On liberty and being a good neighbour

fox_saplings

Liberty is a two-way process that exists in a state between order and chaos where everything can move, change and grow.  When liberty is nurtured and embraced, magical outcomes are possible like this sleeping fox in my garden along with my 13 growing tree saplings.  In reaching a position I have to find the natural line or harmony between too much order and too much anarchy in which everyone and everything prospers.

I am a CEO of a private company, and I am personally opposed towards too much interference by government in my business processes or projects.  I am against regulation of AI development, and I am unhappy about the UK Labour party proposals to force 250+ employee businesses to give a stake in the companies to their employees.

However, I am happy for government to regulate content on social media companies. Yet, I accept the right of a company such as Google to close the social media accounts of the Syrian government, even if these actions look like dubious acts of censorship.

My positions are based upon my love of liberty.  The private individual and private business have a liberty to be free of regulation from government apart from what is basic and essential such as paying tax, unless the activities of individual and business is causing others to lose their liberty.  I argue that liberty is a two-way process, so that if one side denies liberty to another, then all has lost that liberty.  When Elon Musk for instance accuses an innocent man of being a paedophile, he has undermined a liberty to both the innocent man, himself, and society.

In the Hampstead SRA Hoax case the medical reports of two children who were medically examined as part of an investigation into sex abuse is being posted all over the internet with their names and faces by vigilantes, which denies them their liberties of privacy and anonymity.  The internet companies either refuse or are unable to remove this abusive content from their platforms, so everyone has lost their liberties because internet companies failed to uphold the liberties of those children.  This causes me to call upon government to uphold the liberties of the innocent and regulate social media companies such as Twitter by making them accountable for the content they have been asked to remove from their platforms.

Every individual and business could see liberty as a two-way process rather than as a final state, one that is lost the moment one side denies that liberty to another.  It is about being a good neighbour to each other in choice and deed that I see how the liberties for everyone is upheld.  As an individual for instance, I am a good neighbour to birds by providing water to them during the drought, and a good neighbour to those who live next door by removing a overgrowing vegetation that troubled them.

As a CEO, I have to remind myself that my business is anchored in community and society, that what I and my business does either harms or benefits others.  I place emphasis on the meaning, legacy and impact I have upon this world through my business processes, choices and products.  As longs as what I do is being a good neighbour to community and society, I demand that my business enjoys liberty of having as little interference from government as possible. Making money is the primary goal of my business, but being a good neighbour runs a close second.

If Twitter wants to delete my personal account with them, I will be annoyed, but I will not whine about it, they are a private business, its their platform, their rules, they can do as they like.  If I had some paid contract with them, and Twitter failed to deliver their end of the deal, it would be a contract dispute, and I would take Twitter to court.  However, if Twitter is failing to remove abusive images from the platform that is hurting children when asked to do so, they are denying liberties to innocent vulnerable individuals of my community and of society, and I will want Twitter held accountable and regulated by government because they wiped out a liberty for everyone.

Advertisements

On so-called censorship by Google

crybabyona

Those that play the victim card over Google censorship or being fired ignore that this is a business designed for profit, not altruism or charity. 

Google is a business, its principle income comes from advertisers.  Google is no charity, nor is it altruistic, people host or link their content with Google “free” on the basis that Google can use it and make money from it via advertising.  Like all businesses Google has a reputation and a profit to maintain, and reacts if advertisers or governments threaten to take actions that impacts its business.  Those that post fake news, or abuse the system, which ultimately impacts the Google business should be unsurprised that they are getting their content impacted by Google services.

 

Earlier this year a Satan Hunter who had a large following on his YouTube channel made hundreds of dollars of profit from advertising by posting fictions, images and personal details of abused children in Hampstead London.  This was one of the individuals who saw his monthly healthy revenue collapse to zero on his YouTube channel as a result of changes in Google advertising strategies.

Those making the most noise are people with opinions on different sides of the political spectrum who suddenly lost their income from advertising.  If I was an advertiser, I would be reluctant to have my brand associated with any political, religious or social tribal content.  It makes sense to reward and associate advertising with useful content that benefits people such as gardening or how to run a successful business.  Every person and their dog has an opinion, and most opinion is low quality, hateful crap that the internet drowns in.

In my view Google is moving in the right direction of working on quality content and eliminating the junk.

Those that play the victim card because they were fired from an entity funded by Google who they viciously criticised, reality-check, its business, this is how it works.  How dumb to expect the one that feeds them to continue to support them when they are punching it in the face.

I am highly hostile to Google, but I am even more hostile towards those pitiful self-entitled creatures playing their victim card over censorship and being fired by a business that they think must be altruistic and supportive of their worthless opinions.

Satanism and censorship

Sometimes censorship is desirable.

Sometimes censorship is desirable.

As Satanists many of us are already aware that good and evil is subjective, yet many continue to be caught by this delusion in areas such as censorship.  Censorship is a tool, like my knife, it is how censorship is used that makes it either a tool of tyranny or one that is constructive.  My knife can be used to slice cheese or kill someone.  Censorship such as Akismet on this blog censors spam, but the censorship of President Obama against whistle blowers who reveal corrupt practices in his government is a harmful form of censorship.

I hope people can get away from the notion that censorship is evil in all cases.  Censorship is a way of placing boundaries that filter out harmful elements, such as a firewall and virus software protects my computer from viruses.  I have no desire to let random strangers into my home, access to my bank account or steal one of my kidneys.  I have boundaries to protect my life from undesirable outcomes, which is a form of censorship.

On this blog I do censor comments. I have deleted comments that are spam, off-topic, retarded, racist and personally abusive.  This blog is my personal space, and I will with maximum prejudice have authority over my personal spaces in life.  I have had angry commentators tell me I am evil for censoring their abusive comments, but then I point out to them censorship is a tool, and their claims of authority to be able to write whatever they like wherever they like is a delusion.