The Internet Censorship Machine, And It’s Gatekeepers.
There are now Gatekeepers to Free Speech.
In order for your speech to be heard you must adhere to certain guidelines, you must follow certain rules of conformity and “proper” social behaviour. Your speech must first be deemed as Suitable or Non-Offensive to others. In many cases you must first get Permission in order to vocalise your thoughts to the public, and then could be delegated to a far away place, more often than not, out of the reach of the public, Free Speech Zones.
Internet platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc were all at one time an avenue used for Free Speech.
The ability to post, broadcast a thought, a concept, a belief, to millions was a wonderful development in bringing the world closer. We were able to see how others lived from parts of the world we had only seen in books. We were exposed to different, and at times radical opinions and thoughts, some of which were uncomfortable, and some thought provoking, challenging our own belief system. This development bypassed the stodgy old gatekeepers — newspaper editors, television programmers and other establishment types — and let people reach others directly. Though it seems we might have come full circle.
Freedom of Speech is a Right, not a privilege. The internet did not change that, it just increased its reach.
Censorship or Gatekeepers ?
Governments have turned these Social Media sites into Gatekeepers. They, the Governments, deem what is appropriate, and in turn demand that the Social Media giants enforce it, going as far as to penalize these platforms with hefty fines if they allow something, a post, a video, etc to get through. The Government is the Censorship Machine and the Media Sites are the Gatekeepers, though not all by choice.
Alex Jones, whether you agree with him or not, used these sites for years, promoting his program, live streaming content to millions of viewers. Then all at once he was banned, from all.
Was it solely the decision of these sites? Or were they coerced by a much more powerful force?
If it were left up to the Companies they would make the decision on whether or not to ban certain content on how that content effected their business. If certain content turned away users, and in turn limited their user base which in turn would then reduce their income potential, they would take action on their own, and ban or censor certain content. This is very basic economics 101.
Do we truly need a minority of people to judge what is appropriate for the rest of us?
If so, how could we put it into the hands of people who rage war on other countries ? Not for moral reasons mind you, but for their friends.
The major catalyst of Governments forcing these social media sites to Censor or Ban certain sites or content was the spread of so called Fake News. However the main stream media is anything but neutral, they are professionals at putting out Fake News, and everyone knows they, just like any other consumer dependant company targets its product towards certain groups.
The decline of trust in mainstream Media has reached a critical mass.
Now you tell me, is this News you can trust?
Recent familiar headlines.
Der Spiegel says top journalist faked stories for years.
77 percent of Americans believe that traditional news media outlets report “fake news.”
A recent poll by Rasmussen Global found that 56 percent of respondents worldwide claimed the news “rarely” or “never” gives them a “neutral” account of world events.
Faith No More: America’s Trust in Mainstream Media Hits Rock Bottom.
Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
Keep in mind, and this is an important point, the most important point, all of these social media sites are FREE.
They are not offering people the opportunity to speak their minds and potentially reach thousands of viewers in which ever way they want, or to say whatever they want unobstructed. It is their site, their rules, and by using their service one must be expected to follow the rules and guidelines which they have established. It is quite clear, and to be honest quite fair.
These Social Media sites/platforms were not designed to support ones freedom of speech, it was not their purpose. They were not created with the concept of protecting peoples privacy or defending their rights of free speech in mind.
The same way in which a lighter was not designed to open beer bottles, even though many use it to do so.
These companies, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube have every right to Ban or Censor or Limit what can be said, shown, broadcasted on their sites. Users have no right to demand otherwise, it is a FREE SERVICE.
So here is the dilemma, if the Government decides, for all of us, what is to be censored, what is deemed as appropriate, what defines hate speech or what is fake news or not, and the Social Media Sites are forced to go along with the Governments dictates then what are we to do?
How can free speech survive ? How can a sole voice of opposition be heard?
Designed With A Purpose.
A leader in the world of Digital Communication Privacy and Security, and developer of Blockchain PKI Authentication, Crypviser GmbH is currently developing Crypviser Channels.
Crypviser Channels will allow anyone to host a channel of their own, monazite it as they see fit, broadcast it straight to their subscribers, without any censorship, and no platform based rules. No gatekeepers.
These channels are decentralized, and if the host of a channel prefers, anonymous. There is no central server hosting said channel, no single access point to block or shut down. There will be no possibility to Ban a channel, for Crypviser themselves will be unable to do so. In fact, even if the host of the channels chooses not to be anonymous, they remain anonymous to Crypviser. This is not by choice, this is by design. Just like the Crpyivser Secure Messenger, Crypviser has no information on its users, no names, no e-mail addresses, no mobile numbers. Designed for anonymity, privacy and security this process is to be implemented within the Crypviser Channels.
The subscribers of a Crypviser Channel could also be anonymous, unless the subscriber or host decides otherwise. A completly voluntary agreement between the host and its subscribers.
1.Whistleblowers, rightfully afraid of facing the wrath of tyrannical government’s will now be able to release, anonymously, sometimes damaging information straight to their subscribers, without any middle man involved.
2. People with an opposing opinion, or an opinion that has been deemed as inappropriate by a small minority of people can still reach out to others and get their voice heard.
3. A banned religious group within a geographical region will still be able to broadcast their sermons to followers around the world, or to view the sermons of others, anonymously if wished.
4. Companies looking for real private and secure video conferencing which implements true end to end encryption.
The possibilities are only limited by ones own imagination.
Straight From The Source
It’s been said that anybody can be a reporter, and with the technology built into smartphones and tablets it is possible to capture high quality video and audio. However getting that content out to the masses, in an unfiltered, non-manipulated, uncensored way is practically impossible today.
Gatekeepers such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and the Main Stream News, will filter out or ban any content that they, or those who have the power to shut them down, deem to be inaproriate or “Fake News.”
Crypvisers blockchain authentication model will protect the channel owners identity, not even Crypviser will be able to determine who is behind a specific channel.
It will be strictly up to the host of the channel to decide who can become a subscriber of their channel, or if any fees will be collected to become a subscriber. These fees could be handled through an anonymous form of payment such as cryptocurrency, or if the host prefers, it could be as simple as setting up a PayPal account. Again it is strictly up to the Host of the Channel to make these decisions, who they allow to subscribe, whether they choose a subscription model or sell ads on their channel, which type of ads, price of said ads, the possibilities are limitless.
As I stated earlier:
“These Social Media sites/platforms were not designed to support ones freedom of speech, it was not their purpose. They were not created with the concept of protecting peoples privacy or defending their rights of free speech in mind.”
Crypviser Channels are designed for a purpose. To protect peoples privacy and defend their rights to free speech.
Very soon, the way in which we receive our news, our entertainment, our information will be straight from the source, un-censored, un-manipulated, un-filtered the way the host/producer/owner of the source wants. If the content is of good quality, needed, wanted, it will succeed, if not it will go the way of the dinosaur.
This is a true Free Market solution to a true Government made problem.
Тhe New Standard of Security and Anonymity. Crypviser is the most private messaging app, as it is based on Blockchain…itunes.apple.com