This is no alleyway brawl pitting Ronda Rousey and Colin McGregor in a gender bending endurance street fight surrounded by former cast members from “The Warriors”.
Lacking the consent from citizens, the overbearing government framework is opting to force the prodigious social media outlets from distributing news, much like the campaign spurred by Gavin Newsom in California, which has prompted a reaction from the tech industry to terminate the flow of content as a sanction and “peaceful” protest to the will of elected officials. The Canadian government is demanding that social networking communities share advertising revenue with news publishers, in a campaign that officials believe will sustain the corporatized press for the benefit of ideological gains on a certain side.
Within the game where both government and the tech industry are posturing for authoritative influence and securing a stream of perpetual revenue, yet employ completely different from methods of facilitating and securing financial dominance, the current scenario is indicative of just how profound the digital divide has become in dictating free speech and free will. While F***book and others are known for the limitless pages of ambiguous “terms and conditions” in silencing adversaries, lawmakers are attempting to regulate the public traded private organization through lawsuits and legislation. In the eye of the hurricane, a tattered form of accountability waits to be applied and constructs fortifications for the next wave of high winds and destruction.
What makes the public posturing and sparring between the public and private sector intriguingly unsettling, is that each faction strives for the same deplorable goal of universal behavior modification. Not only is mainstream submission beneficial to each organism for differing reasons, those in apparent power of the hierarchies have lost control of their reckless experiments.
Trudeau falsely claims that grassroots journalism is necessary for Democracy, while Zuckerberg bloviates that news should come at a premium, even though the F***book track record of moderating content and promoting “fake” news is plagued by bias and the ulterior motive of existing as a key tool in Democratic party’s PR mechanism. As a consequence, Nancy Pelosi hosting a celebrity drag queen Netflix special replaces an injunction being awarded to Second Amendment advocates in stifling the unconstitutional practices of the ATF as “legitimate” and trending news. Hypocrisy does not apply when one possesses limitless legal resources.
From either side of the barroom brawl, the flow of information to the end-user is deliberately daunting, and with attention spans sliced into bit-sized fast food pieces of expired chicken, the gatekeepers simply have to nudge a controversial half-baked idea towards the account holders, rather than forcefully indoctrinate through a time consuming and rigorous process. Controlling the past has never been so user-friendly.
Similar to taking candy from a baby, the younger generations are susceptible to the pair of neighborhood bullies operating under the influence of a monumental sugar high born of rainbows, unicorns and feathery sonnets. Buzz words and phrases such as “could, would, may be, possible,” and other vague identifiers associated with claims and bereft of evidence flood citizens and end-users in creating a false narrative. And that is just the tip of the iceberg with influencers playing mental gymnastics with lexicon. A good example and repeat offense is the use of the term “gun safety” by liberals, when instead they mean “gun control”.
Society now faces a conundrum of a paradox illustrating that those who recognize and pursue truth are becoming as irrelevant as the idea of a teenager looking both ways before crossing a busy intersection, leaving Darwin to chuckle.
