‘It’s the best we currently have’

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard exactly this argument, when complaining about the obvious, overt, outrageous levels of censorship present on Twitter at the moment. But that argument itself is half the problem.

---

As I explained a while back, what happened back when Mr-Free-Speech (in Brazil) took over Twitter, was that the growth of alternative platforms like Gab, Gettr and Telegram collapsed. Elon’s bid quite literally stopped credible alternatives from taking off - and that was the express purpose of it all. Well, one of them, anyway, because he also went on to train Grok, the most left-wing AI of a rancid lot, using tweets courtesy obviously of those returned.

Elon Musk's Free Speech (in Brazil)

And we’re now in a situation, where people expressing ‘acceptable opinion’ is offered a carrot on a stick through monetisation (but you better tow the line, and please forward your private information to a 3rd party outside American jurisdiction), while everyone harbouring wrongthink opinion sees his (or her) impressions severely curtailed.

I cannot support the utter fraudulent business practices on display on Twitter. It’s not as bad as Twitter 1.0 - it’s far, far worse. What they do - through the offering of this carrot on a stick - is to in effect roll out a social credit system, where those with a ‘correct’ opinion is boosted and even financially rewarded - while those tweets expressing wrongthink opinion are carefully monitored and controlled.

The sheer quantity of statistical absurdity on display is quite simply breathtaking. The absurd, mechanical likes-to-RT ratios (commonly 2:1), likes-to-views ratios relating to big account retweets (frequently 1.5:1000), the obvious bot-impression redirections leading to a total collapse in interaction just as tweets appear on the cusp of taking off; the absurd front-loaded likes and retweets, where you see rapid growth in both only to experience a total collapse for the remaining 70% of alleged impressions (below is just one example of many), clearly mathematically impossible and thus suggestive of impressions being routed to bots. These all outline statistical impossibilities, and I personally observe these all the time. It was easier for me to gain traction when I had 500 followers than with more than 9,000 at present. There is absolutely nothing legit about the platform - at all. It’s a scam, through and through. But by staying on the platform, alternatives will not come about.

Back when I was… foolish enough to pay for the privilege of being censored (ie ‘blue tick’), I made sure to gather as many stats as I could. And though those of value were progressively eliminated, what took place is fairly conclusive from the below. As my follower count increased, they reduced per-follower visibility, magically ensuring I would never hit the 5m threshold required for monetisation (never the intent either way). And this was no accident. I heard many complain of same.

I also experienced very, very odd… almost flushing of followers only recently. Within an hour, my follower count dropped from around 9,330 to 9,300 exactly - yet on the following day I gained some 100 new followers - where not a single commented, ‘liked’, or retweeted even a single tweet of mine. And most of these new followers were absolutely tiny, say, 20-50 followers on average leading me to speculate that what they actually did was replace legit followes with bots.

Back in January, I posted a long tweet on the ‘Grand Plan’, a detailed description of what’s unfolding at this very minute. And it’s been the recurring source of stats gathering from my perspective, because though ‘likes’ and ‘retweets’ have continuously declined, my favourite views-per-retweet indicator suggest with 280,000 served impressions from 1,325 retweets (of which many were from large accounts with 100k+ followers) a ratio around the 210 impressions-per-retweet mark - which is very low compared to tweets with similar traction. But the RT count was actually considerably above 1,400, and with several hundred replies which should similarly have led to impressions, meaning an even lower ratio. Furthermore, all those replies would see all my ‘likes’ removed time and time again to the extent I finally stopped caring, as I heard similar stories out of fellow wrongthink posters.

The Grand Plan

Only a week back I saw a tweet so obviously boosted to a such extreme extent that it infuriated me beyond belief, quickly shooting past 200… 300… 500… 1,000 impressions per retweet. It spoke of re-establishing a political system which led to continuous bloodshed and gross abuse of power during the middle-ages in Europe, and the obviosuly fake pied piper account had previously spoken of the dangers of a free press - though they, obviously, were very careful in their selection of language, because f- being honest. In other words - Twitter is now actively working to boost messages, which through being carefully omissive and cherry picking history records convey recommendations absolutely, positively not in your interest. There’s a reason Europe cast off the shackles of that particular politicial system - yet that pied piper account refused to divulge said detail - and Twitter boosted the pied piper message, unquestioned.

Subsidiarity

And only a few hours ago, everyone’s favourite pathological liar Angela Rayner - the Fabian Socialist that she is, a full society packed full of psychotic, manipulative pathological liars - decided to override local councils and seize control over a construction project in Kent, UK. Now, I would here like to remind you that Labour have banged the drum of ‘decentralisation’ and ‘subsidiarity’ for years, ever since Tony Blair’s Third Way. What Blair, etc, failed to tell you was that this ‘decentralisation’ can be overridden from top down - which is explicitly what Rayner has just done¹.

In other words - subsidiarity is not about decentralisation, but rather the express opposite, and the pied piper account lied to you.

The Third Way.

The Fabian Society's Keir Starmer

---

When twitter in late 2023 announced that small accounts should ‘gain more visibility’, and that large accounts ‘receive too much’², I somewhat facetiously suggested this would result in the suppression of medium sized accounts, by fractionally reducing large account impression rates, whilst collapsing impression counts of those medium sized accounts, starting to become… bothersome.

And though only half-joking at the time, that has absolutely been my experience ever since. The tweets I’m regularly served are either courtesy of large accounts, delivering messages which - in the unlikely event I even care - see hundreds of replies almost immediately, thus rendering replying irrelevant as they won’t be seen either way. Yet, tiny accounts with whom I have never communicated nor even heard of are always present in my feed. In other words, the ‘retargeted impression’ scam I observe I predict working somewhat like this -

Because virtually all posters with whom I share interests, often debate, or have only just had a longer, agreeable discussion with - are absolutely nowhere to be seen; rather, they’re replaced by some follow’s retweet about observed rain patterns in Patagonia, or the cost of milk in Bulgaria. And sure, I’m not dissing those retweets, or those who retweeted - but this serves as yet another example of Twitter intentionally boosting tweets which it has determined I will have absolutely no interest in commenting on. In my last effort to change this dynamic I heavily trimmed my follows, eliminating virtually all large accounts in the process. And you know what happened as a result? That ‘the algorithm’ started to promote remaining follows’ retweets of those same accounts I had just removed. There is absolutely no way this isn’t intentional. The ‘algorithm’ is absolutely, positively written in the most destructive manner possible, deliberately targeting those of wrongthink opinion. And this makes complete sense - because large accounts are commonly only large (and thus, monetised) because they’ve expressed a ‘correct’ line of thinking or willingness to play ball, while the actual accounts considered problematic are those growing organically, conveying messages outside the Overton Window. And those would thus logically be the accounts targeted, and the aplied solution could well be to redirect their share of impressions to tiny accounts, whilst publicly claiming to ‘deboost the large accounts’ (ever so fractionally) - and thus, leaving a feed chock full of irrelevant tweets posted by large and tiny accounts, should you operate outside the frame of acceptable opinion.

Of course, Musk recently reappeared on Rogan where he revealed he’s a top-20 Diablo 4 player, a game daily played by 400,000, which thus reveals a major investment of time as competition in these online games is intense. And given that he clearly also spends half his day posting on Twitter, I find it just a little hard to believe that he’s also the CEO of 4 companies, and actively involved in the running of a number of other ventures - including BCI-startup Neuralink which incorporates Neuroethics… thus serving Directive Ethics to those accepting those implants. Of course, this isn’t much the surprise as he also sponsored and contributed to the outline of the ‘Asilomar AI Principles‘ revolving around AI Ethics in 2017… where this event took place even before ChatGPT ever went public.

And you know… perhaps, just perhaps… if he took up golf, he’d probabaly beat Kim Jong-il, who it was reported in 1994 achieved the extraordinary feat - during his first round of golf at the Pyongyang Golf Course - of shooting a 38-under-par round of 34, including five holes-in-one.

---

And with that said, f- Twitter, f- those frauds running it, and f- the pied pipers, whose messages are boosted by Twitter, because we have business to attend elsewhere. And by business I mean the Enron Code of Ethics³.

I bet you don’t have the foggiest where that eventually led.

1. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14081965/Angela-Rayner-control-plans-home-Kent-final-say-gobsmacked-locals.html

2. https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/13/elon-musk-says-x-is-changing-its-algorithm-to-highlight-smaller-accounts/

3. https://www.fbi.gov/history/artifacts/enron-code-of-ethics