To be honest, I see people reverting to a earlier state of the interent, where there are more small, less traffic forums instead of centralizing everything around Twatter, Thotsbook...etc
I think in the early days things like FB were actually organic. Then they started learning how to manipulate their users then they got fully sign onto the NWO. You might be right and it was planned all along but a bunch of sites all being similar with small differences sounds like capitalism trying to take something that was working and eek out the competition with a few feature tweaks.
Things like disclose tv and Paul Joseph Watson would naturally get promoted due to user interest on Facebook. It was the “fake news” that removed all the small independent sources and only promoted the mainstream when things really started changing
Don't we see a sudden influx of competing / alternative products anytime a new tech comes out, in general?
Unless there's a patent in the way of profits, my first reaction is to assume it was simply a race to get a piece of the new gold rush and stake their claim on the goods.
I'm 100% open to the idea of hearing that maybe all social media in the beginning was engineered in advance by say the military or some other group and then released all of a sudden under various brands and with an agenda in mind, I guess I just haven't yet learned what you've learned
Hard to say. On the other hand, how much brainwashing were the dems able to accomplish because of social media? What if neither party had SM platforms?
To be honest, I see people reverting to a earlier state of the interent, where there are more small, less traffic forums instead of centralizing everything around Twatter, Thotsbook...etc
The good old days of IRC.
This isn't a newsgroup?
then they should repeal 230, social media was a mistake
Donald Trump was (and still is) president because of social media. Without his Twitter account he would have never made it through the primaries.
with the one sided enforcement of rules, it's no longer a tool that we can use to go forwards
Why not both?
Social media developed organically and then the bad guys recognized the opportunity
Some bad guys made their own, for sure
But don’t suggest that every platform invented was with an evil agenda in mind other than simply making money
I think in the early days things like FB were actually organic. Then they started learning how to manipulate their users then they got fully sign onto the NWO. You might be right and it was planned all along but a bunch of sites all being similar with small differences sounds like capitalism trying to take something that was working and eek out the competition with a few feature tweaks.
Things like disclose tv and Paul Joseph Watson would naturally get promoted due to user interest on Facebook. It was the “fake news” that removed all the small independent sources and only promoted the mainstream when things really started changing
Don't we see a sudden influx of competing / alternative products anytime a new tech comes out, in general?
Unless there's a patent in the way of profits, my first reaction is to assume it was simply a race to get a piece of the new gold rush and stake their claim on the goods.
I'm 100% open to the idea of hearing that maybe all social media in the beginning was engineered in advance by say the military or some other group and then released all of a sudden under various brands and with an agenda in mind, I guess I just haven't yet learned what you've learned
♥
Hard to say. On the other hand, how much brainwashing were the dems able to accomplish because of social media? What if neither party had SM platforms?
Dems don't need social media to brainwash people. They have schools and universities.
Their education mandates can only go so far. Social media peer thought policing has been an enormous problem.
Well we all got our sweet handles ready.
Someone just needs to create an encrypted p2p forum software.