Some considerable time ago I wrote on a Facebook post, about effective blackmail of politicians because of their behaviour whilst still at ‘Public School’. I used an epithet that apparently didn’t pass Facebooks ‘standards’, and the post never made it. I was accused both by them, and by someone else, who should know me better, of being ‘homophobic’. Quite clearly they were unable to distinguish illegal sex with a minor from sex between two same-sexed adults.
Later, the performance whilst on Facebook was appallingly slow, as every word I typed was being monitored. I ditched Facebook, and I no longer use ‘social media’, which has become distinctly ‘anti-social’.
The rich and powerful are free to spout their nonsense, whilst condemning others that oppose their views.
This morning I read a post on BBC News by Nick Robinson. His article references the US Historian Tim Snyder’s views regarding ‘the direction America is heading under Trump’, and I quote:
The US historian Tim Snyder, who is an outspoken public critic of the direction America is heading under Trump believes that free speech should be distinguished from what he calls "me speech".
"Me speech is a common practice among rich and influential Americans," writes Mr Snyder. "Practitioners of 'me speech' use the phrase 'free speech' quite a bit. But what they mean is free speech for themselves. They want a monopoly on it.
They believe that they are right about everything, and so they should always have giant platforms, in real life or on social media.
The people with whom they disagree, however, should be called out and intimidated in an organised way on social media, or subjected to algorithmic discrimination so that their voices are not heard."
joesportugal 