That'd probably get the bill revoked being honest, EVERY media site like YouTube, Rumble even Facebook has more power than the current UK government
They're only doing it because they want to do it themselves abd using the UK as an excuse. If they didn't want to do it, they'd shut services leaving MASSIVE backlash from the normies in the UK unable to watch their videos abd quick submission from the government.
MPs believe that everyone watches the BBC, Netflix and YouTube. Organisations and companies who will bend over backwards for whatever the Government demands of them. As far as MPs are concerned, Rumble is an alternative platform that they won't shed a tear banning. If anything, they probably consider it one of the primary avenues for "harmful" content they seem intent on getting rid of. We know different but does society as whole?
In reality not the first two but definitely the last. But that depends on how long the content stay on there. If YouTube is successful in sanitising itself, the creators will leave and make new platforms or use alternatives as it's too easy to do nowadays.
Sure you'll have the slow adoption of, ironically, the normie zoomers but if the ones making entertainment leave, like Hollywood, the viewers will eventually follow.
That'd probably get the bill revoked being honest, EVERY media site like YouTube, Rumble even Facebook has more power than the current UK government
Completely disagree. These governments do have more power than these corporations. It's why corporations are prepared to spend massive amounts of money bribing politicians. In truth, they don't control them. The party controls the politicians, and corporations are getting the scraps. In all the corruption we've seen, the corruption is almost never coming at the behest of the corporations, but of the government. The corporations seek to exploit the opportunities that the government gives them.
Covid's a good example. Pfizer didn't cause the outbreak. They didn't advocate for the lockdowns. They didn't publish the statistics that 20 million Americans would die by Dec. 2020. They certainly don't control the WHO. They only started working on a vaccine because Operation Warpspeed requested it and lifted regulations out of the way. They only broke the contract and didn't provide a vaccine (instead a therapeutic injection) specifically because the government didn't abide by enforcing their contract, changed the definition of a vaccine, and promised not to charge; because the political consequences of centralizing control were far more important than any injection.
Pfizer wasn't doing bio-weapons research in Wuhan that DARPA refused to fund, that was the NIH. Twitter didn't wake up one day and ban Trump, CISA spoon-fed disinformation, and the FBI groomed the head of moderation to get Twitter to ban him. Haliburton didn't feed fake evidence of "yellow cake uranium" to the CIA to justify an invasion of Iraq. Colt didn't cause the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Dole Foods didn't request the overthrow of Guatemala. The White Star Line didn't ask to ship weapons across the Atlantic on the HMS Lusitania.
These corporations are merely extensions of government actions. The UK government has power over corporations, because the UK government's power is not limited to legal mechanisms. Tony Blair is still one of the single most powerful people in the UK government, because he is the true political leader from the shadows.
As an analogy to late Rome, I see the multinational corporations as the barbarian invaders. They are much more nimble than governments and can attack and retreat as convenient, but they are still vulnerable to a concentration of government action.
What our governments are doing is trying to play ball with them, using them against political enemies, which is allowing them to get inside the existing power structures meant to protect against them.
I figure one of two outcomes: either they'll get enough access to simply overrun governments entirely, or they'll be subsumed by the systems they're trying to infiltrate. Either way, it looks like a state/corporate hybrid and bad for everyone else.
They're not barbarians. They are warbands sent as proxies on behalf of other governments. Our government is allowing these warbands to settle at the behest of other governments that have bribed ours. It's not so much as trying to "play ball" as intentionally using them.
King Charles was executed primarily because after he was expelled he reinvaded England with a French & Scottish Army, filled with Catholics. The King of England invaded England with a foreign army. That's why the English said: "No, it's impossible that this isn't a crime. If we can commit crimes against ourselves like suicide, then the king can commit crimes against his subjects like invading with a foreign army and killing his subjects."
That'd probably get the bill revoked being honest, EVERY media site like YouTube, Rumble even Facebook has more power than the current UK government
They're only doing it because they want to do it themselves abd using the UK as an excuse. If they didn't want to do it, they'd shut services leaving MASSIVE backlash from the normies in the UK unable to watch their videos abd quick submission from the government.
MPs believe that everyone watches the BBC, Netflix and YouTube. Organisations and companies who will bend over backwards for whatever the Government demands of them. As far as MPs are concerned, Rumble is an alternative platform that they won't shed a tear banning. If anything, they probably consider it one of the primary avenues for "harmful" content they seem intent on getting rid of. We know different but does society as whole?
In reality not the first two but definitely the last. But that depends on how long the content stay on there. If YouTube is successful in sanitising itself, the creators will leave and make new platforms or use alternatives as it's too easy to do nowadays.
Sure you'll have the slow adoption of, ironically, the normie zoomers but if the ones making entertainment leave, like Hollywood, the viewers will eventually follow.
Completely disagree. These governments do have more power than these corporations. It's why corporations are prepared to spend massive amounts of money bribing politicians. In truth, they don't control them. The party controls the politicians, and corporations are getting the scraps. In all the corruption we've seen, the corruption is almost never coming at the behest of the corporations, but of the government. The corporations seek to exploit the opportunities that the government gives them.
Covid's a good example. Pfizer didn't cause the outbreak. They didn't advocate for the lockdowns. They didn't publish the statistics that 20 million Americans would die by Dec. 2020. They certainly don't control the WHO. They only started working on a vaccine because Operation Warpspeed requested it and lifted regulations out of the way. They only broke the contract and didn't provide a vaccine (instead a therapeutic injection) specifically because the government didn't abide by enforcing their contract, changed the definition of a vaccine, and promised not to charge; because the political consequences of centralizing control were far more important than any injection.
Pfizer wasn't doing bio-weapons research in Wuhan that DARPA refused to fund, that was the NIH. Twitter didn't wake up one day and ban Trump, CISA spoon-fed disinformation, and the FBI groomed the head of moderation to get Twitter to ban him. Haliburton didn't feed fake evidence of "yellow cake uranium" to the CIA to justify an invasion of Iraq. Colt didn't cause the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Dole Foods didn't request the overthrow of Guatemala. The White Star Line didn't ask to ship weapons across the Atlantic on the HMS Lusitania.
These corporations are merely extensions of government actions. The UK government has power over corporations, because the UK government's power is not limited to legal mechanisms. Tony Blair is still one of the single most powerful people in the UK government, because he is the true political leader from the shadows.
As an analogy to late Rome, I see the multinational corporations as the barbarian invaders. They are much more nimble than governments and can attack and retreat as convenient, but they are still vulnerable to a concentration of government action.
What our governments are doing is trying to play ball with them, using them against political enemies, which is allowing them to get inside the existing power structures meant to protect against them.
I figure one of two outcomes: either they'll get enough access to simply overrun governments entirely, or they'll be subsumed by the systems they're trying to infiltrate. Either way, it looks like a state/corporate hybrid and bad for everyone else.
They're not barbarians. They are warbands sent as proxies on behalf of other governments. Our government is allowing these warbands to settle at the behest of other governments that have bribed ours. It's not so much as trying to "play ball" as intentionally using them.
King Charles was executed primarily because after he was expelled he reinvaded England with a French & Scottish Army, filled with Catholics. The King of England invaded England with a foreign army. That's why the English said: "No, it's impossible that this isn't a crime. If we can commit crimes against ourselves like suicide, then the king can commit crimes against his subjects like invading with a foreign army and killing his subjects."
We're much closer to that.