunately has fallen to the wayside for me in light of this:

I can't support Netflix any more.

So now where do I go? Gaming?  Too late, already woke. Rumble? Good platform, not enough critical mass. Fox? Not terrible but it has been slipping since 2020 and Rupert Murdoch's handoff to his kids. X? It's been great since Elon Musk took over, retreating from the uber-woke status, but it isn't a big content provider. It should be, it should become one, Tucker Carlson's show has been great, but the platform needs more; it has the potential to become more.  Facebook? Despite Mark Zuckerberg's recent 'miraculous' (suspicious) turn towards libertarianism, the platform is not really a content platform.  It's more just a big pile of mess. And the platform is not libertarian by any stretch.

I'm running out of entertainment options here! Seems to me a wise person who is either conservative or at least unconcerned about politics, and who had enough capital to do something about my current conundrum, would recognize that it is likely a massively common problem. There is a huge opportunity to create an entertainment platform that is not woke, and is simply concerned about quality content for it's audience. It would thrive. Advertisers may be woke but eyeballs mean money. YouTube knows this as I mentioned above.  That's why despite being woke, they pepper us with ads. The new entertainment platform would not go broke. It would thrive. 

Just saying.

An update on Trudeau's censorship

Michelle Rempel Garner, a Canadian member of parliament and outspoken conservative critic of Canada's dictatorial Justin Trudeau, breaks down the new censorship and the situation going on between Canada and Facebook.  Yes, this about censorship.  It's also about revenue streams for taxation.  Sometimes it's good to just stand back and let the experts, or those in the know, speak.  Hint CNN: that's called reporting.

Lawsuit alleges Zuckerberg grants for election officials

Right on the heels of a post talking about president Trump being cleared in the baseless charges levelled against him in New York, there's this story from Breitbart:

A lawsuit filed by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry in October 2020 alleged that an obscure nonprofit organization operated as part of a larger nonprofit founded and largely funded by Silicon Valley billionaire Pierre Omidyar attempted to recruit local election officials to apply for grants from the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL).

Landry filed the lawsuit on behalf of the State of Louisiana against CTCL, New Venture Fund DBA Center for Secure and Modern Elections, Dawn Maisel Cole, a private individual; and Full Circle Strategies LLC, “to prevent the injection of unregulated private money into the Louisiana election system.”

But let's be clear, this could go nowhere just like the trumped-up Trump charges in New York. It could be baseless, even though there is probably something to it in my opinion. But it's a lawsuit and that's all it is at this point.  Let's hope Jeff Landry has his facts together on this and the lawsuit succeeds in revealing nefarious activities.

Even if it goes somewhere it may not result in anything significant. Nonetheless, let's hope if it is true it is problematic for Zuckerberg.  He's been a far leftist tool for years and there should be repercussions.  

In case you missed it, Facebook is censoring COVID-19 posts

James O'Keefe and Project Veritas have exposed Facebook's nefarious overlordship and censoring what you can see. 

Palate cleanser: Dinesh D'Souza on Ron DeSantis vs. Big Tech

After two posts showing Rubio talking truth (so far just talking it), I thought I should get back to some red meat.  Here's Dinesh D'Souza on Ron DeSantis vs. Big Tech.

NOTE: Both DeSantis and Rubio are from Florida, and while Rubio is talking a good game right now (and it is better than the alternative), DeSantis is actually doing something.

Facebook Oversight Board slaps Facebook. Very lightly.

President Trump should be banned for 6 months instead of indefinitely?  Just wow. Not "WOW!" because we've all come to expect from these not-a-platform tech giants. 

Dave Rubin's take on the Facebook Trump ban

 Dave Rubin talks about a lot of recent events, because my take has been limited by my day job.

Facebook hates the First Amendment

At the risk of becoming Tim Pool Jr. this evening by reposting him again, I had to share this.  Facebook has decided that the First Amendment does not need protection on their platform as they are determined to eradicate president Trump's voice.

Facebook has cancelled Australia

Facebook is not the good guy here. Or anywhere for that matter.  This is not an Australia-only problem.  Facebook is part of the cancel culture problem and frankly if Australians cancel Facebook, hopefully that spreads to other countries.  I am not against American companies having success; I'm all for it in fact.  But Facebook has become a seriously bad actor.

Crowder suing Facebook

With the odds stacked against any sort of success, I still applaud Steven Crowder's move. This is an important exercise and with the Big Tech oligopoly aligned against Reddit users, conservative voters and in general anybody but themselves, this is important.  

Deletion hits self-described centrist Tim Pool

The crackdown on liberty continues, unabated.  Perhaps even accelerated. Facebook is going after Tim Pool.

Twitter and Facebook are acting in an evil manner right now

 Evil Big Tech:

Facebook in high gear to protect Biden

Communications @Facebook Andy Stone on Twitter is hiding the bombshell from the NY Post about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.

— Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 14, 2020

This is pure damage control.  In case you are not familiar with the breaking story:

Facebook steps back from political ads this political season

Facebook has decided not to carry any political ads prior to the coming November elections.  It brings to mind several questions.  What do they mean? Why are they doing it?  What does it mean for the campaigns?

Characterization

Firstly, the ban is actually not the full run-up to the election.  It's only the last seven days before election day.

How do they define a political advertisement?  Does a meme post count?  Does it count if they deem it was created by a political operative?  How do they then define a political operative?  Do they exclude political discussion among Facebook users?  How does Facebook define a political ad? 

CNN had this to say (after getting in a jab that Trump's posts are what it calls lies):

CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the company would not accept new political ads in the final week of the 2020 election campaign. The company will remove posts that claim that people will get Covid-19 if they take part in voting, and it will label misinformation about the election and voting.

In another potential loophole, Facebook (FB) will continue to allow campaigns to run ads bought before the final week. Those ads can still run through Election Day. And Zuckerberg made no indication that Facebook would change its policy of allowing politicians to lie in targeted ads, meaning political candidates will be able to run false ads on the platform up until election day.

So it appears, if CNN is not fake news on these details, that this will freeze out PACs and Super PAC and other third party ads. Great, no Soros interference.  But who does that really benefit most?

According to OpenSecrets.org, as of September 3rd, Trump supporting Super PACs have raised $67 million, Biden supporting Super PACs have raised $97 million.  So far, Biden is hurt more.  Leadership PACs have seen Republicans out-raising Democrats $21 million to  $19 million.  That's relatively even.  When you look at the top PACs, one PAC, ActBlue has raised and spent over $2 billion.  The PAC is of course a liberal PAC, and it has raised and spent more than the rest of the list of the top PACs combined.  So Facebook appears to be helping conservatives based on the raw numbers.

Of course that all depends on how it defines things and it can be skewed.  For example - COVID safety can be considered a public interest advertisement and without actually saying president Trump it can try to blame the administration and swing the election.  Can you see an add that says "call your congressperson and demand they keep the lockdown going.  Our safety matters."? It's clearly political but on the surface, it's not.

Intent

President Trump has proven to be a social media expert.  If he posts something does it count as a political ad? Is Facebook's intent to hurt president Trump?  Less and less I believe so. For reasons I will outline below.

Who has more advertisements in the pipeline prior to that span of time?  For example is Biden advertising now whereas president Trump was planning on a last minute blitz? I'm not saying that's the case, but you can see how the impact could have an uneven effect on one campaign or the other.

Facebook based on the dollar amounts above seem to be hurting Democrats more than Republicans on the surface.  But here's the reality.  They are only banning the ads for the final week of the campaign. And they do not include ad buys made for that time period, prior to that time period.  That means do not want to forego the advertising income. They are simply shifting the income stream to prior to the last week.  There's two impacts from that, but only one relevant to Facebook - the timing of their stream.  In reality they are not giving up much income with this proclamation.

So why do it?  I'd argue it's optics.  Mark Zuckerberg was taken to task this year by Republicans for political bias.  It would appear that they want to look like, to the lawmakers at least, that they are taking actions to be fair and unbiased.  They don't want senate or congressional committees coming after them.  They don't care if the left comes after them (CNN has clearly already started, as noted above).  They don't mention how they will handle political posts by individuals, or items put up that are not ad buys from PACs, just posts.  And lastly, they don't want to be part of any October Surprise.  It might reflect badly on them after the election.  Facebook is being driven by self-preservation.

Impact

The money not being spent of Facebook as a result of this will end up being spent elsewhere.  TV.  Other social media.  But other social media are small fish in what is basically Facebook's big pond.

According to Statistica, Facebook and it's properties (Instagram and Messenger) dwarf the social media competition. The other two biggies are Twitter and Pinterest. 

Twitter is a leftist swamp itself and it probably won't change any minds if more ads are bought there.  It may serve as a get-out-the-vote tool.  Pinterest is a predominantly female-used engine.  Maybe an infusion of ads there will help Democrats get out hatred for Trump among women and then get out the votes.  These sort of social media sites could be swamped with ads in the last week.  Especially if candidates have unspent funds in the final days.

I'm not sure there is going to be a significant impact from the Facebook decision with respect to the elections.  But there may be some long term impacts to Facebook itself, especially if liberals feel cheated by the decision, or if Republicans win big, or both.  Facebook may be forced to move to the center as a result.  That's not a bad thing.  Should Democrats win, Mark Zuckerberg may have to make a pilgrimage to Washington D.C. to explain in public that he was just trying to be impartial and then in the back room pay homage to the new overlords.  

Big Tech censorship run amok

Tim Pool is irate, and he's completely justified.



UPDATE:  Maybe someone in Washington D.C. is listening.

We need more of this and less of that

Via Tim Pool's YouTube channel:

In last week's fired-up conversation, Tim got a good rant in, but Adam did, too, and Adam's monologue went viral on Facebook, where the video eventually became unavailable. Adam goes into more detail about his journey from passive, disengaged default liberal to alert, optimistic Trump voter.

We need more liberals talking about common sense and less of the Facebook, Big Tech censorship of conservative or even just no-longer-liberal opinion:

Social Distancing is really, really stupid

Let me be clear,  I think like Survivorman Les Stroud, that following guidelines on behavioral changes are a good idea. Cover your moth with the crook of your elbow when you cough.  Wash your hands.  Do not congregate and avoid interacting.  All good ideas.  But social distancing is a stupid term.  It sounds like it was fabricated by the same people who fabricated the term social justice.

Anything with the word social in front of it is virtue signalling.  Justice is justice, social as an adjective is meaningless.  Distancing is distancing, social as an adjective adds no value to the term. Social responsibility is just responsibility.  Notice there's no term "social common sense"? That's because the people coming up with these terms are SJW types and they are co-opting the language to both feel important and innovative and to hijack the national conversation to serve their own ends.

What's ironic is that the term was probably invented by a millennial type who is part of a generation that through the likes of Facebook and Twitter have been inadvertently socially distancing themselves for a decade already.

I for one refuse to use the term. 

Liz Warren falsely attacks Facebook

...and I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook knew about this ahead of time.  After all Zuckerberg has begged to be regulated.

Paul Joseph Watson & Jordan Peterson are fighting back

Paul Joseph Watson is trying to fight back against Youtube and other social media censorship:

So is Jordan Peterson:

Are these the final answers to YouTube and Facebook? Probably not, but they are steps in the right direction, even if only temporary solutions. Perhaps if one of them takes off then maybe conservatives, and free speech advocates will have a real, viable platform sooner rather than later.

Let's create our own mass migration problem

With conservatives clearly personae non gratae (please excuse my Latin, I only got one year of it in school decades ago) in a multitude of cyberspace locales (Facebook, Twitter, Patreon, Youtube and Instagram among others), it's time we avoided what Tim Pool describes as our ultimate demise and take control of our own fate.

Here's his latest discussion on the matter:

What does that mean for us? Where do we go? David Rubin and Jordan Peterson discussed creating an alternative. We're supportive but still waiting.

In the meantime, I've started considering Minds.com it advertises itself as non-partisan. That it's a big selling point is a sad commentary on the American technocracy, but they are still a breath of fresh air. I'm not being paid by anyone to say this, I'm just looking around and it's all I can see at this point that is a viable option. I'd suggest we make these techno-corps pay for their own bias with a mass exodus to Minds. Then we can see if they smarten or wither away.