Reversing the burden of censorship

Free speech is necessary for survival, not just nice to have

Mark Devlin Youtube Censorship

A few weeks ago I did an interview with Mark Devlin, which he posted to his YouTube channel. This has now been censored. You can still watch it on BitChute.

Not only was the interview taken down, but Mark was punished for talking to me by having his whole channel cancelled:

Youtube community guidelines email to Mark Devlin

Mark is an honest and outspoken man who helps people to understand the depth of corruption in the Satanic music industry. While he may have expected to lose his audience and back catalogue at some point, this kind of attack has a real impact on the personal life of people like Mark and myself. We are being targeted by a Bolshevik mafia not known for its clemency to dissidents, and that’s unpleasant. It harms not only our ability to be heard, but also to feed our families by promoting our paid products.

I have also been singled out for smearing and deplatforming. There is this Vice article that falsely identifies “QAnon” (whatever that is) with the death of children. Always accuse others of that which you are guilty…

Vice article on radicalized QAnon surfer

Family and friends read this kind of article, and then disassociate themselves from those (like myself) who investigate paedophile culture and its corruption of the media industry. This kind of denigration is cruel and wicked, and no doubt their day of judgement will come. The real issue is the comment that follows it:

Martin Geddes book comment

I don’t care about mean words about my writing, but this is flat out libel. It associates me with a child killer. It’s also based on an absolute falsehood. I have nothing against Mr Icke, but I have never met the man, never attended any of his events, not read any of his “conspiracy” books, and only watched a little of him being interviewed. To the best of my recollection I have never once written or spoken about serpent DNA!

Not only that, he is engaged in tortious interference with a business contract to publish an audiobook. Calling for the banning of books which break no laws is an actionable harm. Falsely “reporting” them in order to pressure publishers to suppress ideas which one person dislikes is dishonourable. My book calls out the Coronagate scam and scandal, and as such potentially saves lives: it is a noble endeavour.

In a just world Mr Geiss would face a lawsuit and serious personal losses for his infraction. He knows that people like me lack the resources, and anyhow we face a corrupt court system that is complicit in these horrors. It would be a poor use of my energies to make an example of a coward who will anyhow be eternally shamed for his support for crimes against humanity.

I don’t normally flatter trolls with attention, but in this case I felt I was being given a gift instead — of an example worth sharing and some resulting insight. It will soon enough be clear to all that living by lies takes us down a path of tyranny, enslavement, and death. These institutions that promote lies, and the scumbags who enable them, will meet justice. The question then is how to rebuild our culture and society so that we don’t have a recurrence.

The thought that this attack provokes is that we need an “anti-Satanic” media culture. The Satanists like to invert everything, and pervert all that is good. In the present environment platforms like YouTube and Twitter are free to set their own “content guidelines” and then police them as judge, jury, and executioner. The underlying assumption is that platforms are good, and some content is bad and needs removing.

This too needs to invert: the default should be that platforms are powerful, and individuals are relatively powerless. Power corrupts: all acts of censorship should be presumed to be facilitating war crimes and crimes against humanity, until proven otherwise. Rather than facing the lowest level of scrutiny and regulation, content removal processes should face the very highest. Instead of opaque “corporate [in]justice” behind closed doors, communities need to police themselves in the open.

Focusing on lawful content only (as removal of unlawful content is a separate matter), these specific changes are needed:

  • Platforms need to treat all people and content equally — essentially an extension of common carriage thought as “common compute”
  • Platforms have their own free speech right, but that is fully exhausted by setting the policy boundaries of relevance to their mission. (“Knitting Weekly” can remove forum discussions about military hardware, for instance.)
  • Platforms must “say what they do and do what they say” with all internal guidelines published
  • Rules that target any form of dissenting speech should be outlawed (so even Knitting Weekly cannot outlaw “hate speech” against crocheting)
  • All content filtering and sorting algorithms must be published together with configuration data
  • The abuse of generic terms like “harassment” (of nebulous victims) must be ended by having a specific complainant demonstrating a harm or loss
  • Ideas can never suffer hurt or loss, only people, and must not be given specific protection
  • The default should be to assume that reports against content are politically or personally motivated
  • The removal of content requires separation of powers (which may be delegated into the community itself) and due process
  • All removed content must have a reason that identifies the specific rule infringement and locates the infringing content within it
  • The author must be given reasonable opportunity to remedy any rule breach before removal
  • Full transparency and reporting must be in place on the key metrics of any system of content removal
  • The false reporting of content in order to get it removed should be a crime
  • All platform liability protections are void in the event of significant and sustained abuse
  • Libel laws need to be rethought to cater for the “wrap-up smear”, which should be treated as “reputational racketeering”

We need to see “virtual violence” as being on par with physical violence. The public has already been through a “digital Kristallnacht” with a prolonged pogrom against patriots and our free speech. Too many virtual store windows have been smashed, our books and videos vaporised, and our livelihoods stripped away. If it wasn’t for my SubscribeStar supporters and a few generous patrons I would be in serious poverty by now from constant deplatforming.

That I am writing this article this moment, rather than getting my banned book republished (again), demonstrates the opportunity cost of our failure. My energies should be directed towards building a better world, not fighting those who wish to stand in the way of it happening. What this battle reminds me of is my days in the world of telecoms and the “net neutrality” debates.

I am a (lapsed) top class telecoms expert, and have written extensively on the false premise of “net neutrality”. Indeed, if you go to my website home page, there is a rather good paper on broadband markets vs rationing. My experience of the false morality of “neutrality” proponents is that they were anti-scientific hypocrites only seeking preferment in their liberal ideology. I was ostracised just for dissent against matters of network architecture and market regulation!

For all their piety on “neutrality” for packets, the tech industry intelligentsia has not lifted a finger to protect my works from removal or me from ruin. Nor have they objected to the same treatment being given out to millions of others like me. They have endorsed discrimination between people, and widespread destruction of creative works. From my perspective they are self-serving turncoats — worse even than the corrupt platforms that censor.

I seek no advantage or preferment from my efforts, but there is one final “flip” change required in how we approach censorship. Any future Internet bill of rights effort should be led by the victims of censorship. They are the ones who have the legitimacy to speak, the credibility of experience, and the track record of righteous behaviour. The current self-appointed Silicon Valley elite have to be stripped of all their policy power, as they have manifestly failed the public at the most profound level.