[ExI] pay to not play

[spike at rainier66.com]

…> On Behalf Of sjatkins via extropy-chat
Subject: Re: [ExI] pay to not play

 

>…Why would anyone have the right to pay to remove a post on Twitter or any large reach social media platform?  They would be paying to make that content not visible to everyone else on the platform that would otherwise have seen it.  This gives those with the deepest pockets the ability to limit what everyone else can know from use of that platform.  This gives the deepest pockets the effective ability to silence others on the platform.  Who has the deepest pockets of all?  Government.    

As far as the payment being for squelching the content for a limited time this would not make it better if the squelched content had time sensitive value.  For instance squelching the Hunter Biden laptop story until just after the election where the content might be germane for what most people consider an important decision would not make it ok that it wasn't squelched forever. 

 

-samantha

 

 

 

All of these are perfectly valid questions and observations Samantha.  It doesn’t surprise me that you have thought this all through.

 

Why would anyone have the right to pay to remove a post on Twitter, she asked.  Eh, it isn’t so much a right as it is a pathway to make things happen.  Given enough money, one can do things they have no legal, ethical or moral right to do.  Read on please.

 

In our times, it has become more clear: the monetary value of government (in dollars.)  The internet has opened vast new opportunities to profit from influencing government.  That abandoned laptop as a perfect example of a story that is worth untold billions of dollars: one side wants it told and will pay dearly to make that happen, another side will pay still more billions to cover it up.

 

We can get into all kinds of fun legal logic loops with this one.  For instance…

 

Hunter Biden filled out an FBI form to get a license to buy a gun, form F4473.  Lying on that form is a felony.  On Hunter Biden’s F4473, signed under penalty of prison (it is legally an affidavit (lying on that is perjury (a felony))) Hunter said he was not doing drugs, signed it, got his firearm.  That image of his F4473 is getting harder to find on the internet, but it can still be found.  So.  We know that Hunter was not doing drugs, in accordance with his own legal testimony.  

 

However… some of the content of that laptop leaked, such as a short video of Hunter with a gun in one hand, a crack pipe in his mouth.  So… the content of that laptop with that video must be covered, otherwise the FBI cannot enforce F4473 or the other legalities surrounding purchase of a firearm, for they would implicate themselves.  They had the laptop, they saw the indications that perhaps Hunter was doing drugs and lied on an F4473 and they helped cover that up.  Or… they could maintain that he didn’t buy a gun, or they could maintain that he didn’t smoke crack.  To do all this requires that laptop stay secret.  Allowing that laptop to be public would undo decades of legalities surrounding gun ownership, which is not in the best interest of the FBI.

 

Conclusion: that laptop is worth billions of dollars.  An inherent conflict exists.  There hasta be money to be made here, lots of it.  Somehow.  To quote a famous politician “I want that money.”  Good chance a shot at some of that profit involves Twitter.

 

Fun aside: the critical F4473 is now mostly behind paywalls, but that too reinforces my overall theme that government has been monetized in our times.  It is not at all clear to me how government can be demonetized at this point.  My further overall contention is that this presents enormous potential for profit.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20221204/bfa29b6b/attachment.htm>