Digital Kristallnacht

From iGeek
Revision as of 15:39, 12 January 2021 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Before he's even inaugurated, Joe Biden's supporters demanded and acted on Digital Kristallnacht: attacking conservatives on Social Media in order to find unity for the cause and spreading hate and division in the name of healing. The least historically informed will think I'm being absurdly hyperbolic... it was only 7,000 digital businesses that were destroyed instead of physical ones damaged, but the black-hearted idea is the same, "if you disagree with us, we will put you in a digital reservation / concentration camp and remove you from our version of civilized society". This polarization (and Biden's silence) sets up the ultimate litmus test: do you support this, or are you an American? The President of Mexico (Lopez Obrador) spoke out immediately against it[1] as did Russian Dissident Alexei Navalny [2], showing they are more American than Joe Biden, his supporters, and the majority of the American media who supported it or remained silent. Anyone that is not outraged over Big Tech's Executive Order 9066 and the digital interment of the Trumpanese, is not a good person.

Thought Crime


Democrat activists like Zuckerberg and Dorsey helped steal an election by suppressing truthful information in violation of their mission statement and terms of service. They decided that they got to block Donald Trump, not for things he actually said -- but on things that they imagined he meant. (Plus Michelle Obama asked them to). Exactly what Orwell warned about in 1949 as the iron curtain was beginning to descend on East Europe and Socialism was starting to undermine liberty in the UK (and hasten the decay of the Empire). Google, Apple and Amazon took it a step further, and attacked Parler (an alternate platform for conservative voices), because they won't suppress free speech and enforce thought crime (in the way that Google, Apple, Amazon thinks it should be enforced).

What were Donald Trump's thought crimes:

  • Zuckerberg said he was worried the president aimed to use his time left in the White House to undermine the transition of power to President-elect Joe Biden. Not that he had done anything wrong, but that he might. So he was permabanned from Facebook. [3]
  • Twitter (Jack Dorsey) claimed that Trump was "glorifying violence" and that's why he was removed.[4] But a cursory look at Dorsey's delusions and it was all the voices in his own head.

What did Trump tweet that was so bad?

❝ To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th ❞

That bastard! How DARE he!

Twitter claims that while Trump had said and tweeted that he lost the election, and that there would be an orderly transition of power, that this tweet nullified that previous statements, and was a dog whistle, based on no actual evidence. To them, this was Trump demonstrating that that the election was not legitimate, and to offer "encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending."

Of course we know if Trump had tweeted that he was going to inauguration, the same voices in their head would have screamed that he was only going to protest that the election was not legitimate, and offer encouragement to others to act up with him as an audience. Heck, the Democrats didn't want Trump there anyways -- knowing he would upstage their glorious leader with his mere presence. And if he was there, the left would have attacked him for any expression he made... or for more remaining expressionless and wooden. "Orangeman is bad" is the lens they view everything he says or does, so bad that those who disagree with them must be punished, and any action is rationalizable to them. Hmmm... where have I seen similar behavior before?

Twitter went on to claim there was also a prior tweet (previously blocked) where AFTER Trump had denouncing the violence at the Capitol, told all protestors to respect the blue, and to go home, Trump had conceded the election, and said there would be an orderly transition of power, he tweeted,

❝ The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!! ❞

The fact that this is far less incendiary than many of Biden, Obama or Harris's tweets completely escapes their hypocrisy meter, While anyone literate knows Trump is alluding to previous censorship by Twitter/Facebook, and that he was planning on launching or working with a competing service (as he's mentioned many times before). To the Thought Police at Twitter:

  • "American Patriots" is being used to describe support for those who committed violent acts at the US Capitol.
  • “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition”

Trump said "The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me"... NOT "to the people who committed the violence the other day" -- but Twitter knows what he meant to say, so you have to trust them, not the President. So with no evidence supporting their absurd conspiracy theory, and by ignoring all the evidence to the contrary -- like what he actually said supporting the peaceful and orderly transition of power, they banned him for what they imagined he thinks, despite him saying the opposite.

Any intelligent analysis of the claims Twitter made on him violating their policies versus reality of what he said/did, show that they are delusional or dishonest. They didn't ban him for what they claim. They banned him because of other reasons, and any of those other reasons are invalid (they don't like him, his politics, etc). Twitter broke their own terms, they deserve to be sued for that breach of contract. [5] Obviously Cardinal Richelieu and the leftist mob (and Dorsey), think alike,

❝ If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. ❞

🗒️ NOTE:
I do not put many litmus tests on my friendships, and fewer on what constitutes being a good American. To me, it’s a stupid way to live, always quantify and filtering your friendships based on agreement. That being said, if you support this, send me a message before you unfriend me, so that I can block you and put you on a permanent list of people not to associate with. I'll be cordial at work or when I run into you socially. But you are not a friend or family to me, as you were not there for me or America when it counted. While I have a live and let live attitude, I also have a “do no harm” attitude as well.

It's not about my feelings or agreeing with me. It's that your actions demonstrate a cruelty towards people who are not like you (a willingness to hurt others, or tolerate it, for a political agenda). And I can't be friends with that any more than an active pedophile, racist, homophobe, anti-semite or violent criminal. If you fuck up and are working on reform? Then we can be friends (I don't expect perfection, and offer forgiveness). But for people in denial? I just want a better life by not having bigoted hate-mongers around.


The Water Carriers and apologists on the left are are coming up with excuses like (a) it's a private company (b) they are only blocking one extremist billionaire (c) he still has a voice, so it doesn't hurt much (d) this isn't any worse than a baker refusing service to a gay person. All those are bullshit.

(a) It is a private company offering a monopolistic public service (like a phone line or power company)

If the Telephone or power company said no blacks or asians could use the telephone would you have a problem with that? I certainly would. They are banning their services to anyone that belongs to an opposing political party/philosophy/candidate. You should not be able to discriminate based on political affiliation.

Worse, they got access to our data by promising that they were champions of free speech. Now they changed their terms of service, after they've gotten the value from us of our social graph, and free posts and getting our friends to subscribe under false pretenses. That's fraud. I'm all in on a class action suit against these guys for ripping us off.

(b) This is not one extremist billionaire

First they did it to pretty extreme folks like Milo Yiannopoulos for poorly joking about something that a dozen liberal personalities joked about. (Pedophelia, and falsely claiming he was part of the alt-right). Yeah, not funny, but the coordinated attack by tech was scary... and no one called them out. Then they continued to get go after less and less extreme personalities, starting with Alex Jones... and moving to more moderates like Candice Owens. Systematically attacking and demonetizing and deplatforming them not for any crimes or doing anything near as bad as what the far left does or said, but for not thinking like them. Now they attack Trump and his supporters for not capitulating that there were no anomalies, law-breaking or fraud in an election that was rife with statistical anomalies, law breaking and fraud. And it wasn't Trump they went after -- they went after tens or hundreds of other thousands in the great purge, so drop the pretense that this was an exception to the norm. The purges are the new normal.

To show how tolerant they are:

  • Twitter also blocked Mike Flynn, Sidney Powell for not agreeing with Jack on evidence of election fraud.
  • Twitter also blocked Trump's campaign account, and his campaign’s digital director -- a whole political party/movement that serves 75 million voters. [6]
  • Facebook blocked Ron Paul from managing his FB page, without any warning... all because he complained about Big Tech censorship, on another forum altogether. It's not only about thought crime on their platform, but anywhere in the known universe. [7]
  • Then there were many more like Kevin McCullough, Team Trump, @Techno_Frog. Just agreeing with the President on anything unrelated to election fraud is enough to get you purged. [8]
  • Then they started sanitizing the accounts of thousands of others. People were noting that their followers were dropping off by 7,000, 15,000 or 30,000: they were being disappeared like Uyghurs in China for retweeting anything by conservatives. This was NOT just Trump, this was anyone that agreed with him too visibly. Twitter later came back (after the outrage) and admitted they were deleting accounts, but it was only of people that had ever relayed anything by QAnon. Of course they might not have known it's source, and there's zero transparency to know if that's true (and no reason to trust), and can you imagine the outrage if they did the same to anyone that relayed leftist conspiracy theories like Russiagate or who relayed the lie that Trump said neonazi's were very fine people?[9]
  • CNN was asking Cable Stations to drop FoxNews, OAN and Newsmax, to try to silence conservatives [10]
  • Still others like Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Greg Guttfeld and Mark Levin were driven off: decided they should abandon the platform of fascism, before they were digitally lynched.
  • Facebook and Instagram followed suit... then took out the entire #WalkAway campaign with hundreds of thousands of followers, videos and testimonials of people admitting that once they opened their eyes, they had to leave (Walk Away) from the ever more fascist DNC, and why [11]. Testimonial truths that don't fit the leftist agendas are also seen as a violation of terms, it seems.
  • Snapchat also suspended him [12]
  • Pinterest couldn't block Trump since he didn't have an account, so they started attacking hashtags that supported Trump or his ideas [13]
  • Reddit, followed along, banning the entire Trump subreddit for non violation of terms, they just didn't want to be left out of Joe Biden's new call for unity, healing and finding a path forward (without those dirty conservatives, of course). [14]
  • Shopify banned Trump's campaign store and his personal brand store, to join the tech mob digital lynching. [15]
  • TikTok still mad that Trump tried to protect Americans privacy again this Chinese controlled company, started purging Trump’s speeches to his supporters when users put them up. [16]
  • Amazon owned Twitch locked President Trump’s account indefinitely. [17]
  • Apple, Google, Amazon coordinated an attack on Parler -- because it would have been a good outlet for conservatives to move to. This hurts that company and it's employees, and anyone that used/enjoyed the platform, or would like an alternative to the Twitter/Facebook hegemony -- all for the high crime of being more free-speech than Twitter/Apple/Google/Amazon wanted. Can you get more anti-competitive than that? Not really, but since it was done for the Big Guy and to hurt Orangeman, the Democrats are OK with that corporate abuse of power.

They didn't just attack Trump, anyone that repeats that if a fool or a liar.

Meantime, Twitter has never considered banning world leaders of the most oppressive regimes in the world, for far more offensive tweets. Be a Holocaust Denier, call for violence against conservatives (like the DNC leadership did), support terrorist organizations like BLM or Antifa, show the beheading of the President or participate in murder fantasies about "Blowing up the Whitehouse", talk about persecuting anyone who supported your political opposition, and you'll keep your status... if your attacks are against conservatives. But if you dare say that you won't bow before the lefts anointed, or defend 75M pro-Democracy voters that are being disenfranchised and put in digital concentration camps? For that, you get banned.


(c) he still has a voice, so it doesn't hurt much?

The fascist left claims that it doesn’t count because Trump can still call a Press Conference, so they didn't censor him by denying him access to tools that are sold to the public under the false premise that they are available to the whole public -- when the truth is they are only available to the left no matter how hateful, and to conservatives that know their place (if they don't get too big a fanbase for telling uncomfortable truths).

Ignoring the fallacy that their argument is like claiming a little rape is OK, if the rapist is gentle enough, they miss that the only way to see a Presidents Press conference is on CSPAN (sometimes), all the other channels filter through CNN or NYT's disinformation machine, and they only show their viewers out-of-contest lowlights, with re-imagined delusional left wing commentaries over-talking or interpreting it for their viewers. But again, the point isn't whether he can still be heard, the point is whether he is being denied access to something that is claimed to be a free speech platform and was sold to us as such.

(d) this isn't any worse than a baker refusing service to a gay person

First, remember that the hypocritical left had apoplexy over the idea that another persons religious freedom should trump their political agenda.

Remember the context: activists hunted down this guy to make an example of him. One baker in Colorado (in a town with many other bakers), happily served a gay couple and agreed to offer them service and sell them anything in his store... except he also did custom cakes. He mentioned that he would not do custom artwork for things that were against his religion: supporting the persecution of a individuals or a group, promoting sins, or gay marriage. For that they sued him and lost (with the support of progressive activists and a progressive government that kept losing in court for their abuse of power). So they kept making up new reasons to re-suit him, in order to harass him and try to bankrupt him into compliance (and giving up his personal beliefs). The left was all OK with that behavior, even though there were plenty of other cake makers around that had no problems offering their services.

This context is more a bunch of tech companies together, attacking a group of clients, by ignoring that they are a public platform (not just private businesses), and that they offered these platforms and got their user bases by promising to platforms of free speech and helping people communicate. Now they are doing the opposite and abusing their monopolistic dominance for each kind of communication/tech they own, to punish groups of people who aren't like them -- knowing those people have no other alternatives to easily turn to. And are attacking the less convenient alternatives they are turning to, to destroy that competition as well.

If you can't understand that difference, then you're not up for this conversation. Have a nice life, bye. Again, the point isn't whether an individual can deny their services on religious groups -- this is whether a cartel of tech companies should be able to abuse a minority of the country, and deny them a bunch of services and make a two tiered system of technological services.

It can't happen here... but it just did

U-Boat operator, who became a Nazi supporter, then grew to wake up and oppose it
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me

Martin Niemöller [18]

In 1935 (before Orwell wrote 1984), Sinclair Lewis wrote how a US dictator could rise to power as Adolf Hitler did, in, "It can't happen here".[19] I have news for you, it just did.

The plot was about how a power hungry politician promised each citizen $5,000 a year if they vote for him, then he and his supporters outlaws dissent then incarcerates political enemies. You know, like Biden did with Social program promises, and Twitter/Facebook and Google just did (and Apple is flirting with) with Social Media? So two of three complete.

Of course the dystopian novel goes on to eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors... I don't think that's coming literally. But America is the idea that people (not governments) should decide... and in order to do that, and be represented, all sides should be heard. Even the most vile. It is the idea that Americans get to choose to arm themselves. That they should not be attacked for who they are or what they believe. The Bidenophiles and Kamalabots are championing attacking the Constitution and the foundations of what makes us American: the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th amendments in our Bill of Rights, they subverted an election and want to do more so, they are pitching ideas about Senate Stacking by and adding DC as a State, and Supreme Court stacking. They have been proposing making two classes of people those who supported Trump and those who support fascism -- to the point where they want to guarantee that all Trump supporters and administration official are unemployable (at least in government).

In the novel when an industrialist is asked about government overreach in taxing/regulating/micromanaging industries for our own good, and isn't that what fascism means (back when Americans knew that's what fascism meant), the wealthy tech company owner dismisses it with the remark that it simply "can't happen here". As he's furthering it.

In the novel when people discover evidence of corrupt dealings by the leadership (like Hunter Biden), the powers suppress the information and attack the sources. Of course in the book, it's the leadership that does the attacking, in our case the Social Media, Search Engines, and Media giants did that for the powers so they wouldn't have to get their hands dirty.

The novel ends with many fleeing the collapsing republic, and others fighting -- with the midwest on the side of liberty and the coasts on the side of oppressive fascism and their Great Leader.

I was fascinated with Hitler, or more accurately with people that allowed him rise to power. How did good people let this happen? So I read dozens of books in my youth on the topic, this was one of them. How did it happen? People in Germany and Japan thought and said, "It can't happen here"... while it was happening. They tolerated oppression in the name of getting along (the Law of Jante) -- they believed in the collective (and not the individual), thus if the collective opposed it, they opposed it too. The other side wasn't just wrong, they were evil -- so doing evil to evil wasn't evil, it was prophylactic self defense. Anything could be justified, and eventually was. They took over educating the kids, and miseducated them that thoughts that disagreed with political correctness and the state should be expunged, along with the people that believe them or disagreed with their own ideology. Sound familiar?

Are you seeing it yet? Or are you part of the problem?

Will the last liberals turn out the lights?

While Michelle Obama and AOC and others show what an intolerance Fascist paradise the DNC has become, and the silence of the masses of Democrats screams louder than any speeches could... there are still a few almost liberals left in the party of intolerance.

  • In the past the ACLU defended Nazi's and Pedophiles right to speech. In the present, they don't care enough to issue a clear statement on it. They kinda hint that while they completely hate Trump and understand why the Twitter mob did it, they waffle around that they half to make a half-hearted non-attempt at pretending to defend the civil liberties of free speech... or maybe not. Like defending the 2A, when it's the 1A of conservatives, they don't really care much. [20]
  • Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, before he left for not being fanatically left enough (and because they censored him like they do to conservative PoV's), is a voice of sanity in the mostly silence of the supposed "Liberal" party. But you can count the Liberals left, on one hand, without using your thumb. Still, Greenwald's recent kerfuffle with the Intercept and being on the victim end of censorship is making him a nearly reasonable voice in the leftist lynchmob sea.
  • Elon Musk is a bit of a classical liberal (libertarian leaning guy), with no love of Zuckerberg. He suggested you use Signal instead of WhatsApp, and Dorsey was right for once and retweeted the suggestion. Mostly because Signal has better security/privacy and partly because Zuc is a douche (and they don’t like each other), and partly because FB blocked Musk, SpaceX, and Tesla, because he wouldn’t cow-tow to what Zuc thought they should. I like that at least one high profile person is calling someone in tech out. Especially someone like Zuc that’s earned so much bad will. [21]
  • The President of Mexico (Lopez Obrador) spoke out immediately against it. as did Russian Dissident Alexei Navalny, showing they are more American (Liberal) than Joe Biden, his supporters, and the majority of the American media who supported it and remained silent.
  • It took German Prime Minister, Angela Merkel a few days, but she also recognized the problem with the Trump ban. Of course her spin was the problem was that the legilsators didn't outlaw him, instead of letting businesses leaders do it. [22]
  • France also reacted negatively. [23]

When you can get the Germans, French, Mexico to agree on something, that lets you know you fucked up. I expect that the EU will enact legislation to defend against Twitter doing that to any of them.

Civil War 101

Imagine you had read anything about history and were writing a "how to" manual on starting violence and destabilizing a population and causing backlash. Mine would include dividing us into intersection groups of "us's" and "them's" and then focusing on how to disenfranchise them until they retaliate by doing things like:

  1. constantly insulting and attacking them as "privileged"/unworthy, morally inferior (white, racist, bigots, homophobes, capitalist, god and gun clingers, deplorable's, Trumper's)
  2. claiming free speech only applies to your side, shout "them" down when they try to voice any dissent, censor them when they offer facts you don't like, call them bigots whenever you're losing an argument
  3. tolerate assaults against "them" and their symbols/statues/history and values... but flip the fuck out if any of them do anything back -- especially when it is in a much smaller scale and with much more valid justification
  4. undermine election confidence with policies that violate the law (like voting by mail, lack of voter role sanitization, removing observers and signature matching requirements, ignore deadlines, use shoddy software, refuse audits and transparency)
  5. Attack anyone in that new victimhood group with threatening their jobs, ability to promote their businesses, express their views, suffocate their complaints, and any legal redress -- treat them with contempt under the law.
  6. create two norms for justice -- one if you're an "us", another for "them"... then go on to deny they have any standing in the courts to complain -- so they have no voice, and no chance at justice

Basically, eliminate all legal path of recourse, or even the right to complain, and certainly the right to defend themselves. Then when you eliminate all legal paths of recourse, the only ones left are illegal. Complete contempt for the law and the government will be taught to a generation. And when they act on it? Never offer forgiveness, tolerance, or compassion... never let an opportunity go to waste to advance the leftist agenda. Use the backlash they created as an excuse to become MORE authoritarian and intolerant because people are rebelling against their illegal intolerance, until you have the rationalization and justification to re-educate, drive out, or slaughter them all. Just like men you admire like Mao, Castro, Che, or Chavez has done.

I am NOT rooting for it to happen... I'm begging for the other side to stop. At some point they're going to push all Americans into the choice of choosing America and the Constitution, or our Democrat Controlled Leadership. And nobody wins in that kind of either/or decision. The last time the progressives did it, it cost 500,000 Americans. I don't want to think about it again. But the only thing worse than the consequences of fighting, are the consequences of not fighting.


Wikipedia:One Tin Soldier
Now the valley cried with anger,

"Mount your horses! Draw your sword!"
And they killed the mountain-people,
So they won their just reward.

Now they stood beside the treasure,
On the mountain, dark and red.
Turned the stone and looked beneath it...
"Peace on Earth" was all it said.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Billy Jack theme

Conservatives want freedom for both sides to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. They want the Constitution: freedom of speech, freedom of defense, freedom of capitalism. Progressives want to remove those choices and the voices that offend them, as demonstrated by their actions. And with that, the Conservatives became the Liberals, and the Liberals have been displaced by the fascists who don't even know they are fascists.

"One Tin Soldier" song tells the story of two neighboring tribes, the warlike (Silicon) Valley People and the peaceful Mountain (Time) Kingdom (conservative middle America) which possesses a great treasure buried under a stone. The Valley People demand the treasure. The Mountain People respond that they will share it with "their brothers", but not quick enough... so the Valley People invade and slaughter the Mountain People. On overturning the stone, they find nothing except the words "Peace On Earth" inscribed beneath it. The treasure was knowing that leaving each other alone leaves peace in your heart and your soul cleaner than progressive activism ever could.

If the DNC and their supporters don't grow up soon, that will be their legacy.

I fear that bias and disinformation from grade-schools and universities, our media and social media, the lack of critical thinking skills, compassion/tolerance and understanding for those that disagree with them, may have pushed our society as far as we can go without fracturing. Once the stress limits are exceeded, we enter very bad times for all. So activist/leftist politicians are playing dangerous games with national and global stability.

Joe Biden isn't even President yet and his supporters actions and his silence on the great purge, already tells us what kind of leader he is (or is not), and what kind of followers he attracts. They are far worse than what they vilified. Trump or his supporters never tried to deny a class of people access to public services like Social media, to target his supporters, or to instill (or tolerate) institutional bigotry into the policies of the government or public companies. Yet Democrats are. They are doing everything they claim to hate.

🗒️ NOTE:
  • Twitter Stock got hammered on the first day of trading after this.
  • Analyst warned (rightly) that profits could go down ≈10% because of so many high profile people fleeing, or being driven off. But I think he underestimates the longer term effects and is only looking at the next quarter.
  • Instead of a clear road ahead for continual growth and customers, Twitter just told all conservatives (at least 75M Americans that voted for Trump, and more globally), that they can never trust Twitter and need to find an alternate platform. So even if they colluded with Apple/Google/Amazon to crush Parler, their biggest competition, there's many others on the horizon, and now a clear need has been relayed and received to go away.
  • There's also the ramifications of various lawsuits like anti-Trust (they're now clearly on the map for that kind of litigation), and regulation. They are making editorial decisions instead of being an agnostic platform.
  • Gab deliciously mocked Twitter for the crash on twitter (tweeting "lost $4B LOL"), twitter responded by deleting their tweet: reiterating Twitter's contempt for free speech that offends them (and shows they're easily offended). [24]


📚 References
  2. Alexei Navalny:
  3. Zuckerberg's Statement:
  4. Twitter Thought crime:
  6. Campaign:
  7. Ron Paul:
  8. Fascist Purge:
  9. Purge:
  11. WalkAway:
  12. Snapchat:
  13. Pinterest:
  14. Reddit:
  15. Shopify:
  16. TikTok:
  17. Twitch:
  18. Martin Niemöller:
  19. Wikipedia: It Can't Happen Here
  20. ACLU:
  21. Musk:
  22. Merkel:
  24. Gab:

Twitter is an enemy of free speech and tolerance. Examples include them shadow banning conservatives (and admitting it, on-tape), some of their employees getting excited about violating their members privacy (assuming those members are conservatives/Trump), and how they suppressed anti-Hillary tweets during the election. That's scarily Orwellian. It's still their company and they get to be as dicky as they want to be with it (within the bounds of the law). But I'm going to point out their moral terpitude just so that consumers can make an informed choice -- not as any call to action (legal, governmental or otherwise).
Facebook is 3 things: bad interface, bad management, and biased policies. I want a social network that gives me control of what I see and share -- both to my friends and to advertisers. I realize they need to make a buck, and my information is their product, but the point is you can still give users the illusions of control. But Zuckerberg seems to have falling into the egocentric pit that many young billionaires do, they think because they timed things well, and worked hard, and got lucky that they're smarter than everyone else. This makes them arrogant, less mature, and slower to grow than the average human: Dunning-Kruger, inflated by being surrounded by yes-men.
In 1995, two 20-something Ph.D. students from Stanford were looking for something to do their dissertations on, and decided that they should focus on a Web crawler and indexer research. Once they found funding and a revenue stream based on advertising, they became what's known in the Valley as a Unicorn: a multi-billion dollar company. And their saga from College Dormitory Culture to Corporate Cult began. Unfortunately, explosively rapid successes skip normal growth and maturing processes in corporations, and can create cults (or at least cult-like behavior). There's a line between corporate culture and conformity to the corporate line or expulsion, and that line seems to often get crossed at the Googleplex, without any of the normal checks and balances that might apply at a more moderate corporation.
(D) Vice President and Presidential Candidate - claimed, "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door". Someone's been watching too many cowboy westerns: it isn't going through a modern solid door, and you'd be breaking the law by doing it, especially if you hit someone (like the child on the other side). He went on to repeat variants of this stupidity (showing he's slow to learn). It's not all Democrat gun opinions that are wrong, it's just the 95% that give the rest a bad name.
Fascism is overloaded (means different things to different people/groups), with a brutal history, so no one wants to be associated with it. Thus the side that it came from is going to do everything they can to obfuscate and pretend it came from "others". But fascism is more than an ad hominem attack: we can clarify conflicting meanings, and look at real history and motives. Just know that while some of us can handle the truth, reasonable intellectuals aren't usually found on internet forums or Facebook feeds.