The Corporation or the State?
The "Culture War" or Something Else?
Leftist think tanks and the most dominant tech platforms have partnered together to produce various techniques that they refer to as "CounterSpeech initiatives".
The simplest CounterSpeech initiative consists of an organized group with special training with platforms like Facebook and that uses simple mob tactics to suppress unwanted ideas. The #iamhere group, and their 150,000 members from several dozen countries, is just what I am referrinthg to. Their sole purpose is to shift the malleable center more to the left side of politics, which includes the support and defense of established corporate media. Their methodology is simple: find relevant articles (such as the New York Times articles on social media), tag each other, comment, like each other's comments, and suppress opposing views.
Just when #iamhere was formed, Facebook released a new comment architecture option, where comments are not in chronological order, but ordered by reactions. This means that a reply to a comment can be placed higher than the comment it was replying to. If a group were to emerge who took advantage of this, then that group could effectively hide opposing views by replying to those views and then reacting to their own replies (by tagging each other). This makes their comments more visible and their opponents less so. It is no coincidence that #iamhere and this comment architecture emerged simultaneously. It is no coincidence that Facebook has partnerships with certain leftist news outlets and that these organizations chose the new comment architecture option. In fact, Facebook and the Counter-Violent Extremist (CVE) community produced admitted as much.
Return to the 150,000 figure above for a moment. Facebook has enormous data advantages and has software programs that can target people based on specific criteria. Facebook has 2.9 billion active monthly users; yet they were only able to organize 150,000 real people on their own website.
We will return to this peculiar discovery later.
Censorship and Shadowbanning
We should examine a different CounterSpeech initiative now. The New York Times partnered with a software-developing think tank called Jigsaw, on at least two occasions. In both cases, Jigsaw tested their new content moderation (censorship, shadow ban censorship, and artificial moderation) on the New York Times' social media pages. If you were to visit the New York Times' Twitter and LinkedIn pages, you will see comments from bots and throwaway accounts that are pro-NYTimes.
Most important of all, Jigsaw is owned by Google with special privileges to Google Search data and YouTube data. Despite the New York Times receiving preferential treatment by Google Search and YouTube (think Google's search results and YouTube's news bar), the news agency needs artificial manipulation to appear more popular. In fact, all leftist corporate media receive preferential treatment by the most dominant tech platforms (again, YouTube's news bar), yet their ratings are still plummeting.
In other words, a small number of tech firms are placing leftist media directly in front of most of the world's population, and leftist media is still failing. What does this tell us about the popularity of leftism?
The Redirect Method
I have also conducted in-depth investigations into the other component of information control – propaganda dissemination. I have written about this so much that I made collapsible content for it. In essence, this program targets people and manipulates what they see online by placing far left pages in front of them. Some of these pages even tailor political courses to 7+ year old kids. Other pages that people are redirected to, such as Life After Hate are disguised as humanitarians that literally teach people not to think for themselves, not to participate in disagreement, and to trust leftist media.
The Redirect Method
- tracks users,
- profiles them based on their searches and data history,
- categorizes them into special "cohorts", and finally
- tailors the ad feeds of these users.
The think tanks that refer to themselves as the counter-violent extremist (CVE) community is responsible for developing this technique. The CVE community is comprised of software developers and extremist "researchers". The London-based Moonshot and Google's special division, Jigsaw, are the principal authorities in the CVE community, though there are many others. With their origins in the War on Terror, the CVE community has largely shifted their attention from Islamic terrorism overseas to far-right extremism at home. The only issue with their new mission is that it is built on a lie – a convenient narrative that neatly markets the four products produced by the CVE community – censorship, shadow ban software, ad feed manipulation [the topic of this article], and CounterSpeech initiatives.
The first step (tracking) in the process only works because the tech platforms store sensitive data on their users (indefinitely) – the 1st sin goes to the platforms. Also, this step works because the CVE software tracks users real-time – the 2nd sin goes to the CVEs. The profiling and sorting of users into CVE-defined "cohorts" is obviously another sin of the CVEs, but of course, the tech platforms agreed to it all by hosting the method. Obviously, the questionable "ad results" that show up in the last step of the Redirect Method involves a third set of organizations that are neither CVEs nor tech platforms. This third group of organizations are chosen by the CVEs to indoctrinate users flagged by the program. The "ad results" are often sources of group think and appeals to authority; and are themselves, extremist organizations that target the mentally ill, children as young as 7 years old, and teach people to simply trust in authority.
The tech platforms are more than happy to host the CVE products because the narrative serves the tech platforms' economic agenda, which is to expand their influence across all networks and crush those extremist-infested start-ups.
That's just the private sector. The security state agencies have an interest in network and information control as well. The 3-letter agencies and the White House and are not above funding and providing protection for the private sector CVE organizations, even if the CVE community's narrative about far-right extremism is highly unscientific, harmful to the at-risk, and misleading altogether.
The False Intellectual
Another technique is to create questionable psychology pages to target the mentally ill (more specifically, people that search for mentally ill-related content) for leftist content. The psychology subfield of 'trauma and resilience' happens to be incompatible with dominant narratives over "trauma", particularly from psychology institutions that lean left.
Below are all major firms, corporations, and government agencies involved (that I have tracked down thus far) in the processes mentioned so far:
Organizations Involved in Content Moderation & Redirection
Content Moderators (CM): 23 organizations
Redirection (R): 41 organizations
enabler: produces flawed research in support of these techniques
proselytizer: has a page/content that users are redirected to
sponsor: provides funding of these techniques
host: hosts these techniques/software
- Adapt (R: enabler) 
- Adyan Institute (R: enabler, proselytizer) 
- American University (R: proselytizer) 
- Anti-Defamation League (R: developer, enabler) 
- Beringea (R: sponsor) 
- Bing (R: host)  (CM) 
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (R: enabler) 
- Center for the Analysis of the Radical Right (R: enabler) 
- Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism (R: enabler) 
- ConnectFutures (R: proselytizer) 
- Coral by Vox Media (CM) 
- Department of Homeland Security (R: enabler, sponsor) 
- Der Spiegel (CM) 
- Disqus (CM) 
- European Derad Toolkit (R: developer, enabler) 
- El Pais (CM) 
- Facebook (R: host)  (CM) 
- FACEIT (CM) 
- The Financial Times (CM) 
- Galop (R: enabler) 
- Google Search (R: host)  (CM) 
- Hope Not Hate (R: enabler) 
- iamhere (R: enabler, proselytizer) 
- Instagram (R: host)  (CM) 
- Institute for Democracy and Civil Society (R: enabler) 
- Institute for Strategic Dialogue (R: enabler) 
- International Center on Security and Violent Extremism (R: enabler, proselytizer) 
- International Organization for Migration (R: proselytizer, enabler) 
- Jigsaw (R: developer) 
- LA Times (CM) 
- Le Monde (CM) 
- Life After Hate, ExitUSA, ExitAustralia (R: proselytizers) 
- Media Diversity Institute (R: proselytizers) 
- Mercia (R: sponsor) 
- Moonshot (R: developer, enabler) 
- Newlines Institute (R: enabler) 
- New York Times (CM) 
- OpenWeb (CM) 
- Reddit (CM) 
- Taringa (CM) 
- Terra Toolkit (R: proselytizer) 
- Textgain (R: developer) 
- The Campaign Toolkit (R: enabler) 
- Twitter (R: host)  (CM) 
- Soufon Center (R: enabler) 
- Southeast Missourian (CM) 
- Swedish Defense Research Agency (R: enabler, developer) 
- USAID (R: proselytizer, enabler) 
- USA Today (CM) 
- Wall Street Journal (CM) 
- Washington Post (CM) 
- White House, The (R: enabler) 
- Wired (CM) 
- Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (R: enabler) 
- YouTube (R: host)  (CM) 
- Zivilcourage und Anti Rassismus-Arbeit (R: enabler) 
If the leftist movement was indeed a grassroots activist movement, then why does it rely on conglomerate (not just corporate, but several dozen of the most powerful corporations in the world) censorship? Why does it rely on conglomerate high-tech propaganda techniques (the Redirect Method) to indoctrinate more leftists to the cause? Why does it rely on questionable psychology pages to target at-risk audiences? Why does it partner with groups that tailor left-leaning political training for kids? Why does it produce disinformation about extremism, terrorism, and hate (all of which benefit the state's interests)?
This would not need to occur if that ominous thing we refer to as "The Left" had legitimate support. This is clearly manufactured. Otherwise, the #iamhere organization would have been more successful than its meager 150,000 membership.
The modern left is largely manufactured. It is institutional and state interests disguised as grassroots movements. Two conclusions can be drawn from this discovery:
- What we face is not a great "culture war". A culture war implies that two significant factions of citizens have fundamentally different views. If the culture war was as great as right-wing commentators claim it is, #iamhere would have more than 150,000 members.
- The struggle is actually Citizens vs the Institutions (but the institution of the state or the corporation?).
The Corporation or the State?
How the public answers this question (of if the public even asks this question) will determine the fate of the country. There are 4 possible scenarios, but praxiologically, only two are possible.
- The corporation is the problem. The state does not act against the corporation.
- The corporation is the problem. The state acts against the corporation.
- The state is the problem. The state does not act against the corporation.
- The state is the problem. The state acts against the corporation.
A Brief Summary of Austrian Economics
Man rationally pursues his interests; his interests are constantly evolving; and prices of things are subjective. [Many statists have tried to refute these basic principles, and have only produced theories that do not describe reality, economic models that incessantly fail, and oppressive governments.]
As a result, if man is free, then when he engages in a transaction with another man, the exchange will be mutually beneficial. This logically follows from the fact that each is pursuing his own interests, and that each is free to engage in a transaction with the other man (or not). If it does not benefit a man, then that man will decline.
Furthermore, another party cannot know a man's skills or his interests, much less his constantly evolving interests, better than he does. As a result, an external party (the government) cannot spend the man's money better than he can for himself. The single exception is if the external party is protecting the man's right to engage freely, which is the only legitimate role of the state.
So how could a man do very bad things and still be successful? Answer: freedom is being infringed on.
Facebook, which is merely a large group of individuals pursuing their interests, have been doing things that much of the public does not appreciate. Now, random interactions are always going to produce some people who are discontent with the various outcomes; but if the majority of individuals are upset with a particular service, then that service will fail. Unless that service is a government service (which expands when it fails) or that service is supported by the government, then it will fail if it does not benefit the party engaged in business with it. In a free market, one can only be successful if one is benefitting others.
Imagine the scenario where you are engaging in a transaction with a man, but some of your money is given to him regardless of whether or not you accept the transaction. Even worse, imagine if some of your money is going to be given to him even if you never meet, see, or even hear of him. Such is the case with universities in America, and many other enterprises in virtually all sectors of the economy. If this occurs, then it is in this man's interest to keep receiving that money (taxes). If he must choose between closing on a deal with you and keeping that money, he is going to keep that money. He does not have to engage in a mutually beneficial transaction with you, because the government is using its monopoly on force to hand him success. This is de jure inequality, as opposed to the benign statist/leftist propaganda of de facto inequality (which will be another article entirely).
The state is the problem.
All of the groups and companies that are involved in censorship, redirection, and high-tech propaganda receive some form of aid from the state. Some receive tax money and stamps of approval, while the competitors of others are slandered by the state. They partner with intelligence agencies and other executive branches of our government. The intelligence agencies produce reports in combination with leftist think tanks that ultimately impact legislation.
The state is using these corporations as a proxy government for the things that the state cannot do but wishes to do.
The conglomerate, and all of this corporate policy to adopt the same censorship software, the same redirection software...this is not due to free market dynamics. The set of arbitrary policy known as antitrust legislation is not the answer, which would only lead to the state having more powers over the economic sector. The state does not care if we hate its proxy government. If we hate it and call for state intervention, then we increase the state's powers (antitrust enforcement), which serves the state's interests.
The only solution is to recognize that the problem is the state and that the state's powers must be limited. The leftist hysteria that we observe is largely manufactured, and always serves the state's interests.
Ignore the left. Target the state.
 Moonshot Team. “Adapt Ethics Audit.”
 Erin Saltman, Farshad Kooti & Karly Vockery. “New Models for Deploying Counterspeech: Measuring Behavioral Change and Sentiment Analysis, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism.” (2021).
 “The US Government's Role In Censorship and Redirection Online.” The ARKA Journal.
 “Propaganda and the Nationwide Monitoring of Conservatives During the 2020 Election.” The ARKA Journal.
 Yahoo!Finance. “Data Analytics firm that Raised 7m Warns Online Threats have Changed Substantially Due to Pandemic”.
 “Facebook’s Puppet Masters.” The ARKA Journal.
 “How Far-Leftism is Forced On Us.” The ARKA Journal.
 Center for Study of the Study of Hate and Extremism. “Report to the Nation: Anti-Asian Prejudice and Hate Crime.” California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB).
 Facebook. “CounterSpeech.”
 Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Cooper Gatewood. Ciarán O’Connor. “Disinformation Briefing: Narratives around Black Lives Matter and voter fraud.”
 International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism. “Research Reports.”
 Nina Jankowicz. Jillian Hunchak. Alexandra Pavliuc. Celia Davies. Shannon Pierson. Zoë Kaufmann. “Malign Creativity: How Gender, Sex, and Lies are Weaponized Against Women Online” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. [April 2021].  The ARKA Journal. “The False Agenda.”
 Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy. “What Terrorism Will Look Like in the Future.”
 “Shadowbanned.” The ARKA Journal.
 Perspective API. “Case Studies: How world-renowned publishers, platforms, and researchers are using Perspective API.”
 Jigsaw. “Helping Authors Understand Toxicity, One Comment at a Time.”
 Marie Pellat. Patricia Georgiou. Jigsaw. "Perspective Launches in Spanish with El Pais".
 "The False Agenda". The ARKA Journal.
 "Tyranny, Inc". The ARKA Journal.
 Milton Friedman. "Why Government is the Problem". The Hoover Institution. (1993).
 "A Tale of Suppressed Science: The Psychology of Trauma and Resilience". The ARKA Journal.