Tag Archives: Social media

Gab is back online!

After getting kicked offline by Joyent because Gab happened to have that shooter asshole among its users (gee, why no one booted Twitter and Facebook for having same retard among their users as well?) is now back online. It still has some hiccups, but it’s working. Will probably take a bit for it to become fully operational.

All this dicking around and pissing on Gab is clearly politically motivated because they did nothing wrong and nothing different than how Twitter or Facebook operate. And yet Gab is getting fucked in the ass on all possible ends, but Twitter and Facebook, nothing at all. Facebook even ran fucking white supremacist ads in the meanwhile which means they actually took money from someone and ran with it and they are just “sorry” now. Fuck off.

I hope this desperate censoring of Gab bullshit will ends soon. And kudos to Andrew Torbo for not giving up.


It’s not censorship when private companies do it. Or is it?


There was a lot of talking about this after basically all incidents where high profile people got censored on social networks for what they posted there or sometimes even got banned for it. And every time it ended with: “yeah well, they are private company and they can do whatever they please since it’s their social network, but…”

This idea only supposedly holds true if the government is censoring people, which by the First Amendment in America, it’s not allowed to. I’m not aware of any law here in Europe that entitles us to same level of freedom of speech. I guess we have something similar, but it’s not as prominent as famous First Amendment in US, which is why I’m not aware of it off the top of my head.

Three reasons why I think this is bullshit and why private companies should be held to the same standards as governments when it comes to free speech:

1. Laws like First Amendment were written down in times when there was NO concept of internet or social media. At all. It was designed for forms of media existing back in those days, which was basically just public communication in person and newspapers, maybe? Today, media in general spans far wider and as we can see already, social networks are far more important and effective than any other form of communication, especially when it comes down to pushing ideologies or shaping global political landscapes.

2. Companies can do it on behalf of the government and allow governments to censor people unpunished. It’s not like they’ll gonna brag about it, so, if no one finds out, no harm done by the government, right? Nice example of that was Facebook censoring Germans when they expressed concerns over “Syrian refugees”. Anyone daring to talk about that or even criticize Angela Merkel for allowing this mass immigration from Middle East got punished on Facebook by a ban or demand to delete those kind of messages, because Germany’s government and Facebook made a censorious agreement in that regard. Of course they weren’t bragging about it, but it’s not like people wouldn’t find out…

3. Third and in my opinion most important reason, social networks these days are bigger than most governments. In fact they are bigger than biggest governments combined. And since they are so effective at shaping narratives or pushing certain messages to millions and billions of people, they should be held to the same standards as governments when it comes to free speech. Especially because these very same social networks dictate how governments are perceived or shaped by the voters based on how company itself is aligned on the political map. For example, in Twitter’s case, they are very much aligned with the pushing of feminist bullshit and hating the people who align with the political right. Facebook censoring people who have an opinion over Middle Eastern immigrants taking over their country. Yes, they are private companies, but they affect real life countries and governments more than anything else these days. If you ask me, that very much makes them involved with the governments and lives of people under certain government and thus they are doing censorship in the name or on behalf of governments. And such behavior should be prohibited by a worldwide global law(s).

Social networks should be neutral

Because of the above three reasons, social networks should be neutral and should not side with anyone, because they are already too involved with governments no matter how much everyone denies it. And yes, this is censorship and silencing of people. I don’t give a fuck if a social network is run by a private company. It’s clearly and very much visibly affecting real world governments and people under them and not necessarily in a positive way. Technologies and media change, but laws remained the same. Laws need to be updated for current modern times to ensure this neutrality and actual freedom of speech. Yes, also by enforcing this on private companies like Twitter and Facebook.

Only question is, which government will be the first one to enforce it? I have very little hope for Germany given recent events and it’s not looking particularly good for United States either, despite existing First Amendment… There might be some hope in France maybe. French know how to do revolutions. But in the end, governments are benefiting from all of this, why would they interfere with it? This is my main concern why things might never change or improve…

What’s your opinion on this? Let me know in the comments down below.


Social networks affecting your job(s)?

I’ve been reading certain articles regarding this matter, specifically these two:

Now, is it just me or is this going out of control a lot (wanted to say “a bit” but that just wasn’t appropriate)? Who gives them the right to get you fired because you expressed your opinion online about something not even related to work or because you were drinking some booze on a freakin’ vacation and posted that on Facebook!? What gives them right to control how people have fun in their free (private) time? One thing is drinking while at work, but completely another when doing the same thing on your own free time. Also, what difference does it make if that person is a teacher or a lets say construction worker? Do they seriously believe that teacher is some great role model for students (pupils)? Maybe at younger age, but later they get the mind of their own anyway. In my days there was no Facebook, yet they (students) still got all drunk without seeing their teacher getting drunk on a vacation and posting that on Facebook. So what’s all the fuss about this now? It’s just ridiculous and just shows how short minded organizations, companies and certain “leaders” are when it comes to social networks. If you’re a senator or a president, fine. After all you have whole nation under “control”, but teacher? C’mon, who are they kidding?

And if someone decides to express a nasty thought about Kate Middleton, so shall they. It’s their opinion. If she disagrees with that person (not that she cares much), that’s Kate’s opinion as well. If you’re a public figure, there will ALWAYS be people who will disagree with you or just plain hate you for whatever reason. But should that affect your job status? I don’t think it should.

After all, there are two types of people on social networks. There are those who use their social networks profiles to advertise their work and there are those that use social networks as a mean of what i call “cyber chilling”. An online place without boundaries, a place where you express whatever you like because it’s an imaginary place that (at least used to be) unrelated to real world. Similar to how people can be totally different on forums than they are in real life. But some take social networks too seriously judging by the complaints by certain people who lost their job because someone took their cyber chill place too seriously.


The other things are companies who do profiling through social networks like the people at Jobvite. “Better insights, better choices”. It’s more like “Failed insights, horrible choices”. Are companies these days really recruiting their people with such moronic summaries from companies who were supposedly professional about this? And you get such stupid chart when it comes to decide, if you want to hire a person or not? Seriously, why the hell do companies have to use idiotic tactics and some “fancy” ways of hiring people? What’s wrong with old fashion interviewing and supplying of your online social profile if YOU want it, not if company decides to lurk after you on social networks. It’s nothing wrong if you willingly supply your social profile as a mean of contacting you or for employer to check you out, but only when YOU give your profile to them willingly. After all, some use social networks as the mean to advertise themselves. I know a lot of musicians, artists, photographers and programmers that do it. But that’s when YOU want it, not when companies start to track your otherwise personal online life.

Lets take a look at this chart for a bit…

So, only positive thing to them is to either volunteer or donate to charity. Is that really the only thing that defines you as a good person? So, expressing your love for photography, painting/drawing music or animals on social networks means nothing. Or expressing regularly how much you love your family or spending time with your friends? It’s irrelevant to them from the looks of it. WTF!? A person can donate to everyone, but can still be a total douche, because he’s just doing that to gain false admiration. Ever thought of that Jobvite? And trust me, there are this kind of people on our tiny planet.

Then there is the negative zone. Ok, illegal drugs are one thing, after all they are illegal so it’s up to you to post that, but alcohol? It’s not illegal in most countries so what you do in your free time is your own thing. But isn’t when you are posting pics of boozing at work. If that gets you fired, it was your very own stupidity.

Same goes for posts of profanity and sexual nature. You have to draw a fine line between being just plain vulgar and expressing that in a more subtle way. But again, if you weren’t doing that at work, it’s your own personal thing how you behave in your life. You can be a vulgar douche in your personal life, but an absolute gentleman at work. It’s not impossible…

Spelling? This blog is the only place where I extensively use dictionary and spell checker. Because I have decided to at least try to do it right somewhere (especially since English isn’t my native language). But most of the people use social networks in their own slang, because they take the place as a “chill place”. A place to express their thoughts without any boundaries. I have a rather public job and there I try to speak my language in grammar perfect form. But I don’t do that on social networks or in my personal life. Why should I and mostly, why should my employer care for as long as I’m not expressing my thoughts on company’s behalf?

And now to the guns and weapons. I have touched that topic several times and I will do it again. Having admiration to weapons doesn’t automatically make you a bad person. I love these “machines”, because they got us where we are today as a superior species. We dominated the world because of the weapons. We are the dominant species on our planet because of that. Without weapons, we would be somewhere in the middle of the food chain, considering our body anatomy doesn’t make us the best predators on Earth. If we compare us to animals that have naturally acquired “weapons” like tigers, sharks and crocodiles do, we are a very poor example of evolution in that regard. But we don’t have that because we didn’t really had any need to evolve in that direction, because of the weapons that did all the work instead of us. It’s because of the weapons, we are on absolute top of it. Yes, the weapons are used in the bad way a lot of times, but that still doesn’t change the heritage of these devices. So, they are admiration worthy devices and I love using them in games and I will always show interest in them when conversation will lead to them. But I always had respect for them in real life. I’ve had the chance to hold an AK-47 and 9-mm Beretta with my own hands, but have decided not to. They were not loaded and were handled under supervision of soldiers, but I’ve decided not to hold them. Why? I frankly have no clue, I just didn’t. But a company would look at your social profile and though of you as a guns nutcase through the Jobvite’s profiling chart says so. Where in real life I’m afraid to hold an unloaded rifle. See where I’m going with this? Also, it would be a bit unfortunate if a guns maker like Colt or Heckler&Koch would be hiring you through Jobvite’s profiling… 😀

And lastly, religion and politics. A topics I generally hate to talk about. Manly because anything I’ve ever seen when talking about politics or religion was hatred and heavy arguments with no end about each. It nearly always ends up with hate arguments and anger. And I really have no clue what made Jobvite think that religion and politics belong in the neutral zone. It’s in fact FAR less neutral than alcohol consumption or guns talk.

I personally think that someone who is constantly expressing their religious or political views are by far less neutral than someone who just doesn’t want to express what he thinks about either. Ever seen a fanatic religious person or a fanatic one side political nutcase? I’ve seen them and trust me you don’t want to deal with them. Just look at how certain people are abusing Islam these days and how they were abusing Christianity in the Crusaders era. When you start mixing politics and religion, never anything good comes out of that. And nether do extremes of each on their own. Islam is not bad by itself and so is not Christianity. But people pretty much always twist both in nothing but their favor. So why the hell is this in the “neutral” section? It doesn’t belong there, it should be more in the negative zone than anywhere else.

I had a share of stupid tricky questions during interviews for my job. Some treated me like I am there for a position of a CEO, where I was in fact there for a casual bottom feeder worker. Makes you wonder who’s more dumb, when you’re sitting in an office with suits on the other end of the table, asking you such retarded stuff. And then they even have the balls to say on TV: “It’s hard to find qualified or good workforce.” No kidding, really?