After Katie Hopkins, Twitter banned another major account: that of ZeroHedge.com, a mainstream Libertarian financial server. It happened shortly after ZH published some breaking news and results of investigative work about the possible man-made role in the origin of the coronavirus causing the Covid-19 illness.
An Indian preprint claims that there are "uncanny similarities" between the coronavirus and two types of the HIV virus – suggesting that some Chinese (perhaps with some passive Canadian help, we read elsewhere) researchers did something deliberately harmful. You know that I've considered the "bioweapon" explanation as a possibility since Day One but I am somewhat unimpressed by this paper. The sequences that agree are rather short and may occur accidentally (especially because not all sequences of a given length are equally likely). The HIV has 10,000 bases but many variations exist. Also, "uncanny similarity" is the kind of loaded, non-quantitative language addressed to the laymen that raises red flags from my viewpoint. Why isn't the probability of an accident like that quantified in the title or close to it?
On the other hand, there are really many reports that the HIV+flu cure does cure the coronavirus as well which is... really interesting (and optimistic). But even if HIV were present at the birth of the coronavirus, it doesn't quite imply that genetical engineers were involved. Also, even if they were involved, it doesn't imply that the coronavirus is a serious disease.
At any rate, I think it is essential that the free debate about these questions – even because they're important questions and especially because they're important questions – exists (the accusation against the Chinese man may be unfair but it may also be true and important, even for the health of nations) so the ban of ZeroHedge.com on Twitter is absolutely unacceptable. The formal justification was "harassment" of a Chinese scientist who may be involved with a similar research. Note that it wasn't the Chinese authorities but a U.S. media cesspool that demanded the punishment for ZeroHedge.com – the same aggressive cesspool that harassed the 14-year-old political scientist and de facto distinguished professor Soph last May.
OK, so the discussion is essential but the pro-bioweapon evidence seems shaky to me at this moment. Nevertheless, ZeroHedge.com publishes lots of things (dozens of articles a day) that are interesting although I disagree with many of them.
After the Twitter ban, ZeroHedge.com also discussed an op-ed in The New York Times by George Soros, the main stockholder owning most of the leftist activists on Earth, the fifth largest planet in the Solar System. Mr Soros demanded Zuckerberg to be removed as the boss of Facebook – I guess that the old evil man probably wants to insert one of his crooked assets into the White House and nationalize Facebook first (otherwise I don't understand why an old rich pensioner thinks that he should be deciding about the fate of one of the largest companies in the world that he doesn't own and can't own).
Surely Zuckerberg is an ally of Trump's, we read, and Facebook has helped Trump to be elected. He may help anti-democratic candidates in the 2020 elections as well – anti-democratic is clearly everyone who isn't a loyal slave of the Democratic Party or someone who "fails" to be owned by George Soros, even indirectly. ;-) Trump and Zuckerberg had a meeting in 2019 which is very serious and Zuckerberg is therefore the new Putin, a twin brother of Donald Trump, and that's why he needs to be destroyed.
Clearly, if you have enough money, you may post unhinged rants into The New York Times regardless of your evil and your senility. The New York Times have already published so much incredible garbage that this stuff is no longer innovative.
Mr Soros is clearly living in another multiverse. All sane people who follow things know that Facebook is one of the leaders in the fight against the freedom of speech. It has teamed up with Angela Merkel and the former agents of Stasi whom she hired as censors-in-chiefs to suppress the opposition in Germany. Facebook has banned Milo, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and many others (Facebook's atrocious treatment of Loomer has led to a tense and heartbreaking video). It has even prevented 2 billion others from writing of the name "Alex Jones". It is apparently extending these bans to intimate private conversations on Facebook.
I have kept my Facebook account because it may be useful or important for technicalities but I haven't really used it for some 10 years (except for thanking 50 times for birthday wishes once a year). My estimate for the life expectancy of my account if I started to use it normally would be "at most weeks", given the constant bans of the people whose views and activities I consider similar to mine. Don't get me wrong: even if there were no political polarization at all, I would probably separate myself from Facebook, anyway: Facebook is just way too "social" for me and wasting people's time with mundane things that utterly bore me.
But I do follow the proclamations of many people and their camps and I've noticed that "Facebook as a culprit responsible for the election of Trump" is a widespread meme on the servers of far left fanatics (e.g. some of the warriors against theoretical physics). Many of those have been writing such things for years, well before their owner George Soros elevated this conspiracy theory to the official orthodoxy of their movement by his op-ed.
So maybe this conspiracy theory could become a conspiracy fact, making the world a little bit better place?
From my viewpoint, Mark Zuckerberg is the ultimate average man. He wrote some code, like
10 INPUT messagefromsendertorecipientor something like that, earned tens of billions of dollars (because that code started to spread in the environment with lots of connections to lots of people with lots of money), and since that time, he tries to maintain some centrist image. I feel certain that it's right to consider Facebook more "progressive" than e.g. Microsoft, a company outside the Silicon Valley (the geographic location explains a big part of the companies' politics, I think), but much of the progressive dirt at Facebook could be caused by organized cliques of the progressive self-anointed trolls who took over the events at the server – things don't have to be Zuckerberg's personal fault (although he's clearly tolerated them for years, to say the least).
20 PRINT (messagefromsendertorecipient,addressofrecipient)
30 GOTO 10
Hot Air has embedded a video with a debate of Mark Zuckerberg and a host in Utah. In the first five minutes, Zuckerberg misremembers the name and location of his new company in Utah and slightly inarticulately recalls some aspects of the strategy-lacking growth of the company. More importantly, he also said that "he doesn't like the growing list of things you can't say".
Well, that's quite an ironic proposition, indeed, from someone who leads the server that has brutally suppressed the freedom of speech of 2 billion people for several years. Alex Jones has warned that we were going in this exact direction for several years – and instead of crediting Alex Jones for these vital observations that Jones did many years before Zuckerberg, and donating 1/2 of his Facebook stocks to Alex Jones, Zuckerberg preserves a ban for 2 billion people who can't even write "Alex Jones" on Facebook!
But who knows. Maybe Trump has found a carrot, a stick, or their combination that will persuade Zuckerberg to behave as a defender of the Western values and to ignore the malicious sect owned by George Soros, pretty much in the same way that terrifies the owner of that sect.