Posts Tagged ‘Facebook’

Neat Suggestion For Net Neutrality

August 15, 2016

Under Obama, the US spy networks were given full power. Paying no, or little taxes, with the full resources of the USA behind them, they were mandated, as modern-day corsairs, to seize the world. They did (in spite of the Snowden scare; Snowden revealed the entanglement between the imperial machinery of the USA and the US Internet companies).

This Internet coup is a Obama’s great achievement, proving how great and just the brown president has been for the powers that be, over the powers that don’t deserve to be.

Here is the market capitalization of the forty largest French companies (the “CAC 40”), versus that of GAFA (Google-Apple-Facebook-Amazon):

Thanks Oh Great, Wise, Respected Obama, For Having Made The USA Mightier Than Ever With Your Mighty Espionage Agents

Thanks Oh Great, Wise, Respected Obama, For Having Made The USA Mightier Than Ever With Your Mighty Espionage Agents

[Was the satanic Bush a smaller devil? One shudders at the question. Just asking…]

As you can see, GAFA, those four companies, Google-Apple-Facebook-Amazon, under the presidency of Barack Obama, became everything, while the French Republic stagnated between being and nothingness. This is a general pattern, with all countries. It has to do with GAFA being above all and any local laws. And there are no global laws to speak of. (The Chinese joke that GAFA is the new world empire; well, new, not really.) In particular GAFA eschews most taxes, so stand above all and any companies and firms, worldwide.

Donald Trump, hated by GAFA, has said that he would make GAFA pay taxes. Said Trump, speaking of GAFA, and, in particular, Amazon:”Oh, God, would they have problems if I became president”. But what of the rest of the world? How can the world get out of this pickle?

First GAFA should pay taxes (France wants Google to pay billions in overdue taxes, Great Britain, though, asks for only a tenth of what the French Treasury is asking. Why? Because Great Britain is onto the plot, and understands that GAFA is one way for its overlord, the USA, to seize world control, and will be rewarded for getting on the program!)

To force GAFA to pay taxes, they should be threatened with exclusion. Now, of course, that would require guts. First, suffering of being accused of “anti-Americanism” by the soon to disappear in the oubliettes of history, Barack Obama, the great enabler of GAFA. (The US already makes war against the French economy, so it may as well come up to the surface!)

Unfortunately for, say, the French, GAFA uses massively treacherous countries without much industry such as Great Britain (full of subordinate tax havens, more than a dozen treasure isles which charge no income or wealth tax), and Ireland (top corporate tax rate, 12.5% in contrast with France 33% and the USA’s 35%!)

So going to war against GAFA means that the French would have to go to war with Ireland and the British Virgin Islands (hence the UK!) If the traditional parties don’t have this sort of guts, maybe Marine le Pen will… (She will be accused of dreadful “populism”, just as the Donald is, for doing something against the multibillionaire plutocrats of GAFA, and their demonic little helpers…)

Could we try something less bloody? Well, GAFA spy on people, and then tweak what they see on the Internet, accordingly. GAFA, and its ilk know you have a health problem, so they suggest businesses associated to treatment or relief from that condition. I have noticed search engines such as Google manipulate searches according to what they think i should see. Worse: Microsoft’s Bing censors completely some of my essays. For example “Violence In The Holy Qur’an” cannot be found on Bing (even looked directly by title and author) This sort of censorship is deliberate: the essay consists essentially of 10,000 words from quoting entire verses of the Qur’an. (The English paper, The Guardian, accused me to be someone who “blogged” the Qur’an, to justify censoring me!)

If these Internet manipulations were completely unlawful, all the time, the business model of GAFA and their ilk would collapse. Of course, one does not want to be that cruel (what would Obama do?)

But here is an idea nevertheless. Why are not GAFA (and its ilk) required, by LAW, to present a neutral web if asked to do so by someone using the Internet? As I said, one does not want to be too cruel with the corsairs of modern communications: after all, they have some public utility, as they (vaguely) innovate.

So, say, every time one turns on one of the GAFA, or other Internet manipulators, one should be offered, manually, the option of a neutral web.

Simple. Drastic.

The right to neutral information is basic to enable democracy. Without it, there is no democracy. The present rule of GAFA, and their present manners, is a complete denial of democracy. Time to fight. When the philosopher Demosthenes called the Greeks to fight the (gold mines propelled) the Macedonian plutocrats, who were quickly increasing in power, he was not listened to. It sounded alarmist to go fight the rich and nasty. When it turned out Demosthenes was finally observed to be right, it was too late. Democracy was destroyed in Greece, for the next 23 centuries. And it all originated from a philosophical debate where Aristotle was prominent.

We are what we know. And we are nought if we know not. The neutral Internet is not obsolete, it’s a human right. Are those obsolete? Hmm… Wait…

Patrice Ayme’

 

Picking Piketty Peeks

February 13, 2015

Thomas Piketty, a young and successful French Science Po economist wrote “Capitalism in The XXI Century”. I bought it ASAP, and then did not read one page. The reason is that there was a waiting list. By the time I got the book, it was clear it was rehashing part of what I have been saying for years.

For example, to my knowledge, I was the first to make the rapprochement between the present situation and the Ancient Regime. The Nobles (2% of the population) did not pay (most) tax.

Piketty recognizes that he just discovered “his book’s principal idea” that the “taux de rendement du capital” (return on capital) was higher than return on work. “Moi je ne le savais pas avant”. I have been pounding that fact for a decade or so.

The Higher The Return On Capital, The Lower the Growth (Piketty)

The Higher The Return On Capital, The Lower the Growth (Piketty)

It is nice to see Piketty saying these things I have been saying, now, but I have moved on, long ago. I condemn the very way money is generated (by the private-public banking system).

It is first obvious to whoever has studied past societies. Plutocracies are basically those societies where, at some point, taxation on the wealthiest has not been applied enough to limit the EXPONENTIATION of capital.

I do not find alluring to listen to my old observations. Not to demean Piketty. Others such as Saez in Berkeley, also French, had published enlightening research on inequality, for years.

I agree with all what Piketty proposes. Yet, many of his answers are all too mild.

In the period from Roosevelt to1981 (arrival of Reagan), the upper marginal tax rate of the USA averaged 82%. It applied above one million dollar income (constant dollars). Growth was maximum.

What Piketty did not say: In the next 20 years the maximum margin on the richest came down to (less than) 15%. Yes, less than secretaries.

Piketty wants to rise the upper margin tax rate of income millionaires to 80% or 90%. I agree.

To this critics of Piketty, in France or the USA, reply that will kill innovation. A French cutie interviewer told Piketty that with rates like that the robot who heads Facebook (OK, she did not use “robot”) would not have been motivated to invent Facebook.

Who cares?

As it is, Mr. Z from Facebook stole an idea from France. Besides, Facebook-like companies already existed (Myspace). There is also plenty of evidence Facebook was a government operation (the protégé of Larry Summers, parachuted to the USA government under Clinton, was parachuted to Google, and then parachuted to Facebook).

Piketty vaguely mumbled something about the research which really mattered was public. But he was weak and indecisive.

Why? Well, after all, Piketty teaches at Science Po, a place full of young arrogant greedsters who think they are becoming qualified to lead the world. They live according to a principle that Piketty himself condemns: politics as a profession. Piketty said that the fact Hollande had been in politics all his life was a problem (the same is true for roughly all politicians).

Professional politicians should not be condemned to clean the toilets exclusively, but certainly ought to be left to sort out the details, of the laws passed by the People, like they increasingly have to, in Switzerland. That’s the only exclusivity they should pretend to.

In truth, business creators are nothing much. Business creators motivated first by money are even less.

Piketty to Bill Gates: ‘If 30 years ago, one would have told you: you will earn one billion dollars, not 50 billion, would you have refused to invent Windows?’ Of course not says Piketty, answering his own question.

Piketty: Without counting that all these innovations rest on an ecosystem of public research.

Piketty missed the obvious remark that France was at the forefront of the electronics age: transistors and CPUs (chips), and even the Personal Computer (PC), were all invented, and produced first in France. He probably does not even know this.

And the fact he does not know is testimony enough to the dirty ways of money.

The hard creative work is from engineers, scientists and the philosophers who back them up, not forgetting the historians, sociologists, writers, artists and poets helping to inspire the preceding crowd.

All the world of lasers and the like came from publicly funded lab in Paris. In 1953, Kastler invented optical pumping:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/genius-irreplaceable-jobs-follow/

The same lab has made more Nobel prize winning work founding outright a completely new field: how to see light with atoms (my own formulation, don’t accuse Serge Haroche!)

Such labs are now starved by austerity.

If you ask people at Apple Inc. why they are so good, they don’t say “Steve Jobs”. It’s not just that Steve has experienced technical difficulties, it’s that Apple engineers feel empowered. Apple has $700 billion in market cap (twice Google).

After a level of inequality, it has no effect on the motivation of individuals: why to pay traders millions of Euros? Say Piketty.

What I say is that much of trading itself, should not exist.

Much of what Piketty says about Europe and the Euro Zone is correct. One should homogenize the core part of the Euro Zone, and those who don’t like it, like Luxembourg, can stay out.

Right now in Europe, large companies pay less tax than medium and small ones. It’s even worse with middle class people versus the wealthiest.

A point Piketty makes is that inequality is not everything, but opacity also matters. He mentioned that Carlos Slims (world’s richest man) obtained juicy contracts from the government. (Piketty is careful not to say that this was a case of obvious corruption; he obviously knows this, but he wants to be keep on being invited in the power circles, and his books to create the buzz that brings millions of sales).

An objection made to Piketty is that the classification of the richest people has changed over 30 years. To this, Piketty has not clear retort, but I do.

That is indeed a silly objection: The founder of Walmart passed away. His heir have, all together, more money than Bill Gates.

More historically, under the terrible Roman plutocracy, the richest of the rich changed all the time, for similar reasons. But, although it was hard to maintain just as high a status, it was easier to maintain one just below. The Curial class (= local plutocracy) survived for 4 centuries.

Karl Marx? Piketty rightly points out that Marx wanted to cancel private property, but did not think about what would happen the next day.

Piketty suggests to create new notions of property, including hybrids between public and private property as conceived now.

Piketty was asked why he was so keen, him, such a young guy, to go all around the world, to be received by Obama, to be admired by all, etc. … Instead of being working hard? Especially with the crisis we have now?

Piketty replied he believed in the power of ideas. He believes politicians are just into doing what they believe is the dominant thinking We The People (he did not use that expression) go by. So, in the democratic debate, one should try to modify this dominant opinion.

Notice the naivety: one is very far here from my Satanic interpretation of common human behavior, especially at the leadership level

The answer to this is simple: some play, some think. Real thinkers are not in the White House, they are in distant caves, watching the sea. Occasionally, when not thinking deep.

Piketty points out that oligarchic regimes bring social problems, thus scapegoats, thus nationalist drift, and then, ultimately, like Hitler, or Putin, war.

All right, truth be told, Piketty did not mention Hitler, but he did mention Putin. Not a word on the problem of banks. Out of 29 extremely dangerous banks, the equivalent of potential super-novas on the verge of explosion, four are French. BNP is roughly the same size as French GDP. Those banks are the main engines of inequality, besides the fact any of them, by imploding would make the situation instantaneously worse than in 2008.

Those banks are still allowed to engage in a form of trading which is the modern equivalent of slavery. Piketty does not mention the problem, which is at the core of the money generating-austerity craze.

And he is not afraid to say that many of the time honored ways of economics are actually outright insanity (he repeatedly uses the word “delirium”). Piketty is no genius, but he makes an excellent impresario.

Patrice Ayme’

Plutocrats Want You To Love Putin’s Nipples, & Hate Yours.

November 2, 2014

PRECISELY BECAUSE LOVING ONLY PUTIN’S NIPPLES IS AN UNSAFE &  SEXIST DISTRACTION

Sexism can provide with comic relief, when it goes over the top. I went to a gym where guys would flaunt their naked chests, mighty muscles rippling. Women trying the same trick would be promptly arrested.

Getting “stopped” by the police, or, better, arrested, in the USA, is a serious thing. It is a test everybody undergoes, to see how you respect the Authority Principle. The slightest non-strict observance of police officers’ orders results in much higher charges… If one does not get terminated outright.

By age 23, 41% of USA citizens have been arrested at least once. Black guys tend to fail the test, and get addicted to incarceration. Strange? Things are getting stranger quickly: We now have a sort of plutocratic corporate moral police emerging. It determines what is “safe”, and what is not. Ravenous, ever more powerful billionaires are in the lead. They decide that their friend Putin’s chest is glorious, while female chests are “unsafe”.

Naked Truth: Safe, Handsome Putin, Ugly, Unsafe Female Breasts?

Naked Truth: Safe, Handsome Putin, Ugly, Unsafe Female Breasts?

[On left, showing a real man, maybe gay, and certainly evil, but that’s alright. On right “unsafe” female according to great philosopher Zuckerberg, owner Facebook, NSA collaborator. Glorious dictators, OK, unsafe females, not OK.]

The gym finally decided everybody would wear a shirt. The old practice, naked men, veiled women was discontinued.

Truly, any time a group is allowed to do something others are not allowed to, is a discrimination. It better have a good justification. (Justified discrimination exists: forbidding drunk people to drive is justified, for example.)

Chelsea Handler (an actress I never heard of before), poked fun at the photo of Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin, by posting the topless photo of herself on a horse above. Handler warned, alongside her photo: “Taking this down is sexist. I have every right to prove I have a better body than Putin.”

Female nudity goes against the Facebook-owned Instagram posting rules: the picture was removed. Silicon Valley’s silicon men have no problems with “gays”, but mammals are something else entirely.

“If a man posts a photo of his nipples, it’s ok, but not a woman? Are we in 1825?” Handler responded. Instagram removed the picture again, with the consummate hypocrisy of plutocratic mind control: “Please read our Community Guidelines to learn what kinds of posts are allowed and how you can help keep Instagram safe.

Keep Facebook safe from female skin! Safety is big in the USA ever since Bush flew bin Ladens around the USA in 2011. Presumably to keep safe, Bush flew dozens of feudal relative of bin Laden out of the USA. Plutocrats’ safety comes first, in the USA. Somehow, female breasts threaten it.

Why to keep the USA safe from female breasts? Are we not named after those? “Mammal” comes from the Latin mammalis “of the breast”. (In Latin, breast is “mamma”.)

In truth, safety is not the paramount consideration. As we will see, quite the opposite. One plutocratic principle consists in creating fake problems, so that nobody has ever enough energy to address the real ones.

That’s why, when the financial sector exploded from plutocratic abuse, we were told that the problem came from We The People spending too (although real salaries have not augmented for a generation in most of the West).

That’s also why, confronted to an exponentiating CO2 density curve, the plutocrats tell us the weather has always changed, and our uneducated paranoia is making us attach unwarranted importance to insignificant problems, such as seas rising in level and acidity, 2014 being the warmest year ever, while permafrost starts to explode on a titanic scale in Siberia.

That’s why Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg wants to keep the world safe from female breasts, but not from his Chinese (his wife and her mother are Chinese).

Both subjects, Zuckerberg’s obsession with breasts, and himself as a person, are insignificant, but brandishing them presumptuously is highly significant: it preoccupies minds with crushing insignificance. Exactly as planned by those masters of pettiness, the plutocrats.

And Putin is their hero, the brazen way he seizes whatever he can grab, from Crimea, half of the Black Sea, and the entire educational industry of Russia, as the New York Times exposes in a gigantic, detailed “Special Report”, November 1, 2014. “Putin’s Way. Putin’s Friend Profits in Purge of Schoolbooks.”

I am sure Mark Zuckerberg is drooling about Putin’s power, and manly ways.

Chelsea Handler did not quit, and rightly so: “If Instagram takes this down again, you’re saying Vladimir Putin has more 1st amendment rights than me. Talk to your bosses.”

Talking to Mark Zuckerberg is like talking to a NSA robot: it will go nowhere. (The head of the NSA was recently saying yes and no all over about the Snowden divulgations, making sure nobody could get a handle on his mind.)

The so-called “media service” removed the photo again. Handler left Instagram (she went to Twitter, which does not censor what is lawful). Hopefully her 994,000 Instagram followers will follow.

Instagram is owned by Facebook, the firm owned by a number of major plutocrats, some of them looking like total robots, others singing about how good they are (“Bono”)… And all of them giving dozens of millions to charity (to show they are good robots).

If I were the new Caesar, I would make them pay billions of dollars in taxes, instead (but then they would have me assassinated, just like they did Julius: can’t win). American plutocrats in general paid at most 15% tax, for more than a decade (now they pay nominally a bit more, but they cheat thoroughly through Dark Pools and “charities”).

The ever greater power of plutocrats to tell us what is “safe” to see, or think, is entirely due to them paying not enough taxes, and getting ever more monstrous, from their gathering power (a typical exponential: it feeds on its own growth).

My take? “Social media”, when large enough, ought to respect existing laws, and not impose their own rules. I am not aware of a USA Federal Law against female torso nudity.

Am I discriminating against large media outfit? Yes, I am. But I have a justification. Big is different. Any time that a company becomes huge (and it could be Facebook, Amazon, Google, TOTAL, BP, whatever), it becomes an institution.

Zuckerberg, the boss of Facebook is treated like a king: wherever he goes he meets with heads of state (all knowing the CIA, NSA, and the likes of Lawrence Summers, Clinton and Obama administrations, and the entire American plutocratic machine is behind him).

In a democracy all institutions ought to be democratic institutions. That means they ought to respect the law, the whole law, and nothing but the law. They cannot invent their own laws. Because, if when they do, they are imposed on a vast part of the world.

Zuckerberg and his kind are closer to the Saudi religious “police” than the futuristic do-gooders they pose as. They have banned authors from Facebook, just on the ground that they believed the obvious, namely that there were no direct historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. As I explained above, this sort of behavior, on Facebook part, ought to be unlawful.

In the second part of this essay, I will show that discriminating against females is extremely unsafe for civilization.

So the anti-female propaganda of Facebook (“female flesh is not safe”) is not just distasteful, borderline hate speech, but also outright a threat for life on this planet. Because life on this planet is what is presently threatened by the rise of the uncontrolled chain reaction of plutocracy untaxed.

I deliberately cut the essay in two, because the second part is actually more important than the preceding one. Experience shows that the scattered brains we are all becoming nowadays, have not enough attention span to go through what is even more important after already reading 1333 words.

Patrice Ayme’

Book Hypocrisy @ Face Value

September 20, 2014

Sue is so pleased she never joined Facebook. I guess she does not particularly fancy the Arab revolutions (allegedly cause, or at least boosted by the Internet “social networks”, including Facebook). What about a bit more geo-historical perspective, ladies and gentlemen?

The present essay tries to depict better my position on the burning issue of burning kittens. Should people of outstanding moral values condemn Facebook for letting people publish videos of burning kittens there, and hide the face of those who burn said kitten? (I am, in general, for showing crimes; a crime one does not see, one cannot prosecute! Not showing crime was how the Nazis could run 5,000 extermination camps!)

As Alex Jones (who supported Scottish Independence, as Paul Handover did) puts it in “The question of liberty, control and censorship”:

“Because Facebook is happy to host content involving the torture of animals I closed my Facebook account, a subject I wrote about on Liberated Way here and here.  Paul Handover of Learning from Dogs indicated he was closing his Facebook account over the content on animal torture on Facebook, and said why in his own article, suggesting readers might consider doing the same thing. Patrice Ayme in his WordPress article condemned me and Paul Handover as supporting censorship by closing our accounts with Facebook, which brings me to my views on censorship, liberty and control… Censorship is a tool, it is neither good or bad…”

Well, I believe censorship is always bad.

In the Roman civilization, all the latter censors were emperors. And I do believe that, from this intellectual fascism, the decay of civilization, and, in particular Rome’s incapacity to adapt to a sustainable economy, and its horrendous dictatorial theocracy, proceeded.

I joined Facebook early on, but then I observed it seemed to be more about sex, narcissism, and various obsessive-compulsive disorders in slightly deranged people who believed that a picture of their pet canary drinking was world news. So I long ignored it, in spite of entreaties by some individuals who said I should advertise my work on Facebook.

But I spited the FB mania, all the more when I saw celebrities, or plutocrats connected to IT get 60,000 “friends” on their first day on FB. And then cashing on that (literally making huge amounts of money).

Then there were a number of local revolutions, culminating with the “Arab Spring”. That definitively changed my mind. If “social networks” could be used for revolutions, they were good.

What did the Social Networks do? They disseminated information. In other words, the truth. That’s good.

Some will say that could be done through other tribunes. Indeed, I sent articles, or comments to more established electronic media: the Huffington Post blocked me after 6 (completely innocuous) comments. It probably read my site, found I detested plutocracy, and barred me.

The “European Tribune” was even more blatant. I was actually physically threatened there, and banned the same day… for alleging that some big bankers had supported Hitler. The site manager told me many bankers were reading the site, and he was told to shut me down.

For similar economico-political reasons, the New York Times has censored more than 1,000 of my comments, and ponders every single one, sometimes for more than 12 hours, before publishing them (thus insuring no one reads them, while claiming they did not censor).

At least on Facebook, I am free to rant about plutocracy, and was never blocked.

Of course FB is despicable. If one publishes a picture there of a bare breasted statue, 2,000 year old, like the Venus de Milo, they will close the account.

Yet, by closing it for puny reasons, you close information, even revolution.

1.3 BILLION people are on facebook. How many people are on my site? Well, not enough. How many people are on Paul’s plus Alex’s? 2,700.

Puny reasons? Of course. It’s even worse. It’s hypocritical. Not just ineffectual. I was watching a line of people around city blocks, 5 abreast, at 7 am, anxiously waiting for the latest iphone.

Thousands of people. Some had spent the night, waiting for the latest gimmick. All on Facebook. How does the iphone, or, in general, smartphones work?

With Coltan. Where does much Coltan come from, keeping the prices low? Congo. Illegally. Thank the dictator of Rwanda, Kagame, and his Anglo-Saxon puppet masters. Never heard of him? Indeed, not a kitten.

Five million burned kittens? Will you close the smartphone account? Vote with your pocketbook?

No, stand reassured, good people. Only 5 million dead Africans, and counting (although Obama has started lately squeezing Kagame a little bit, out of Congo, under French and UN pressure). With the full complicity of Susan Rice, national Security Adviser (and a long story all by herself).

Susan Rice? A very rich woman, whose father was on the board of the Federal Central Bank, the Fed.,  Obama’s National Security Adviser very friendly with plenty of African dictators from Rwanda to Ethiopia (and having millions invested at some point in gas pipelines from Canada…). All too complicated, too dreadful to consider? Most people feel that way: back to crying about kittens.

And let’s not forget to protect the kitten burning maniacs, by protesting the showing of their pictures in the social media.

Hypo-Crisy means criticizing less than it deserves. Yes, FB is terrible, yes they are hypocrites, yes, the plutocrats associated to Facebook ought to be in the 99% tax bracket. Yes, indeed. But the average guy who lives off the cell phone like a leech, to save ten bucks, has collaborated with the death of millions.

And how did the collaboration start? By refusing to get the information. All burning kittens, 99%, and then making sure the perpetrators prosper on the burning kitten channel, as long as the good people persuaded of their own goodness avert their eyes, and then fork out cash for the world’s richest company, which pays only 2% tax, whereas the local bookstore, soon to burn down, from all the burning kittens running around, and the 35% tax the pro-plutocratic government insists the bookstore ought to be paying.

Before we get brains, we need eyes. And how could those who cannot even book the world at face value, think about it fairly? Plus, direct, real democracy, where all laws get voted by the people, and only the people, is only possible if, and only if, We The People get all, and the best, information.

Hence, those who advocate censorship reject real democracy. Instead they believe that higher human beings, the Big Brothers (let’s give them a name), have the right, and even the duty, to determine who and what, we, the Plebs, can be allowed to look at.

Ban censorship. In democracy We The People are free, free to know all.

Patrice Ayme’

No Burning Curiosity, No Morality?

September 18, 2014

What Else Those Who Don’t Want To Hear About Burning Kittens, Don’t Want To Hear About?

A video was linked on Facebook, supposedly showing a burning kitten. Some have clamored for Facebook to withdraw the video. That’s pusillanimous.

For evil to triumph, all what has to happen is for good people not to want to know about it.

What’s next, pusillanimous people? Are you going to censor the expert goring of a lion by a buffalo?

Horn Thru Belly Puts Lion In Orbit

Horn Thru Belly Puts Lion In Orbit

Shall we censor too, this gory violence against big kitty? He was just kindly eating the grounded fellow’s big rump.

(Contrarily to some PC description of that incident had it, there is no way the lion survived: the horn was only stopped by the tough hide after going nearly all the way through the kitty’s belly).

I am afraid all the people who ask for censorship are friends of Big Brother. What’s next, indeed? Each time a monk sets himself on fire, you will censor? What about respecting him enough to hear the case he is trying to make? Yes, showing the act is different from just entering that it happened, as a data point. More emotional content.

If one had shown people being gazed at Auschwitz, should people of upright character have asked Facebook to withdraw the video?

Well, I have news for you: that’s basically what Hitler’s Germans did: they censored everything. Hitler’s Germans did not want to see, they thought it would be immoral to see what was going on, they viewed as immoral those who wanted to show the immoralities.

If the Germans had seen the video of Auschwitz, there would have been no Auschwitz, and no Nazi regime, in a matter of weeks (this means the Allies were derelict in no advertising the extermination camps… But, of course, they had not seen the video, either. The democratic leaders knew the Nazis were evil, but did not guess that they were that evil… they did not want to know, either, as many of the leaders of the West had been accomplices of Nazism, prior).

I would personally love it that all crimes be made into videos, and put on Facebook. Start with the banksters.

For all the naïve, or ill informed, out there, burning a kitten is actually a crime, a prosecuted activity, by law. (Don’t try this at home, you would end in the slammer.)

I do not know where the kitten torture happened, but if the perpetrator could be identified, then he could be prosecuted (say as he crosses a border). Certainly in many EU countries, and in the USA, he could be prosecuted. (Cats and dogs are protected by special laws: however, torturing a mouse or a mole is perfectly legal.)

More than 3,000 people have died from ebola exponentiating: time for adult subjects, people. There is more serious stuff out there than perforated lions and burning kittens.u

Meanwhile Daesh (the so called, self-declared “Caliphate”, also known as ISIS; “Daesh” sounds in Arabic like “crushing under foot” and a period of trouble, so it’s a strongly pejorative propaganda trick which I recommend) has killed thousands of innocents.

Yet some selfish “pacifists” demonstrated in Washington when the top generals of the USA testified in Congress that they may advise the president to send ground troops in Iraq, if the situation changes (the French Republic has already troops on the ground in Kurdistan, fighting Daesh… while keeping a low profile).

Withdrawing that burning kitten video from the Internet will just allow the perpetrator to escape justice more easily. And it would set a very bad precedent.

Namely the precedent that, if it’s criminal, it should be hidden.

I am of the opposite persuasion: no information, no moralization.

BTW, I am also all for full beheading videos of journalists, and good Samaritans, to be shown (after appropriate and strong warnings). It puts the factual, thus correct, light on some religious philosophies.

I am not an ostrich. My ancestors actually ate ostriches. And I cannot understand why ostriches would ask for ever more sand in their eyes. But then again, higher understanding determines who eats what. Or whom.

Patrice Ayme’