Twitter: Moral Treason

Scott Adams recently covers his [ongoing shadowban](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152204980091/twitter-and-periscope-shadowban-update), the symptoms of which match those of other shadowbans: results easily visible on a users timeline not showing up in the regular “algorithm” timeline, or more significantly, in search results. He also covers how his Periscope numbers, “coincidentally” drop to zero (though he still is interacting with viewers who can still see his stream) when he starts discussing Trump. Finally, he finishes with this:

> As I said before, if Twitter is suppressing my political speech, I consider it moral treason against the people of the United States even if it is allowed under their terms of service, and even though it is technically legal. I hope I’m wrong, and that my problems are simply technical in nature. Because if Twitter is doing what people say they are doing, and suppressing certain types of speech, the company needs to die for the good of the Republic.

This goes well beyond what even Milo Y has said – that Twitter is entitled, on their service, on their servers, to allow or disallow whatever they want, but that Twitter has to own up to that, and stop saying they are part of the “free speech party”. That the people at Twitter are duplicitous hacks who say one thing to bring users on, but do another when needed to support their team.

Like most leftists and SJW’s, the only principle is “what helps me, right now”. And yes, “right now” is important, because Hillary, and many SJW’s, are willing to take any position that gives them momentary advantage no matter the long-term consequences to, among other things, their credibility, or to those they make promises to.

Moral treason. Ponder that for a bit. Actively working to prevent voters from informing each other and being informed, thus taking from the citizens the right to choose knowledgeably.

For all of those who want to start mouthing off about how Twitter is a private entity and can do as they wish, or grant service to those they wish – something Scott not only acknowledges, but a degree of free association that flies in the face of lawsuits over wedding cakes for same sex couples by selfsame mouthbreathers – he’s hearkening to the more fundamental philosophical and moral position behind the first amendment. Again, Scott chooses his words carefully.

Sit back and think for a moment. We have an election where the Green Party, Anonymous, Wikileaks, the Alt- Right, the Tea Party, and non-establishment republicans are all working to take out Hillary (though not all support Trump, specifically), in the face of massive media, corporate, and government support and “rigging” – Scott is hardly the only voice that could be thought of as “liberal” or left that is working to sink Hillary and tacitly calling Trump the better choice.

Yeah, I’ve seen the recent videos from Anonymous targeting the Lizard Queen.

I’m cracking open some Jack and raising a glass to a well-deserved death on the part of Twitter, and every other SJW-converged IT outfit.

Interesting times, my friends.