Scott Mineo founded “Parents Against Critical Theory” to fight the suddenly surging anti-white and racist “Critical Race Theory” inclusion in the curriculum of Loudon County (Va.) public schools. Then members of an Orwellian-named Facebook group, “Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County,” launched a campaign against his and other parent groups seeking not to have their children subjected to racial demagoguery. The aspiring community totalitarians compiled lists of parents opposing the indoctrination effort, their spouses and their employers, and rallied their members to try to shut down the non-submissive websites. Mineo’s page raised nearly $4,000 by March 22 until a former Loudoun County School Board Equity Committee member, Charlotte McConnell, urged current committee members and the school board to report the page as objectionable.
Three days later, GoFundMe informed Mineo that his fundraising appeal was taken down because it constituted “prohibited conduct.”
GoFundMe has caved before to ruthless progressive activists or proved itself to be among them—it’s hard to say which. GoFundMe can remove any user posts that it deems “in its sole discretion to be unacceptable,” so its legal right to constrain public debate and advocacy is beyond dispute.
So is the fact that it is now completely revealed as a an ally of enforced ideological conformity, educational indoctrination, and government-issue mind control. If GoFundMe wants to only provide its service for extreme left wing-causes and individuals, everyone else should accommodate its wishes, and stay away.
I don’t know how those outside the Woke Circle will be able to fight a concerted effort by tech companies to leave them voiceless. This is an attack on fairness, speech and democracy.
19 thoughts on “Ethics Villain: GoFundMe…As The Shackles Tighten”
No doubt. We are seeing efforts to prevent non-compliant individuals and organizations from doing business. How close are we getting to, “Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[e] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name”. Revelation 13:16-17
I’m assuming pretty soon people who vote Republican will have to wear a little R on their clothes at all times and will be forced into fenced parts of towns.
This would justify retaliatory violence.
Some others that are fighting back against the Wokerati; Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) and a few similarly complected colleagues are amongst them.
Let’s Set The Record Straight On WOKE SUPREMACY And Racism
(bolds/caps/italics mine throughout)
Scott: “Woke culture is speeding our country toward ideological and literal segregation.” He explained how universities like Columbia, et al, were announcing multicultural graduation ceremonies, which excluded white students, in addition to university-wide commencement.
To no one’s surprise, Lefty couldn’t allow their Bread-n-Butter be marginalized, so Scott was set upon by a “woke” phalanx of, but not limited to, Jonathan Capehart and that bastion of Free Thought, Mother Jones
Knowing racism and discrimination first hand, Scott FIRED BACK: “ ‘(I’m) gravely concerned for our future if we ignore either type of supremacy — (“Woke” & “White”) both of which are rooted in racism or discrimination.’
“Scott listed the racist comments he has received for being a Black Republican and said woke supremacists are his critics who believe diversity doesn’t matter if it isn’t coupled with progressive thinking.
“ ‘It is the ‘tolerant’ left’s intolerance for dissent. It is a progressive conception of diversity that does not include diversity of thought. IT IS DISCRIMINATION FALSELY MARKETED AS INCLUSION‘ ”
This is why crypto will win in the end. This is also why we need a distributed blockchain based immutable social media platform.
I’m not sure there is any way to fight the tech companies, because the tech companies are not the only entities cooperating to remove dissenting voices from the internet. Financial corporations and the government are cooperating in the effort, as well.
People frequently say that conservatives need to build their own platforms, but they don’t explain what a massive task that actually is.
First, you have the simplest part, which is building the actual websites. This part is fairly easy to do, as the actual code for most of these applications is not very difficult to write. An application that displays messages can be written in a month by a handful of software engineers. There are some hurdles, in that a lot of the major coding libraries and/or languages are created and controlled by the major tech corporations and have “open-source” licenses that could theoretically be revoked for offending wrong think. A lawyer would be needed to identify which languages and platforms are not vulnerable to lawsuits, and some options for normal application development would be removed, but this is all workable.
The second thing necessary for building your own platform is the hosting servers. Most web applications use the major tech platforms to do this, as they have the hardware and administrative support already in place which you can basically lease from them. This option is off the table for building your own platform, as the tech companies can easily kick you off their platforms for wrong think. So, you have to either obtain all of your own hardware and hire administrators to maintain the servers, or find a hosting company that isn’t controlled by the big tech platforms. There are not really any hosting companies that aren’t at least susceptible to the intimidation of the major companies, so rolling your own is required. This is expensive, and banks and investment companies are almost entirely controlled by the left wing, so money is now an issue.
Once you have your servers, you still need domain name hosting, and the domain name hosts like GoDaddy are happy to kick you off their service for wrong think, so you have to find one that won’t or roll your own.
Once you have the website created and on the internet, then you need to monetize it. The normal monetization methods for free websites is to display advertisements and sell the users data to advertisers. There are really only two major players in web advertising: Google and Facebook. They have a monopoly over web advertising on the internet, with Google controlling the vast majority, and Facebook controlling whatever is leftover. So advertising is basically a dead issue, unless you create your own advertising company. Then you need clients who want to advertise with you, and most corporations that have big advertising budgets are left wing, or sensitive to left wing criticism. Revenue options from advertising are very limited and involve competing with monopolies.
You can try raising revenue in other ways, such as charging for features or fundraising, but you still need a payment processing company and a bank to hold the money. Payment companies and banks are already yanking service for wrong think. So now you also need your own bank and payment processing company.
Then you get to the issue of moderating your website, to remove porn and criminal activity at a minimum. The people who make the algorithms that do this will not share them with companies guilty of wrong think. So you have to make your own. These algorithms have taken over a decade to develop, and creating an optimal one yourself would probably take years. This is where section 230 protection comes in, and why the big tech companies are suddenly willing to discuss some changes to 230 protections. Right now the big companies have a monopoly on these algorithms, and any company without them is not going to be able to remove porn and criminal activity as effectively as the big companies can. If section 230 is reduced to protecting things that the big platforms can already filter out but no one else can, that effectively gives the big tech platforms a permanent monopoly.
Then there are more complicated things like preventing DDOS and man in the middle attacks, which are also usually reliant on third party companies who can yank your service. To be safe, you will need to make these yourself as well.
Then your users still need to be able to access your site through a browser or cellphone application. To be safe, you need to make your own browser at minimum. Unless you are going to make your own cell phone OS, and start manufacturing cell phones, you are probably blocked from making your own mobile app.
Rolling your own platform is going to take huge amounts of money and man power, and will be hamstrung all along the way by government and corporate monopolies conspiring to destroy you. Not to mention media sabotage and hacker groups and whatever else the left can come up with to destroy you.
This is a fantastic description of the hurdles companies have to address to provide a suitable alternative to the major tech companies out there.
I think, upon examining this outline, the question is what to do next. The more robust method would be to develop all those independent functions, because that could weather a great deal of political issues. The other method would be to attempt to use the political system to designate these technical services as utilities that can’t discriminate against you for wrongthink. It would be easier, maybe, but more susceptible to political whim.
It seems as if violence is the only answer.
I think some combination of both things you suggest needs to happen. The biggest hurdle I see is the financial institutions. All of the technical hurdles can be overcome, but when you get to the point of banks and financial systems putting their thumb on the scale, you have a big problem. Some issues stem solely from these companies having monopolies over huge swaths of the tech industry, and antitrust law should apply to some of it. I don’t think just declaring the tech companies utilities is the right solution, but breaking up the monopolies is. ISPs, on the other hand, should definitely be considered utilities. There is a lot of complexity to the situation, and no one solution will fix it.
You have outlined why tech firms are exploiting their monopoly power. Unfortunately, I doubt if Biden’s Justice’s anti-trust division will choose to prosecute these firms
So,WHY are all the tech companies and the banks Democrat? They aren’t. The Democrats and the media work for the tech companies and the banks. These monopolies are in control, that is why the government can’t move against them. Now that the Democrats (the monopolies) control all branches of government, we see interconnected programs between them. Joe Biden wants a vaccine passport system. Well, he can’t implement it because it violates HIPPA and Civil Right (forcing people to take an experimental vaccine). So, he is just going to have the companies do it. The grocery stores won’t let you in without the passport. It is illegal, but the government will not prosecute them. You have an independent grocery store and they won’t do it? Well, their bank will threaten to close their account or refuse to process credit card payments until they comply. What is the name for socialism where the government doesn’t take over the corporations, but you have tight cooperation between the government and the corporations? Fascism. That is why leftists called Trump a fascist, so they could distract you from their fascism. Democrats do what they accuse their rivals of.
It is fascism, but as to why they are doing it I can only speculate. Protecting their monopolies, growing their power, extending their reach over people’s lives. There is the whole “great reset” they have been talking about, which most of these companies and the government are participating in. It looks to me like they simply want control over everything, and are working together to achieve that goal.
That is what Naomi Wolfe thinks, too. She thinks the alliance of big tech/business and government is the final straw that will usher in a new era of socialist fascism.
Excellent overview of tech issues.
Sooooooo………..I’ve heard rumors that Trump is going to start his own social media platform.
If it takes all of these things, why not Trump? He has some deep pockets, he has a huge built in audience, he’s a businessman. He’d have to hire the right people to set up the infrastructure, but I think he could get it done if it is ever to be possible.
It might mean he had to concentrate on that and not on any personal political plans, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Pure Tyrannical Persecution
I want to believe that the totalitarian social justice warriors haven’t already won the battle of the minds in the United States and that our society and culture isn’t doomed in the “near” future to tyrannical totalitarian rule and the rights granted in the Constitution will only apply to the totalitarians but these stories are piling up, on upon another, verifying what is an obvious trend – at least it’s obvious to me.
“…rights granted in the Constitution…”
The Constitution didn’t grant me a DAMNED thing. Those rights exist apart from any human government; the founders merely formalized and documented the government’s obligation to “secure” or guarantee, those rights. So any action taken that abridges those rights is per se unconstitutional. The rights will exist, and be claimed by free men as long as they live, regardless of the efforts of the government. We may all end up listening to shortwave radio and sending/relaying coded messages like the WWII resistance fighters in Europe, but we will find a way to communicate. The truth wins in the end.
You’ve raise some good points.
Thanks for the input.
Exactly. I am buying a Morse code machine this weekend.