Mediaboss Marketing

Far-right platform Gab is sponsoring white nationalist Nick Fuentes conference. The move has proved controversial for both parties. Many of Gabs donors are claiming that theyll no longer fund the platform.

Gab founder Andrew Torba announced Monday that his platform will sponsor the upcoming America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC). AFPAC is Fuentes extremist alternative to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Everyone who will be going is a member of this website, promotes Christian values, openly proclaims the name of Jesus Christ, and promotes America First political objectives, candidates, and members of Congress, Torba wrote on Gab.

He claimed to desire unity among conservatives then proceeded to slam CPAC and Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirks group for young conservatives. CPAC is sponsored by Facebook and Google among other billionaires, Torba added. TPUSA is sponsored by atheist libertarian billionaires.

Facebook and Google were last reported to sponsor CPAC in 2018. Its not clear who Torbas accusing of being atheist libertarian billionaires, though its possible hes referring to Charles Koch. Koch is a billionaire, TPUSA sponsor, and has described his views as libertarian. In 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported that hes not religious.

Gab is a notorious haven for the far-right. Antisemitism and racism are common. Torba often boasts that hateful ideas are welcome on his platform.

Torbas embrace couldnt come at a better time for Fuentes. The far-right figure who launched his public persona by claiming he was leaving college after being threatened for attending the Unite the Right rally has found himself increasingly unwelcome online. His recent permanent suspension from Gettr followed bans by more mainstream platforms where hed built his audience.

The partnership is also arguably beneficial to Gab, which is struggling to compete in a crowded far-right social media landscape.

Gab sponsoring AFPAC follows its partnership with Fuentes streaming service. Alex Kaplan of Media Matters for America reported on Monday that Torba may even help Fuentes monetize it.

The move generated controversy for both parties, however. Fuentes posts about the partnership were riddled with comments trolling him.

Many pointed out that Fuentes has recently made scathing statements about Gab users, including calling them fucking r*****ed.

Youve openly degraded Gab and its users, commented one. Especially straights and women. Fuck off.

Fuentes comments include a call for Gab to ban women from the platform.

Many of Torbas followers also criticized him for embracing Fuentes, whose extremism proved a bridge too far for them.

You are aligning Gab with a movement that wants to shut up the very people who helped your platform grow in the last year, wrote one.

People who claimed to be among Gabs sponsors said that they would stop donating if he persisted with plans to sponsor AFPAC.

I didnt agree to help fund AF, wrote one. I agreed to help fund Gab, but if this is where my money ends up, I am ending that agreement. They added that this is something that should have been discussed with the Gab community beforehand, as we are the main reason Gab has $20K to throw around.

Its not publicly known what Torbas sponsorship entails, but several people implied that hed given Fuentes money.

Torbas critics included Islamophobic figure Laura Loomer. Loomer was outraged by Fuentes posting that he trusts Gab because its run by a faithful Christian. And not some Judeo-Christian either, a Christian.

On Tuesday, Loomer, who is Jewish, wrote multiple Telegram posts blasting Fuentes and Torba. She said that shes long supported Gab, Torba, and even Fuentes, and noted that she attended and promoted AFPAC last year.

The idea that you cant trust someone who is Jewish is quite absurd, Loomer wrote of Fuentes post about Christians versus Judeo-Christians. (Judeo-Christian is merely a term that notes that Christianity is derived from Judaism, as evidenced both by Jesus Christ being Jewish and its use of Jewish scripture in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.)

In another post, Loomer wrote, Does Andrew just want to create a terms of service that says no Jews allowed?

Am I not welcome simply because Im Jewish, even though I have always supported Gab, Ive been a friend to Andrew Torba and Nick, and Im America First? she added.

The criticisms grew loud enough that Torba weighed in. True to form, his stance was defiant.

Controversy is attention. Attention is influence, Torba posted on Tuesday amid the blowback.

The point of marketing is to influence people to get off Big Tech and get on Gab. In order to do that I need their attention.

*First Published: Jan 25, 2022, 1:37 pm CST

Go here to see the original:
Gab users are furious after its CEO announces partnership with notorious white nationalist - The Daily Dot

-OpEd-

PARIS The first bricks of the internet emerged in post-World War II California at the crossroads of a double ideology: military and libertarian, based on the virtues of decentralization. It was all about inventing a network infrastructure that was resilient to targeted attacks. It also allowed for individuals to be emancipated through a new set of capabilities, including in communication, interaction and learning, facilitated through a microcomputer.

The central authority a state or a server that overly centralized information and computing capacities are absent from this decentralized architecture. It guarantees individual freedom, freedom of creation and freedom of expression on the internet. The networking of individuals can also produce new collective dynamics. It is still this framework and these principles that underlie the production and consumption of popular services that the vast majority of us use.

However, for the last 15 years or so and with the advent of Web2, the digitization of social dynamics and their commoditization have made large social media platforms far less healthy. In a way, they are undermining the founding mission by drastically re-centralizing access and content.

Obviously, these companies provide many services to users: e-commerce, ad infinitum, ever more efficient services to find what we are looking for and even what we are not looking for , and entertainment to the point of saturation. But above all, they are increasingly watertight ecosystems, very widely monetizing personal data and stealing our attention in a way that makes us very dependent on these major players. And then, the announcement of Facebook and its metaverse. In no way should we be happy about this despite the promises of economic growth, investment and massive recruitment.

What has led the big digital service providers to hegemonic positions is largely due to their singular business model. It is often based on free access and its counterpart is an organization of exchanges that prioritizes intermediation and the platform. The network effects that are then produced are powerful attractors that reinforce any acquired position to the detriment of newcomers. Consumers lose freedom of choice between sites but gain a depth of content on these platforms.

However, all users today have preferences that can still be expressed through various sites. So, we don't (yet) connect virtually via the same platform we use to buy books and we don't look for a job where we entertain ourselves. Not yet. With the metaverse, it will be about connecting to an overlay that comes on top of the services and platforms we are used to. In this sense, we are talking about a meta-platform model, a platform of platforms where all interactions love, trade, food, professional, educational, etc could be aggregated in one place.

On the side of the private players, the battle rages for the spot of "winner takes all". Facebook is clearly a leader with the Meta rebranding, but Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple, to name a few, all have similar projects. As there is little chance that the avatars of metaverses will be interoperable or transportable, then as for the smartphone, users will evolve in one and only one universe: the one with the strongest network effect. Let's remember that this aggregation of behaviors, which remains unprecedented, comes with the promise of a formidable capture of personal data, including our most intimate information.

So is this a problem? In terms of digital sovereignty, the stakes are high. In terms of individual freedom, it is unprecedented if tomorrow a metaverse becomes dominant. In terms of the authority of the public and the state, it is a profound reimagining of this role, since monetary exchanges, education and work relations could be organized outside of official institutions. This hyper-centralization of exchanges is therefore the antithesis of the utopias of the internet pioneers, even if it corresponds in every way to libertarian principles: the disappearance of the state.

What are the alternatives? At this stage, we see two. First, we must urgently evaluate the stakes at play even if none of political leaders seem to grasp what they are. We must plead for the opening of these meta platforms. Now more than ever, the metaverse must be an open and transparent world, in its code and in its algorithm. It is therefore urgent that competition law moves in this direction.

Secondly, we must call for a re-decentralization of the web as advocated by one of the founding fathers, Tim Berners Lee, with his d-web initiative. A web3 is still possible, based on blockchain, cryptomarkets, NFTs and peer-to-peer exchanges. The initiatives are still fragmented and difficult to access for the general public. Nevertheless, this is an area we need to prioritize in order to guarantee sovereignty and individual liberties.

Raphal Suire is a professor in economics and innovation management at the IAE of Nantes University in France.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

See original here:
The Metaverse Will Make All That's Bad With The Internet Worse - Worldcrunch

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This well-known quote, popularly attributed to Einstein, remains relevant today.

Today, all Americans are coerced, embarrassed or otherwise influenced into one of two old political parties, which is absurd for a diverse nation of more than 330 million people. How many flavors of ice cream are there? How many brands of beer? Styles of vehicles? Music artists? A plethora of choices exists for every comfort or trivial pursuit, yet we seem to have accepted that only two political parties are sufficient to make decisions that affect all of us.

Whether out of fear or resigned to our situation, so many of us have voted for the lesser of two evils, each time hoping and praying for a different outcome. Regardless of which old party wins, we can all count on one thing: They are going to outspend the already agreed upon bloated budget.

According to Balance (www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent), Bush incurred $5.85 trillion, Obama $8.6 trillion and Trump $6.7 trillion of national debt. Youd think they would have to ask the peoples permission to incur debt. Every American now owes $89,700, and that number climbs every second (usdebtclock.org). Are you getting your moneys worth?

To make matters worse, we all have to work further into the year in order to (mostly) fill the ever-growing budget. According to the Tax Foundation, (taxfoundation.org/publications/tax-freedom-day), in 2017 the average American worker had to work until April 23 to pay for their pound of flesh to the government. In 2020, it was May 1. And who benefits from this runaway spending? The average American doesnt, but corporate donors and special interests continue to prosper.

What happens if you decide not to participate in this scheme by not paying your taxes? Asset forfeiture, paycheck forfeiture and jail time. Its forced labor to pay for forced indebtedness, historically known as peonage. Peonage, along with slavery and indentured servitude, was outlawed with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.

A solution does exist, and Alaska can lead the way. With open primaries and ranked choice voting in the 2022 election, Alaskans can vote without fear. We can vote for the person we want, not against a party we dont. No longer is it a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Neither political party has the right to enslave our children and grandchildren through their inability or lack of will to address the massive and growing national debt. Alaska needs a representative that wont trade away our future for federal payouts today. A representative who will work to break the cycle of cronyism in D.C. Dont hope and pray for a better outcome, demand one by breaking away from the old parties that perpetuate the problem. Its time Alaska. Chris Bye is a libertarian candidate for congress.

Chris Bye is a libertarian candidate for Congress.

Go here to see the original:
Break the cycle of failure and debt in 2022 - Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Morris

Its an issue that has long engaged my attention: Where do we draw the line between autonomy and subjugation, between when we should be left alone and when we must be made to conform for the common good?

I have strong libertarian instincts, so I have always argued for the minimum government necessary to protect us against threats to our lives and property. Otherwise, we should be free to pursue our own interests and flee our own demons. The laws should be few but well-defined, clearly explained and enforced equally against all offenders.

That viewpoint gives us an obvious place to draw the line: If my actions would harm only me, let it be. If they could harm others, a case can be made for government intervention.

But we can see a problem with that simple demarcation just by looking at Indiana traffic laws.

Prohibitions against driving under the influence are entirely justifiable because the drunken driver endangers everybody else on the road. Mandatory use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets should be on the other side of the line, since we only risk our own lives with noncompliance.

Indiana, alas, cannot handle the distinction. Seat belts are mandatory; motorcycle helmets are not. And the reason is not complicated: politics. Motorcycle riders have an active lobby. Car drivers do not.

That dilemma the implementation of necessary and understandable law complicated by political considerations has been brought into sharper focus by the COVID-19 pandemic and the response to it. We should now be thinking much more deeply about the relationship between governors and the governed.

Time and time and again, we have been misled about well, everything. Masks. Vaccinations. Social distancing. The chances of serious effects, hospitalizations, death.

It could be said that our politicians lied to us in a cynical attempt to curry favor with one group and demonize another, or merely to savor the sense of power the emergency gave them.

Or we could be less cynical and say we have succumbed to a mistaken idea of science. Starting with global warming alarmism, we were encouraged to view the science as settled truth instead of a trial-and-error search for the truth. Now, with the pandemic, we expect the scientific answers to always hold instead of being subject to change as more data emerge. The pairing of politics, which is about short-term answers to immediate concerns, and science was always a bad marriage; we should be beginning to understand just how dysfunctional it is.

In either case, we keep repeating the same mistakes. Given the low threat level to everyone except the elderly and those with underlying conditions, the economy should not have been shut down, and incalculable damage was done to a whole generation of children by closing their schools. Yet, with every wave of new-variant infections, there are those who call for those same responses, and too many who willing accept them.

As I write this, Novak Djokovic, the No. 1 tennis player in the world, has been kicked out of Australia and denied the opportunity to compete in that countrys Open tournament because he refused to get the Covid vaccine, despite the fact that he had suffered through the virus and thus had better immunity than the vaccine could give him.

They could have forbidden entry to the country in the first place, but they let him come and then jerked him around for 11 days before sending him on his way. Not for any valid medical reason but because, in the words of one analysis, he was seen as someone who could stir up anti-vaccine sentiments.

I feel for you, pal, I really do. A line was crossed here, but not by you.

Leo Morris, columnist for The Indiana Policy Review, is winner of the Hoosier Press Associations award for Best Editorial Writer. Morris, as opinion editor of the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, was named a finalist in editorial writing by the Pulitzer Prize committee. Contact him at [emailprotected]

Continue reading here:
Leo Morris: COVID and the Djokovic Line - Greenfield Daily Reporter

Sir Julian Brazier is a former Defence Minister, and was MP for Canterbury from 1987-2017.

In the background to the unhappy struggles in the Conservative Party today is a philosophical clash in which the voices of libertarians are loudest. While (mostly) still supporting the man, their accusation is that the Johnson government has abandoned liberty.

These voices call for much that traditional small c conservatives should agree with a smaller state, lower taxes, less regulation but their message carries at its heart a deeply unhelpful strand which would be bad for the country, and calamitous for the Partys prospects of staying in power.

Our most important domestic challenge today is reining back public expenditure so we can lower taxes on struggling families. Government spending is the highest proportion of GDP since the aftermath of the Second World War.

Where I part company from my libertarian friends is that I believe it is time we acknowledged that one of the hidden drivers of runaway public spending is libertarianism itself and its left-wing cousin, the human rights lobby. Both stress freedom and gloss over the responsibilities and consequences which should come with it.

John Stuart Mill formulated the paradox of hedonism: those only are happy who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness.

Similarly, the paradox of liberty is that we can only attain true freedom and a smaller state, if we focus not on selfish individualism but instead on nurturing and rebuilding those natural structures and attitudes which reduce the need for the services of the state. This requires active citizens, robust families, stronger communities and a sense of nationhood. These were themes of the late, great, Sir Roger Scruton.

One of his favourite examples were the American laws which allowed people, in most places, to build freely where they wanted, but then required the American taxpayer to expend huge sums taking roads and power to them. This has created a nightmare of ever-expanding suburbs with social black holes in town centres and heavy government spending.

More broadly, he attacked the growing wish for extending freedoms without accepting any corresponding responsibilities, even crucially where there are heavy costs to the taxpayer and wider community (including later generations).

There is a parallel with Britains NHS. The cost of NHS and social care has exploded to the point where some are claiming Britain is becoming a health and social care system with a country attached. The Party is buzzing with ideas for reform of the NHS and social care from pruning expensive bureaucrats and tackling GP contracts, to moving towards an insurance-based system. Yet there is one way we could reduce NHS spending dramatically and improve productivity in the economy: by persuading millions of obese people to lose weight and the nation to become fitter.

Scandinavian countries adopted a wide range of contrasting approaches to Covid but, with their much fitter populations, all suffered far lower rates of Covid deaths, and lower pressures on their health systems. Indeed, the Swedish approach was never an option here because our large population of obese people would have brought the NHS down.

The impact of Britains obesity, the worst in Europe (apart from Malta), goes far beyond Covid. A range of illnesses from cardiovascular conditions to arthritis to diabetes are made both more likely and more dangerous by obesity and also drive up the cost of the NHS.

Yet libertarians oppose measures to incentivise fitness, from sugar taxes to public health campaigns (what they call the Nanny State). Meanwhile the human rights lobby screams against fat-shaming even in professions (such as the Army and the Police) where fitness is self-evidently important.

So, yes to lower taxation in general. But yes also to taxes targeting unhealthy foods and to tax breaks for gym subscriptions.

A parallel example is opposition to so-called Covid passports. Most of the Covid deaths, for some time now, have been among the unvaccinated. All Conservatives should wish to raise restrictions as quickly as possible. Indeed, the noisy lobby calling until recently for the re-imposition of Covid restrictions was mostly on the Left, but the circumstances which have underpinned their case the existence of large numbers who refuse to vaccinate and get sick is ignored by libertarians and the human rights lobby.

By contrast, millions of Britons saw nothing wrong with those who choose to be refuseniks paying some price (in terms of minor inconvenience) for their potential impact on the NHS. Even as we manage to ease out of the last parts of lockdown, protecting the short-term liberties of the refusenik minority has consequences, not just for public spending, but also for many who have other life-threatening conditions over which unlike the refuseniks they have no choice. Sick refuseniks are occupying beds desperately needed by other sick people.

A broader example is attitude to the family. Individualists on left and right campaigned successfully a generation ago for the virtual end to restrictions on divorce and the end of allocation of fault as a factor in child custody and the division of assets.

Today, attempts to reinforce traditional families are bitterly opposed by many the same people. Iain Duncan-Smiths radical reforms on social welfare reintroduced incentives to work, but he was consistently blocked in trying to remove disincentives for traditional families to stay together.

Yet the result of the decline of the traditional family is not just growing misery among children, with mental health, suicide, self-harm and drug-taking all on the rise and mostly higher than other European countries. It is also extremely expensive for the taxpayer as social security spending and the requirement for police officers, social workers, prison officers and childrens mental health staff grows. Studies consistently show that stable two parent families offer on average the best outcomes for children and family breakdown has an immediate cost to the benefit system.

If the state can encourage responsible personal choices and the rebuilding of those Burkean structures, from the family to the community to a sense of shared nationhood, expenditure can fall as the use of the safety net declines. If, on the other hand, choices which lead to mounting bills for the taxpayer are protected on the basis that We are not a country which asks to see papers, the size of the state will expand as the safety net gets more and more crowded.

Scruton once commented When government creates an unaccountable class it exceeds its remit, by undermining the relation on which its own legitimacy depends. In courser terms, people hate a freeloaders charter; rights should be balanced by responsibilities.

Boris Johnson led us out of the European Union. The next moves we take should seek to re-establish that balance. So, yes to reducing regulation (such as the Clinical Trials Directive which destroyed East Kents biggest employer). Yes to making strategic choices to cut public spending and taxation (a smaller university sector, an end to the triple lock for pensions?). Yes to forging new global trade and wider partnerships.

But lets have an end to the suggestion by so many of the Prime Ministers critics that a combination of offering freedom, alongside state-funded protection from the consequences, will capture the hearts of the British people.

Read this article:
Julian Brazier: Meet a hidden driver of a bigger state, higher taxes and more regulation the libertarian movement - ConservativeHome