Diamond and Silk on Social Media Censorship

Prominent conservative voices in social media, such as Diamond and Silk and Dan Bongino, have vociferously voiced outrage that Big Internet has banned them as being unsafe for the social media  community because of their outspoken ideological opinions. This parallels YouTube demonetizing many of Dennis Prager's popular Prager U videos because the conservative views expressed did not sync with the progressive views of their internet overlords. And Twitter is infamous for shadow banning conservatives, even Senator Ted Cruz, without recourse or equal application against outrageous leftist Twits.

Diamond and Silk, who gained fame through their vigorous defense of then Presidential candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, did not silently take this rough trade from Facebook. On Fox and Friends, Diamond and Silk postulated that Mark Zuckerberg needed to "[S]uck it up, buttercup" and accept diverse viewpoints and freedom of speech on its social network, just as the small Indiana pizzeria would be forced to cater a same-sex wedding despite their religious objections to the ceremony.




Alas, Diamond and Silk have a weak case in a court of law.  Without meandering into the details of RFRA and First Amendment religious liberty, same-sex marriage proponents could point to civil rights legislation which the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Harris claim a right to dignity for that class.  What protected class can Diamond and Silk rightfully claim against Facebook?

However, in the court of public opinion, Facebook engaging in ideological viewpoint discrimination could be a compelling case for action.  Does MySpace mean anything to Mark Zuckerberg?  That was a social media precursor to Facebook, but when it stopped being cool, it became ghost of itself and a dark web conduit.  Facebook is much bigger and is receiving congressional scrutiny.  Between viewpoint discrimination and revelations of data mining, shareholders should be concerned if Facebook were to become a fraction of its former self.

Facebook has ceased to be a mainly youth oriented site.  Adults may well chafe at having their lives data sold by the social media company.  But for motivated conservatives, this cyber censorship may well have this active demographic find alternatives to speak freely, like on GAB.

Is Hillary Clinton Just Technologically Challenged?

During Hillary Clinton's brief media appearance at the United Nations, President Obama's first Secretary of State claimed that the kerfluffle concerning Hillary's emails stemmed from the fact that she did not want to carry two smartphones to have two separate email accounts. 

Syncophants in the Lamestream Media, like MSNBC's Ed Schultz, sought to sympathize with Hillary's alibi by suggesting that older people are overwhelmed by technology.

The problem is that but a fortnight ago, Hillary Clinton admitted that she now  carries both an iPhone as well as a Blackberry.  So Special Ed's technologically challenged excuse both rings false as well as suggesting that the 67 year old Mrs, Clinton is not quite with it.

Hillary's assertion about not being able to have two email accounts on a smartphone seems silly to most Americans.  Of course, the matter is not the technological capability but control.  Personal emails on a work issued handset becomes the employer's property.  This is why many people dual fist cell phones. For federal functionaries, the standard was a secure phone provided by the government and an unsecure phone for personal emails. That is an inconvenient truth for Madam Secretary Clinton.

But how can Hillary plausibly posit being technologically challenged when the domain Clintonemail.com was established the day Mrs. Clinton's confirmation hearings for Secretary of State began in the Senate in 2009.  That sounds kind of suspicious for an official who is uncomfortable with technology.

As Mrs. Clinton questionably claimed that she had adhered to all controlling legal authority on preserving federal records, Hillary refused to surrender the server to an independent authority to vet the scrubbed email account as it contained emails from her and President Clinton.

While this press availability was meant to tamp down a scandal which was obscuring positive earned media for the Hillary 2016 proto-campaign. But the event may have multiplied the questions among ordinary Americans and intensified the political and legal pressures associated with Hillary emails.

h/t: Kevin Siers

A Cellular Call for Change

An important aspect of living in the Twenty-First Century is mobile communications.  Many have severed their ties to landlines.  People use the internet for e-mail, entertainment, information and productivity.  And cellular telephony allows people to take their pocket computers disguised as smartphones everywhere, with the expectation that the devices can be used ubiquitously.

Although the advances in electronics allow for incredible capabilities, the reliability is not perfect and seemingly every option of cellular providers has some disadvantages.


The American mobile telephone market has been dominated by a couple of corporate carnivores spawned from the breakup of Ma Bell in 1984.  Verizon Wireless (comprised of Baby Bells Bell Atlantic and NYNEX) and AT andT Inc (which started out as Southwestern Bell, but gobbled up Bell South, AT and T, Ameritech and Pacific Bell et ali).  



The nation’s third largest cellular telephony provider is Sprint, which started to deliver long distance as part of Southern Pacific (Railroad) Communications in 1978.  Sprint grew through successful  mergers with GTE and Nextel.  The last of the big four cellular companies is T-Mobile which is a holding company for Deutsche Telekom AG.  The US Department of Justice blocked a merger with AT and T in December 2011.  T-Mobile has acquired MetroPCS.  And  Now T-Mobile is in process of acquiring MetroPCS.  The Japanese Softbank owns the majority of Sprint and is looking to also aquire T-Mobile.  

This colorful corporate history of American cellular companies can offer a bit of perspective on the carriers.  Verizon’s and AT and T’s lineage stem from Ma Bell.  It is not coincidental that Lennie Bruce once likened communism to being like a big phone company, as an all powerful Leviathan is not known to be responsive to consumers or have competitive tendencies.  Sprint has cobbled together disparate technologies (CDMA, iDEN) and is trying harder but does not have the leverage to break out of the third place showing.  T-Mobile’s European parent may influence the GSM technology (the international standard technology) and it explains why T-Mobile was the first cellular company to try to stop subsidizing handsets which required a two year contract. 

To compound confusion on choosing cellular providers, there are Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) which are companies that do not own radio spectrum or wireless network infrastructure but still can provide service by piggybacking on other cellular network’s overcapacity. In the U.S., these are generally prepaid plans which offer more economical rates without some of the frills that customers locked in a contract have.  For example, Virgin Mobile (a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint) can offer a generous 1200 minutes a month for $45 with unlimited 3G data (and 2.5 GB full speed 4G data) and texting.  But a similar Sprint plan costs $20 more, but includes free nights and weekend voice minutes and unlimited data and texting.

It is unwise to think that there is only one answer for everyone on choosing a cellular provider.  Cost can throttle choice.  Coverage can vary widely.  People also use their phones differently.  The best advice is to know yourself and investigate thoroughly.


>


So many people are seduced into being locked into a carrier with the “New Every Two” mentality.  While wear and tear and technological improvements can make this replacement cycle appealing, the shiny new “toy” comes at a cost of another two year commitment and possible changes in contractual terms.  A couple of years ago, AT and T alienated iPhone owners by altering the “all you can eat” data plans.  New customers had a cap.  Some old AT and T iPhone customers  also complained that when they wanted to upgrade that their grandfathered unlimited data plans not convey.  

One other calculus which consumers need to consider is convergence.  Cellular technology can act as a phone, a credible camera, a GPS system, a reading device, a mobile computer etc.  When calling for a cellular change, the savvy consumer will explore how his chosen plan and his handset can take advantage of convergence.  For example a usable hot spot capability can connect a laptop or a tablet making a separate device a redundant expense. 

Verizon has the best voice and data networks, but you pay a premium for that privilege and it is notorious for extras (e.g. texting and data tiers) and some hard nosed business practices.   AT and T used to have an I-Phone monopoly which has ended, but they brag that they have the largest 4G network (though AT and T is storied for complaints about coverage).   The big two’s data advantage might increase as they have leverage over low band WiFi. 

T- Mobile used to be know for their calling circle promotion.  Now they want to be considered the Simple Choice, which is an option to stop subsidizing phones in return no contracts and lower monthly costs.  But their network is spotty outside of major metropolitan areas.  Perhaps the MetroPCS will increase their network’s footprint.   

Even though Sprint completed its acquisition of Clearwire (which provided their 4G WiMax data), Sprint has declared that it will fully convert to the US standard of 4G LTE.  Which means that even the best cared old Sprint handset will need to be replaced to get 4G coverage.  But Sprint has been slow in rolling out the LTE by not making promised deadlines.

Personally, my household has been a contract customer with several of the big four cellular carriers, but we dote on the terms of the contract and will not take the phone upgrade temptation track.  As the market has changed, I am developing an openness to pre-paid models that have lower monthly costs but lack the subsidized phone.  Recently,  I was almost ready to switch, but I noticed that my chosen MVNO had a limited selection of phones which had LTE capability.   While I was willing to wait for LTE to officially arrive shortly in the District of Calamity (sic), the limited phone choice prompted me to investigate further.  

It was a good thing that I studied the details, as the only LTE phone did not provide a hotspot option, which was a deal breaker for me.  I was willing to pay $15 a month for a Hot Spot with 2.5 GB full 4G LTE, as I could drop a NetZero low capacity Hot Spot and get better service.   This plan has not been ruled out but tabled for better choices.

In the cellular industry, things can change pretty quickly.  It may be that Amazon puts out a Kindle Phone in which Amazon acts as a MVNO.  Like the Kindle, Amazon may sell their devices at near cost and bank on the ease of future purchases through Amazon to pull out the profitability.  This option is appealing as Amazon’s customer service has been top rate (unlike certain phone companies) and my prior Kindle ownerships have hooked me into their system.  But opting for Amazon would still require scrutinizing the calling plans and handsets and correlating  hem to my household’s needs. 

Choice is great but it can be confusing and requires some sacrifices.  Then again, there’s always  the  Obama phone.  

But Lifeline program is rife with abuse and Congress is considering cutting back on the program, which has tripled in size since 2009 to cost $2.2 Billion per year.   Considering President Obama’s troubles with surreptitiously seizing phone records of scores of Associated Press employees, cutting back on the Obama phones might be prudent.

Appreciating Apple Attitudes

Apple engenders an almost fanatical level of loyalty from its consumers.   ATT solidified its market position as a strong second in the US cell phone market by being the exclusive of the iPhone for years when it first came out.  But now, nearly every cellular carrier, including MVNOs like Virgin Mobile and Ting can offer their customers the iPhone without the iron clad two year contract, albeit without a handset subsidy. 

Admittedly, I have never owned an Apple product.  Not because I am a technological Luddite, but because I refuse to pay the stupid tax.

Since Apple is a vertically integrated company, meaning that they control the design and manufacturing of phones, the marketing of the handsets as well as vet any software on their devices, everything goes through Cupertino. So one pays a premium for an Apple device, the software tends to be more expensive (because it is programmed in house or needs to be customized for Apple).  Nearly all computer peripherals needed come from Cupertino.  Apple wants to care for its own products (with so called geniuses) with exclusive (and more costly) insurance and care programs.  In addition, they wanted to corner the market on media, by forcing media purchases through I-Tunes which used to lock it with DRM.  Now it just makes it extremely inconvenient to take it out of i-Tunes.  

Apple is also  currently engaged in an anti-trust trial for conspiring with five major publishers to raise the prices of e-books and undercut Amazon.    For these reasons, I consider Apple ownership as people paying the stupid tax, however I appreciate that 18% of the cell phone market will willingly pay this premium for Apple's i-Phones because of  the perception that "it just works" at practically any price.

This vertical integration allows Apple to have a uniform user experience.  So the home screens on every i-Phone will be the same.  Steve Jobs had animus against Adobe and refused to let Flash Video on Apple devices. There may have been principled reasons about battery life which inspired Job's vendetta, but Walter Issacson's biography of Steve Jobs intimates that Jobs had sour grapes about Adobe after Adobe favored Windows based video editing products.  These design decisions  may have ensured the walled garden stability of the i-Phone but this forced i-Phone users to either jail break their phones or forgo many websites that use embedded Flash video. Now the internet imbroglio is a Flash in the pan as the internet has moved away from Flash video. 

Indubitably, Apple produces or popularizes innovative products. The GUI interface was iconic (sic) in inspiring other O/S's (such as Windows). Apple may not have invented the i-Pod, but it became widespread through their product.  The i-Phone spread like wildfire amongst tech types because it was a stylish smartphone.  The SIRI interface took consumers closer to having a cyber personal assistant. But other companies have caught up and offer more economical choices with more real world flexibility than Apple offers (like replacing batteries, adding SD memory, accessing internet sites, not being forced to  buy into i-Tunes, etc..). 

It is an interesting phenomenon that those in the Apple cult not only look down upon those who refuse to join the Apple cult but they also savagely turn on Apple enthusiasts who do not have the latest and "greatest" products.

N.B.- This is a satirical advertisement

And woe be people who those who do not buy into the Book of Jobs. 




While  the parody video is a reductio ad absurdum, it typifies the mindset of many in the Apple cult, who can not appreciate that what works for them may not be alright for others.  This device devotion to the i-Phone despite better alternatives was satirized in certain scatalogical satirical videos.

Of course, the Occupy Movement activists  in 2011 exhibited quite a rarified mindset as these grungry, unlawful protesters who identified with the 98% railing against capitalism sported shiny expensive new i-Pads and i-Phones. 


Although Apple is a quintessentially liberal company, the powers that be in the District of Calamity (sic) gave unwarranted condemnation to Apple for  legally minimized its taxes on non-US earnings by consolidating the funds in an Irish tax haven.  It is a lamentable paradox that a taxpayer who is following the law is condemned by liberals enough, even though they were in legal compliance.  While I choose not to pay the stupid tax by buying walled garden cellular or computing technology for a premium, I am troubled by attempts to pressure Cupertino with the power of government for not paying a stupid tax of an ambiguous "their fair share"  by a Leviathan government led by showboating liberal Senate Democrats. 



Even if we use Android, Blackberry or Windows products, it would serve well for consumers and citizens to "Think Different" and  be the rebels against conforming to "Big Brother" as was intimated in the iconic Apple 1984 MacIntosh Superbowl ad.




h/t:  thejoyoftech