Western Society is being attacked on multiple fronts, from the critical theory taught in schools to news media propaganda, to social media censorship, to endless lockdowns that kill small businesses and promote Amazon, et al, and now, to court closures.
Instagram tries to instill fear of thought crime where they interpret the user’s keyword search terms as criminal thought. Are you going to let yourself be intimidated by a bot?
April 12, 2021, Facebook retroactively restricted my account from February 01, 2021, for allegations of Community Standards from the previous year (2020).
Facebook restricted my account for 90 days with the start date of Feb 1.
April 12, 2021, I posted a video to Facebook. The video was viewed by others. Shortly thereafter, Facebook prevented a second video of mine from appearing in that comment thread on the desktop site and also prevented others from viewing that video. The video does exist on Facebook’s website and is viewable to me at it’s url. The video, hosted on Facebook, can also be seen on Facebook on a mobile browser by me only.
Upon checking my Facebook account today (April 12, 2021), I saw a notification that my account had been retroactively suspended from February 1, 2021. The reason given was “A post from the last year didn’t follow our standards.” There is no link to any post nor any mention of what violated community standards from the last year.
If this seems confusing, that’s because it is totally illogical.
The video that I’d uploaded as a comment had been switched to private. Responses to group messages are always visible and this does not seem to be changeable by the user.
Later, after revisiting the link that Facebook had supplied to me upon completion of processing the video, I saw that Facebook had set the video’s permission to private. After removing the “private” attribute, the video was displayed in the response.
Google Search Results are biased to modify public opinion. Google deters users from accessing a broader range of perspectives, even when the user has intentionally searched for such perspectives.
Through the Google Goggles: Sociopolitical Bias in Search Engine Design: “As knowledge, commerce, and politics continue move online and to the Web in particular, search engines have quickly become the “gatekeepers” of cyberspace. What’s more, a single search engine – Google – now handles the majority of Web queries. Google directs hundreds of millions of users towards some content and not others, towards some sources and not others. As with all media gatekeepers, if we believe in the principles of deliberative democracy – and especially if we believe that the Web is an open, “democratic” medium – then we should expect our search engines to disseminate a broad spectrum of information on any given topic.”
“The dissemination of the widest possible information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public” Free download: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-75829-7_2
This is a legal notice to you, Artistworks, to provide all of my data, including all media, posts, messages, and contacts in a human accessible and machine readable format, free of charge to me, as specified by and provisioned for in California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) SECTION 1. Section 1798.100 of the Civil Code, for Right of Access.
Additionally, I am requesting all non-public data from Artistworks, including any police correspondence or records thereof. (Any police reports you may have filed or discussed filing).
April 07, 2021.
The following is a report to the Office of the Attorney GeneraConsumer Complaint Against A Business_Company _ State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General (OAG) regarding a violation of the law by Facebook.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a social justice organization. They believe in digital freedom for those who support their ideologies.
But don’t take it from me, take it from their legal intake coordinator, Social Justice Activist Haley Pederson.
Haley Pederson is and has been mostly ignoring me for the last two years regarding the censorship and digital rights violations against me by Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, and Reddit.
Haley cares about free speech and freedom of expression where it suits her, such as for Black Lives Matter “peaceful protesters” https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/eff-offering-assistance-attorney-referrals-protesters.
Take it from Danny O’Brien, Director of Strategy at EFF. Danny, who I previously knew at Noisebridge, now ignores me completely. When I reached out to Danny regarding the censorship, cancellation, and digital rights violations against me, he ignored all of my emails and wouldn’t respond to voicemail.
That’s odd, because he’s emailed me previously and I’ve met and talked with him in person.
The wrong speech is not acceptable among the social justice types. They’ll oppose hate speech bans on their oppressed groups, like LGBTQ Anthony Oliveira, but when it comes to speech they don’t agree with, they look the other way.
Danny O’Brien promotes Social Justice in his recent article demanding cancellation of the problematic Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, from the very foundation he founded, the FSF itself.
Danny’s rationale is that the people have been “harmed” by Richard Stallman’s opinions and therefore, more censorship, in the form of cancellation, is needed to send a political message that the wrong opinions need to be banned.
Hey Danny, how about instead of being a crybully who cancels others like RSM who — unlike you — actually does useful things, grow a pair, suck it up, and deal with the fact that not everyone holds the same stupid opinion as you and your social justice loser friends at the EFF.
CCPA Data Portability Request for Facebook. To Mark Zuckerberg and whomever else it may concern:
This letter is in regard to your obligations under the California Consumer Privacy Act. Any information I provide to you may solely be used for the purpose of complying with the requests stated in this letter.
The account for which the data is being requested is:— Garrett Smith. I am the account owner.
According to the California Consumer Privacy Act Regulations, “If a consumer submits a request in a manner that is not one of the designated methods of submission, or is deficient in some manner unrelated to the verification process, the business shall either: (1) Treat the request as if it had been submitted in accordance with the business’s designated manner, or (2) Provide the consumer with specific directions on how to submit the request or remedy any deficiencies with the request, if applicable.” If you choose the second option, please provide the required directions.Please provide to me access to all of the content I have posted on Facebook.
April 1, 2021.
If your position requires censorship in order to be maintained, you don’t have one.
Joe Kort, author and Internet Expert on Psychology, deleted his entire video wherein he interviewing James Cantor. He’d performed so badly in that interview that it was hindering his image. Worse yet, his position was kindly demolished in the comments section below by yours truly.
In June 2020, I posting the following comment which appears below in response to a video where Joe Kort interviewed James Cantor.
I’ve experienced this when discussing this issue. People report me to the police, threaten to dox me, threaten to kill me, hack my phone, and contact moderators to get me banned on social media platforms, the count of which is now five.
The lack of public discourse and the oppression of free thought prevents change and progress for this and every issue.
How is it possible to make a fair determination about a general age at which everyone is capable of making a decision about whether or not they want to have sex?
There is great variety between individuals at which point they feel they are ready for sex and actually engage in sex, which, by the way, is mostly below the age of 18.
How then can it be justified to punish individuals who interlope rigid age laws?
Equivocating age of consent with the definition of consent is a mistake of the law. This mistake is made with great variety and with dire consequences to individuals in each and every state.
Consent is the agreement to do something. To equivocate consent with abiding by age configuration rules defined by a given jurisdiction for the particular activity at hand results in the problem of determining between multiple types of non-consensual sex:
- consensual nonconsensual sex, where the “victim“ chose to engage in an act that was illegal due to complex age and marital constraints.
- nonconsensual nonconsensual sex, where the sexual activity was carried out regardless of the will of the victim.
Some states have a close-in age exemption. This is an attempt to assert that young people can have sex without harm but then when the older partner is one day over the allowed upper age limit or age gap, harm is imminent and the older partner needs to be punished with imprisonment and sex offender registration. That is so wrong.
The fact that there is so much variety between states indicate that at least some states are getting this wrong. Do you think it’s really possible that a healthy, pleasurable sexual interaction, legal in one state, is harmful rape in another state?
If the younger person is married to the older person, it is not statutory rape. This is clearly a holdover from Christian values to preserve the chaste of girls for marriage.
Sex and intimacy are not abuse. Sex and intimacy are not inherently harmful. Nor is harm caused by which state one is in. Nor is there inherent harm in various age gaps defined by various jurisdictions. Nor is there harm to have sex before marriage.
But there is great harm in imprisoning and ruining the lives of those people who chose to perform harmless, enjoyable acts. The fact that none of the states can seem to agree on what the correct ages are indicates that probably most of them get it wrong, thereby imprisoning and punishing thousands of innocent people.
By the way, the most common age to sexually offend is 14. And they get thrown on the registry, too. So much for protecting children.
It is a biological fact that girls, on average, reach womanhood at the age of 14.
The ages at which individuals began and complete puberty varies statistically between groups, too.
How can any exact age be a fair determinant for whether or not the act was wanted? And if it cannot always be fair, then why is it acceptable to punish to people for committing a harmless, enjoyable act?
Legislation that defies biological facts is inherently wrong. Sexually mature minors generally experience strong desire for sex. This is summed up in the colloquialism “horny teenager“.
Many adults find these mature minors sexually appealing, too. Even if they won’t admit it, it can be evidenced by the large number of likes, comments, and follows for scantily clad minors on social media.
The age of consent for sex should be reduced to at most 12 for penetrative acts. That doesn’t account for harmless activity that might occur below that age, but is at least a step in the right direction.
Rape and coercion are already illegal. Sexual assault is already illegal. Forcible rape of a minor child already carries special consequences.