William Thien

Friend on the largest social media web site made the comment the other day that he was glad he didn’t go to social media “jail” because of his post, this time, and instead he thinks the social media giant might only be tamping down his posts so people on his friends list so they don’t see his messages as much as they might see others. In other words, he was glad he was only being “marginalized.”

Social media jail is just another word for “censorship.”

When a social media giant “marginalizes” your posts, it is the same thing as censorship, too. It is the same thing as when the political enemy runs around and steals all of your campaign posters off of the bus stops and street corners and removes all of the newspapers from the newspaper box that have your campaign ads inside of them. You are being “marginalized” in that context, but it is the same thing really as censorship.

There are real reasons for social media giants to make such decisions such as “will we be sued by someone offended or looking for quick money and even if we win the case, our attorney fees will likely be astronomical, and when the shareholders see how much we paid out of our profits for legal representation, the shareholders will begin clamoring for more active control by the social media giant’s “censorship” team. There are many other reasons, but I’d be willing to bet that is in the forefront of the social media giant leadership’s minds.

Unfortunately for social media giants I foresee such user disdain for the platforms approaching and all at the wrong time for the social media giants with this new administration about to take office. It is predicted that there will be massive anti-trust activity coming from the Department of Justice with almost all of it focused primarily on the social media giants.

That will be very, very costly to litigate before an elected body well aware of the public’s dissatisfaction with the methods used by the social media giants to control what they say online.

Just thought I’d share that with you.

Copyright © William Thien 2020

Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”

I’ve heard it several times recently and many times in the past. “It would be better if the Democrats won one presidential election and the Republicans would win the next and it would go back and forth that way to maintain some political balance in this country.”

That would be great, except for one thing.

The two parties are not politically and diametrically opposed.

That sentiment takes into account that the two parties are politically and diametrically opposed and one party’s transgressions against the public would be counteracted upon by the other party’s transgressions against the public as the political pendulum swung balanced through its arc.

The problem with that sentiment is that the two parties are not politically and diametrically opposed and it is also a common sentiment that candidates from the two parties are difficult to distinguish from one another or that legislation created by one party or another sounds alike. The political pendulum of the two-party system is not achieving its full arc.

My grandmother used to put a level on the wall clock every time she would wind it up. “If you don’t let that pendulum swing its full path,” she would say. “You are either going to lose time or you are going to get there late.”

I ask, based on the current political situation, how much time would you say the country needs to make up?

Copyright © William Thien 2020

Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”