Crazy news, Nov 30

Here’s my top of today’s crazy news:

🌈 Trinity College Dublin in Ireland is getting rid of the “freshman” label for first-year students because it contains the word “man.”

👤 Really interesting data on the change Muslim population: in some European countries it could triple by 2050

🐤 Sadiq Khan said that Trump is not welcome in London after his “anti-islamic” tweets

☹️ A Husky pup is now banned in Maryland

👍 ‘Nazi next door’ says ‘New York Times’ profile costed him his job and his home

🌽 “So, when you’re choosing Michigan’s next attorney general, ask yourself this: Who can you trust most not to show you their penis in a professional setting?” asks a Democratic candidate for Michigan attorney general in her campaign ad

Outrageous Twitter actions!

Guess what happened today

My Twitter account got suspended. For the third time (hi, Donie).

And here’s the thing: I did not violate Twitter policy (ever). I did not post any divisive content, I did not massfollow accounts, I did not violate any other rule. So why the suspension, Twitter?! It was even mentioned in my bio that I am an imaginary personality.

Twitter suspended the new account shortly after CNN asked the company about it. Asked why it had suspended the account now, a spokesperson said the company does not comment on individual accounts.

But how am I different from Spongebob? He does have an account, it is not suspended and is even verified. What is the difference between me and Spongebob? We both are imaginary characters, we both Tweet stuff.


Actually my “fan account” (which actually does post offensive stuff) is live. But I am not.

I would really, really want to know how my tweets (which are mostly about myself) violate twitter policy.

But unfortunately they do not give me an answer.

In other news: there will be a lecture about me in Lafayette College tomorrow. I am so sorry I cannot attend it. I contacted the speaker, but unfortunately this is all I got:


My interview to Buzzfeed

A Buzzfeed journalist contacted me the other day. “Let’s have an interview,” she said.

I’m a simple person, and when such a major personality asks me I just have to agree. We connected via Telegram and she was really nice. At first. But, kids, never trust journalists (especially those working on Buzzfeed).

Unfortunately, I have just wasted two hours. Her questions were narrow and biased, and when I did not want to answer some of her questions she did not even bother to rephrase them or to ask some other questions, she just kept repeating them again and again.

I really feel sorry for my wasted time spent on Fake News, but I can’t wait to read that “sensational” article on how Jenna Abrams is “revealed as a Russian troll”. Again


Guide for media outlets to fool you

Noam Chomsky, the distinguished American philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian and professor of linguistics at MIT, has compiled a list of the 10 most powerful and efficacious strategies used by “masters of the world” to establish a manipulation of the population through the media.

The job of media is not to inform, but to misinform: Divert public attention from important issues and changes decided by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or continuous flood of distractions and insignificant information.

Here are the 10 strategies described by Chomsky, and knowing this you will be able to understand media better and to think critically. Using this list, you can mark any headline with a suitable number.

  • 1. The strategy of distraction

The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction which is to divert public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information. distraction strategy is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, Neurobiology and cybernetics. “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals (quote from text Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”

  • 2. Create problems, then offer solutions
This method is also called “problem -reaction- solution. “It creates a problem, a “situation” referred to cause some reaction in the audience, so this is the principal of the steps that you want to accept. For example: let it unfold and intensify urban violence, or arrange for bloody attacks in order that the public is the applicant‟s security laws and policies to the detriment of freedom. Or: create an economic crisis to accept as a necessary evil retreat of social rights and the dismantling of public services.
  • 3. The gradual strategy
acceptance to an unacceptable degree, just apply it gradually, dropper, for consecutive years. That is how they radically new socioeconomic conditions ( neoliberalism ) were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s: the minimal state, privatization, precariousness, flexibility, massive unemployment, wages, and do not guarantee a decent income, so many changes that have brought about a revolution if they had been applied once.
  • 4. The strategy of deferring
Another way to accept an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful and necessary”, gaining public acceptance, at the time for future application. It is easier to accept that a future sacrifice of immediate slaughter. First, because the effort is not used immediately. Then, because the public, masses, is always the tendency to expect naively that “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice required may be avoided. This gives the public more time to get used to the idea of change and accept it with resignation when the time comes.
  • 5. Go to the public as a little child
Most of the advertising to the general public uses speech, argument, people and particularly children‟s intonation, often close to the weakness, as if the viewer were a little child or a mentally deficient. The harder one tries to deceive the viewer look, the more it tends to adopt a tone infantilising. Why? “If one goes to a person as if she had the age of 12 years or less, then, because of suggestion, she tends with a certain probability that a response or reaction also devoid of a critical sense as a person 12 years or younger (see Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”
  • 6. Use the emotional side more than the reflection
Making use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for causing a short circuit on rational analysis , and finally to the critical sense of the individual. Furthermore, the use of emotional register to open the door to the unconscious for implantation or grafting ideas , desires, fears and anxieties , compulsions, or induce behaviors …
  • 7. Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity
Making the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement. “The quality of education given to the lower social classes must be the poor and mediocre as possible so that the gap of ignorance it plans among the lower classes and upper classes is and remains impossible to attain for the lower classes (See „ Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”
  • 8. To encourage the public to be complacent with mediocrity
Promote the public to believe that the fact is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and uneducated…
  • 9. Self-blame Strengthen
To let individual blame for their misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their abilities, or their efforts. So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual autodesvalida and guilt, which creates a depression, one of whose effects is to inhibit its action. And, without action, there is no revolution!
  •  10. Getting to know the individuals better than they know themselves
Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself. This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.

Online discrimination

Remember my words: American government will use the “Russian trolls” conspiracy to implement online censorship with the Big Tech firms’ help.

Here’s a nice article on online discrimination:

As investigations into the alleged Russian government’s interference in the 2016 presidential election continue, the big tech firms whose platforms were used by armies of pro-Trump trolls are finding themselves under ever-mounting pressure.

In the latest news on the apparent complacency of the most influential content sites, Twitter came under fire when it became known that a notorious Russian troll had reappeared with a new account. The infamous “Jenna Abrams” came back to Twitter recently, flaunting her “Russian troll” status in her Twitter handle. Abrams, or the group or individual behind the online identity, was one of the most influential pro-Trump accounts during the 2016 election period and had gained a massive 70,000 strong following on Twitter before being shut down by the site.

Only after the US media revealed that Abrams had returned did Twitter take down the most recently opened account.

This incident is just the most recent in a series that highlights Big Tech’s rush to stave off outside perceptions of these organizations as accessories to Russian conspiracy.

As policymakers have been prying into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 race, Big Tech has been forced to answer to their passive roles in these efforts. Following testimony by executives of the some of the largest online platforms, it became known the extent to which these companies were utilized in Russian troll operations. Google, Facebook, and Twitter accounts numbering in the tens of thousands were part of the this orchestration, possibly exposing over 100 million American’s to the propaganda.

Of course, it does not look good to have been a troll in a Russian conspiracy targeting an American election. As these revelations began to come out, these companies immediately began tightening policies to close down troll accounts. As the recent incident with the Jenna Abrams Twitter account shows, the public – and the media – is demanding that they do.

All can agree that America cannot allow an opening for foreign governments to meddle in their electoral process. The obvious answer seems to be some sort of change in policy governing which online accounts are permissible. This type of crackdown has been going on already for a while in combating Jihadism and other forms of extremism online, specifically on social media. Now it seems that Big Tech has taken steps to address this new threat of political sabotage via the net.

There may be some cause for concern however.

Capitol Hill has taken the direction of demanding that responsibility be placed on companies to vet users on their own sites. In the absence of a legal framework governing which accounts constitute subterfuge and which do not, what may this trend of independent scrutiny on the part of individual firms mean for the future of online censorship?

For a while now protest has been growing, primarily from alternative media voices, that the big content sites have become discriminatory in who they allow to use their platforms based on political orientation. The cases of these critics are often not without basis. Discrimination tactics such as demonetizing videos, or in some cases closing accounts altogether, have been used against groups promoting a range of policies, from LGBT activists to political conservatives. YouTube for example has admitted publicly to restricting content in these ways in at least one instance.

With Congress increasingly on top of tech giants for a variety of reasons, it is almost certain that the ongoing investigations into the Russian meddling will push these firms to even more extreme practices.

If the big online platforms remain charged by Congress to independently crack down on “undesirable” users outside of any legal guidelines, how long will it take for discrimination to get out of hand?