Social Media/Corporate Bulletin Boards and Subtle Conquest

 War is a continuation of politics through other means. War is not generally a sport with fixed rules of engagement, declarations of intent etc. It needn’t be said they are less desirable means than intelligent responses within democracy that address all of the concerns of various parties involved as protagonists. The founder’s Declaration of Independence was a succinct statement concerning the right of revolt of oppressed masses. It should be remembered that real material, spiritual and social interests in addition to natural resources should be protected where possible rather than destroyed. If the United States for example does not need a kinetic war to improve the situation, and if the war could not actually resolve the problem and would make matters worse, then other means should precede and supplant kinetic conflict.

One concern I have is social media. Quora is a good outlet for free expression though it too may have limits.

Social Media; Utilities or Corporate Bulletin Boards?

The freedom to use social media including blogs for personal and creative constructions require the media to be less flimsy than anti-global warming arguments. Writers don’t want their works to disappear when a web site goes black. To invest a lot of time in developing a product to then experience search engine listings being cut off by Google blogs after one criticizes N.S.A. or Google policy is consistent with the blog as a corporate bulletin board rather than a public utility. It is the nature of a public utility that is apparently necessary for security of free expression.

Since the first Obama administration I have experienced every place I write either disappearing, or I have been banned for using politically incorrect language occasionally. With the new Democrat administration Google managers felt it appropriate to zero my blog listings so they cannot be found. In my opinion that was noteworthy.

The concentration of power and wealth historically occur together. With the social networking of Wall Street and the support of free money loans from the Federal Reserve to the rich who then can mint their own e-dollars nine-fold for each dollar deposited concentration of wealth has occurred in the United States. Wall Street is global so a global plutocracy may be far advanced in development. They invest in China. Warren Buffet probably has a second home their. Plutocrats own social media in America.

Social media is used to express political opinions as well as sundry other thought and product sales. If it is a corporate bulletin board the content need be satisfactory and in effect subordinate to corporate goals and mission. Anything else could be degraded in search engine listing or deleted altogether. Corporatism spells the end of democracy and rise of plutocracy with happy minions. It might be useful for the government of the United States to create a social media site maintained by the Library of Congress that would allocate one space per registered citizen to write as much as they want without fear of it being deleted, censored or degraded in public search engine listings. Democracy of the United States in the modern era cannot exist without free speech and free speech unsubject to corporate plutocratic criteria for normal publication.

Without honest competition that won’t disappear and that isn’t biased against some social element, social media will simply become entirely owned and controlled by plutocrats. Individual writers can afford to tilt against the windmills of deep pockets of Google for less than a pico-second. If Verizon now owns Yahoo and it can delete one’s web site for using corporate defined hate speech can’t it also listen in to everyone’s Verizon phone calls with technology and censor any language it deems hateful? A democracy entirely filtered through corporate owned social media and mass communications is one that will become a complete farce. That former democracy will be nothing more than a sham maintained to keep somnolent masses contented.

Would the founders of the United States have been satisfied with rich British corporations owning all social media and communications venues? I believe that after the revolution they would have certainly permitted social media owned by corporations like the Hudson’s Bay Company or East India Company, yet they would have considered independent free speech including hate speech (which should be subjective matter of opinion) vital for democracy and therefore would have established a government operated public social media for citizens to use as a free, necessary defense against British Corporate power.

Maybe the Department of Defense should operate a social media site for American citizens that isn’t flimsy and won’t disappear the first time anyone writes something like stop the queer government or criticizes the lack of revenue sharing by corporate owned blogs. American defense asks of its servants they be sworn in to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. The oath isn’t to defend against foreign enemies and lay down for domestic enemies or to roll over for global corporations. Domestic enemies of the past were fairly plain and overt unlike today. Corporate and sedulous cults may readily take over the government, pass laws limiting free speech and put a muzzle on democracy in order to accomplish not only particular social class hegemony, but to channel the concentration of wealth as well. Adequate defense requires vigilance against KGB-Tass synthetic public broadcasting media and other agencies of socialization such as social media. Government operated channels with completely free, stable public social media outlets for the use of citizens might be necessary in order for true opinion to be found.