Board 8 > Project Veritas expose Twitter censorship!

(+) Yeah! (+)

oh boy what
---

I don't understand why you are surprised. I mean, it's common knowledge that, for example, he was banned from Poland - a country that actually opposes the globalist order with actions. Spencer is a plant whose job is to make nationalism look bad.
---

but whatever, fill in "Richard Spencer" with the name of a non controlled opposition of your choice like this:

if they haven't banned the project veritas guy, they're not banning random nobody conservatives
---

Vlado posted...

I don't understand why you are surprised. I mean, it's common knowledge that, for example, he was banned from Poland - a country that actually opposes the globalist order with actions. Spencer is a plant whose job is to make nationalism look bad.

or, hear me out here, Poland has a bad history with Nazis and maybe doesn't want one showing up there

why is it implausible to you that there could just be someone who really does make nationalism look bad? You think 100% of nationalists are great people who are in it for the right reasons?
---

Does that mean you're "controlled opposition" Vlado?

Because these topics are dumb as fuck
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

if they haven't banned the project veritas guy, they're not banning random nobody conservatives

Why not? It'd be quite the stink if they banned a high-profile voice critical to them. While nobody even notices the low-profile conservatives they censor.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Does that mean you're "controlled opposition" Vlado?

Because these topics are dumb as fuck

They're not "dumb." I simply have a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to yours. That you have deluded yourself that such viewpoints are "dumb" only speaks of the deep level of indoctrination you have suffered.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Vlado posted...

I don't understand why you are surprised. I mean, it's common knowledge that, for example, he was banned from Poland - a country that actually opposes the globalist order with actions. Spencer is a plant whose job is to make nationalism look bad.

or, hear me out here, Poland has a bad history with Nazis and maybe doesn't want one showing up there

why is it implausible to you that there could just be someone who really does make nationalism look bad? You think 100% of nationalists are great people who are in it for the right reasons?

There are no actual nazis since the end of WW2, Spencer is most definitely not one, either. Today, "nazi" is simply a slur liberals use to label whoever dares protect conservative values.
---

you're supposed to be all about Occam's razor, but "someone is controlling Richard Spencer" is a totally unnecessary step in the process. It's just:

1. Richard Spencer is a nationalist and also a bad guy
2. Poland is nationalist
3. Poland doesn't want to associate with Richard Spencer because despite also being a nationalist, he is a bad guy and associating with him would make Poland look bad
---

Fine, I see the Poland example is not convincing to you. It's not so important, either - whether Spencer is actually controlled opposition or not, his work does not advance nationalism in practice, so it's normal for nationalists to refuse to associate with him. It's all about results, and that is the only way to success.
---

Why not? It'd be quite the stink if they banned a high-profile voice critical to them. While nobody even notices the low-profile conservatives they censor.

it doesn't make sense for them to not want to create a stink by banning high profile conservatives while simultaneously banning low profile conservatives.
The low profile conservatives would ostensibly be the ones making the stink, but if twitter is banning those low profile conservatives why would they care about whatever stink they might make? How does the stink harm Twitter if they don't want the conservatives' business?
---

They do want the business of high-profile conservatives. They also want to censor as many low-profile ones as possible, so as to stifle conservative voices as much as possible and make it look like the only correct way to see the world is globalism, and that that is a huge consensus when it really isn't. It's amateur social engineering. It's not hard to see.
---

no one actually sees anything low profile people tweet anyway

you could ban every nobody conservative or none of them and I would see the exact same amount of their tweets. Users without followers are totally irrelevant. it's only the high profile people whose tweets might actually be seen by a significant number of people.

If you're trying to suppress the anti-globalist message your "ban the little guys, keep the big guys" strategy just doesn't make sense with how Twitter works.

(also why would Twitter want the high profile conservatives' business? James O Keefe and random conservative user MAGAPepe88 make Twitter the same amount of money from ad impressions. The high profile guys' only value is in their ability to attract users, but they'd be the users you're saying Twitter wants to ban, so that's not actually useful.)
---

They wouldn't want to ban high-profile conservatives because it would be bad PR. I don't know how many times I need to say it. GamerGate was also a bunch of little guys, but grew huge. Do not underestimate little guys. Censoring them can do A LOT of harm.
---

lol
---

Oh Han that broadway show was excellent btw
---

glad you enjoyed it! Good to catch gems like that before they leave.
---

Vlado posted...

There are no actual nazis since the end of WW2,

oh man
---

Vlado posted...

Spencer is a plant whose job is to make nationalism look bad

So is Trump but you love him anyways
---

man imagine being the guy explaining Richard Spencer what his next job is

or maybe the CIA kidnapped him as a child and forced him to grew into Richard Spencer, and if he plays off-message they'll terminate him

Vlado posted...

There are no actual nazis since the end of WW2

..................
---

Vlado posted...

They wouldn't want to ban high-profile conservatives because it would be bad PR. I don't know how many times I need to say it. GamerGate was also a bunch of little guys, but grew huge. Do not underestimate little guys. Censoring them can do A LOT of harm.

no, yeah, but my point is it's only bad PR to the people they allegedly don't want on their site anyway. All the good little globalists aren't going to give a shit if Twitter bans James O'Keefe.. why do they care how they look to people they're just going to ban from their site anyway?
---

Vlado posted...

GamerGate was also a bunch of little guys

Yeah like steve bannon
---

another vlado topic, another example of the beautiful symbiotic relationship between vlado and his detractors as they both gain pleasure from yelling at walls.
---

Imagine feeling superior just because you're the dude who is yelling at a wall made of other dudes yelling at walls
---

the difference is that vlado's detractors aren't walls.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Imagine feeling superior just because you're the dude who is yelling at a wall made of other dudes yelling at walls

I can't imagine being you.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the difference is that vlado's detractors aren't walls.

Almost everyone on this board except obvious clown accounts is a "Vlado detractor" which is a dumber way to say it than any time DarkSydePhil uses the word.

Anyone arguing with him is a wall. Because it's the same crap over and over again to make people feel like they're doing something morally right by arguing with an ignorant goof.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the difference is that vlado's detractors aren't walls.

they are if it's vlado who is doing the yelling
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

it's only bad PR to the people they allegedly don't want on their site anyway

It's bad PR also to anyone who does not believe in outright censorship for opinions they disagree with, i.e. neutral people, i.e. the vast majority of their users.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

ignorant goof.

...says the liberal.

LMFAO
M
F
A
O
---

Vlado posted...

LMFAO
M
F
A
O

0/10 Do you even know how acrostics work?
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Anyone arguing with him is a wall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
---

It's bad PR also to anyone who does not believe in outright censorship for opinions they disagree with, i.e. neutral people, i.e. the vast majority of their users.

I think the vast majority of their users wouldn't even hear about James O'Keefe (or someone similar) being banned and wouldn't care about anything Twitter does until it directly affected them. The vast majority of their users are the 58 million people who follow Kim Kardashian.
It's not a political battleground for most normal people, we're just weirdos who are too engaged with this stuff.
---

Wrong. Bad PR moves spread fast, sites will republish the news en masse because it's clicks, and regular people will read it. It doesn't matter who in particular was affected.
---

So how come we haven't seen a rise of a conservative Twitter equivalent?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

So how come we haven't seen a rise of a conservative Twitter equivalent?

Nobody's decided to set aside enough money for it.
---

Vlado posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

So how come we haven't seen a rise of a conservative Twitter equivalent?

Nobody's decided to set aside enough money for it.

Perhaps because theres no value to it.
---

Espeon posted...

Vlado posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

So how come we haven't seen a rise of a conservative Twitter equivalent?

Nobody's decided to set aside enough money for it.

Perhaps because theres no value to it.

I was told the free market solves everything. Obviously there should be a demand for these blacklisted conservatives and they should find their own company to promote their views. And the free market would dictate the survival of the brand that the people want more, right?
---

>free market
>cia (google)/saudi (twitter) funding

Pick one.
---

Vlado posted...

Nobody's decided to set aside enough money for it.

Not enough money to spend 1 day making a site where you can post messages? Give me $100 I'll do it
---

Vlado posted...

>free market
>cia (google)/saudi (twitter) funding

Pick one.

So your argument is that super liberal Twitter is funded by the Saudis despite Saudi Arabia being an incredibly conservative country that only just recently decided to let women drive.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Vlado posted...

Nobody's decided to set aside enough money for it.

Not enough money to spend 1 day making a site where you can post messages? Give me $100 I'll do it

If I sent you $100, can you make me Conservitter?
---

isn't this the conservative twitter

https://gab.ai/
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

You think 100% of nationalists are great people who are in it for the right reasons?

this is literally what vlado believes, yes

nationalism = good

globalism = bad

no nuance, no exceptions
---

VintageGin posted...

isn't this the conservative twitter

https://gab.ai/

No that one is run by alt-right furries who want to indoctrinate Trumpers into their cults (to sell more fursuits or whatever, I don't get it)
---

TheRock1525 posted...

So how come we haven't seen a rise of a conservative Twitter equivalent?

Actually I think something called Minds is supposed to be the conservative equivalent. I haven't ever looked at it, but I know that supposed to be the "Twitter alternative".
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

>free market
>cia (google)/saudi (twitter) funding

Pick one.

So your argument is that super liberal Twitter is funded by the Saudis despite Saudi Arabia being an incredibly conservative country that only just recently decided to let women drive.

https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twitter-than-jack-dorsey-does/

Not_an_Owl posted...

nationalism = good

globalism = bad

no nuance, no exceptions

What "nuance" can there be? Nationalism, as an ideology, is good. Globalism is bad.

As far as people are concerned, bad people can be or claim to be nationalists, sure. Nobody denied that.

However, you cannot be both a globalist and a good person. If you believe in one world government, you are evil, no matter what else you believe in.
---

And speaking of FAKE NEWS, here's the typical washington post (and their ilk)-affiliated middle eastern "journalist":

https://www.rt.com/usa/415769-wapo-syrian-jihadi-supporter/

You people support these guys, and literally believe the globalist propaganda they spout.
---

In any case, Sly told RT she has nothing to apologize for, as she was commending the jihadist supporters bravery, while the supposed journalists pro-IS views are irrelevant here.

but she's right, that is all she did.

The article says he "is not the posterboy of journalistic veracity she makes him out to be", but she doesn't comment on his journalistic veracity at all. rt is being fake news
---

Vlado posted...

If you believe in one world government, you are evil, no matter what else you believe in.

A) Who says all globalists want this? Why cant governments be sovereign but work together?

2) Setting that aside, what specifically is morally wrong about one world government?
---

Vlado posted...

If you believe in one world government, you are evil, no matter what else you believe in.

are 0 governments or 2 governments okay beliefs though
---

also how slow a news day must it have been for rt to have time to write an article about some random journalist's tweet that has like 200 retweets
---

Kenri posted...

Vlado posted...

If you believe in one world government, you are evil, no matter what else you believe in.

are 0 governments or 2 governments okay beliefs though

what if I think there should just be like seven really big governments
---