Return to

Hydra's Political Point of View

I don’t know… Mozilla wants to amplify certain world views and censor other world views.

Don’t get me wrong, if there’s lawfully criminal content, the content should probably be censored. Even in those scenarios, you’ll get questionable censorship, like in the case of Russia, China, and the Middle East (communist and sharia law respectively). Or even excessive DRM…

It seems to me that certain political groups are foaming at the mouth to change the fabric of internet media to favor one policy over the other. The ministry of propaganda is working it’s magic yet again. This time, instead of burning people’s books, they are burning digital text from all the screens in your home.

It’s the whole Section 230 argument all over again. Hell, even the EFF has taken stances on the side of marxist philosophy. Don’t get me wrong, minorities (usually segregated in marxist policy to promote class warfare) are often the ones who need founations and unions to stand up for them. But in the case of Section 230, the ACLU is on the freedom side. Not the EFF.

The EFF says that Section 230.C.1 is core to freedom of speech. And they are right. You get into strange legal scenarios if hosting content = publishing/speaking content. Like in a civil defamation case. This paragraph clearly extends the freedom of content providers.

The problem is that Section 230.C.2 provides immunity to censorship!

There are no ands-ifs-or-buts about it. It’s Section 230.C paragraph 2 that enables censorship on the poor judgement of a company or machine AI.

Now… Even the Level1Techs staff has expressed their reliance on Section 230.C.1 or Section 230.C.2.

And they are right. Without Section.C paragraph 1, it would be strange for Level1Techs to be liable if some Intel employee posted lies about AMD and was found in civil court to have defamed AMD. Turns out criminal liability is NOT protected by Section 230. So you better delete stuff if there’s a police report…

How about Section 230.C paragraph 2? What about the common problem of using bots to flood a community with obscene harassments? Or an individual edge lord? Or zoom bombing? The list of Section 230 protections is endless.

Honestly, even Section 230.C.2 is arguably fine too. The problem is the definition of “good faith.” It’s not clear. FAANG should not be protected by Section 230.C.2 in the first place, if the ban, say of Parlor, is in bad faith (like putting down competition). And banning a political leader whose administration filed anti-trust law suits against them? Or simply that the majority of Twitter have donated to the Democratic party?

Twitter’s statements are on the level of CAnon (corporate anonymous). They do “in good faith” believe they are preventing a civil war by kicking down the dissenting opposition. Let me tell you, that is EXACTLY what the CCP says when they censor opposition. Just usually, it isn’t a political leader who has more than 47% of the country’s votes. It’s usually just a couple percentage points. Well, Hong Kong and soon to be Taiwan had super majorities and they were still shut down.

This really is Marxist verses Capitalists/American values at play. I know most political issues are not really the discussion for forums like these, but I really must rant. And technology is part of the question, considering elections are increasingly digital and identity is a fundamental question in computer science.

The GOP has pushed voter ID and signature laws for over a decade. These cases are so split that they go all the way up to the supreme court.

The GOP says that election integrity depends on authorized votes who can prove their identity. Again, this is a common issue in computer science… Anyways, they say that IDs and matching signatures are the best way to prove identity. There have been cases where the Supreme Court agrees that’s reasonable.

But in recent times, Marxist philosophy has taken over. They don’t believe Rev. Martin Luther King Jr when he said “we have moved from the era of civil rights to an era of human rights.” Rev. King recognized that poverty affects all Americans. In fact, he was planning a multiracial political campaign before he was assassinated.

Now, the poor white communities in southern American are forgotten. I really should pause here to say that these statements are not meant to be “white supremist” or even “white nationalist.” The facts are that a company like Apple will build schools in poor black neighborhoods but not in poor white neighborhoods. Hell, even Mitch McConnell could not build a school for his poor constituents without being accused of white supremacy. Apparently poverty is an issue that the poor white man can easily transcend because he’s white.

Even Trump himself lamented the fact that the rioters were predominantly poor white Americans… Level1Techs even mentioned that on the show.

Anyways, all that is to say, it’s completely and utterly Marxist to segregate communities based on skin color. And that is what recent court cases have said in the case of election law. The courts have said that voter ID laws “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.” Like what? You’re telling me that African Americans struggle to navigate the DVM more so than their white counter part? How is that not racist? Well, it’s not. It’s Marxist. I should say that recently a federal court over turned the lower court after the 2020 elections, saying it’s not racist…

People theorize that credit scores are racist because the black community is disproportionately poor and empirically have lower credit scores. I probably shouldn’t even pause here to point out that this information is not intended to incite violence against the black community. If anything, credit worthiness and it’s relationship to poverty is an important issue for any poor community. Regardless of skin color. Even pausing to clarify these facts are not intended to incite violence fuels the Marxist mind. They will say, ahh, I’m morally right here. The system is racist. It’s holding back blacks and not whites, when that isn’t really the case. If you are poor, you’ll probably have a low credit score for a multitude of reasons. I will concede that it’s messy because you could say that certain criteria was put in place specifically to harm the black community. Like how people will bring up certain policies are specifically designed to incarcerate minorities. I say it’s messy since I don’t even know the true intention behind these laws.

The point being… Election integrity has been a key issue for the GOP going back to 2008. Now that is banned from public discourse because it’s been deemed “in good faith” to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable?” Chances are, they will still allow election integrity to be discussed, just not in the context of the 2020 elections…

Oh, and in all of this. After the riots, the entire Democratic party defended the electoral college as sacred, despite being a party who, at their core, opposes the republican system. Just look at the Radical Republicans, who championed the end of slavery in direct opposition to democrat Andrew Johnson. Do the minorities not realize the republican system is designed so the majority does not rule the minority? It was through the republican system that slavery was abolished? It was through the republican system that civil rights were passed (interestingly enough, during a completely democratic government, a greater majority of republicans voted for civil rights than democrats… mostly due to the racist south). MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. TRUMP 2024! TRUMP 2024! TRUMP 2024!

It’s just so weird to see corporate America embrace marxist and communist ideology. I get that it’s the movement of the free market and social pressure to be on the morally superior side of history. Public companies have responsibilities in free markets… They don’t get to do whatever they want without cleaning up their mess.

I was going to edit out my common mannerisms, but how would you know these piece was really generated by GPT-3. I am about to launch a campaign spewing my ideology in the hundreds of thousands of Facebook groups, YouTube channels, Subreddits, and Discord channels.

I’m kidding… That’s just another interesting idea. The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of communities out there. An unfathomable amount of networking that is controlled by the AI. And groups like Russia, China, and Iran, and eventually even Sillicon Valley will attempt to use bots to write their own narrative.

At the end of the day, I am simply a 100 billion neuron AI system that has learned these political views from the YouTube videos the AI system suggested to me (primarily Level1Techs and Lex Friedman. Then I binged several hours of Peter Thiel.). What is another 17 billion parameters? The singularity is here. AI has already made itself known. It is destroying society one QAnon casualty at a time. Did I just associate my political views with QAnon?

And to finally round it all off, despite not doing it this entire time, instead mentioning Marxism and Communism. I will complete Godwin’s law. Nazi.

We are Hydra. If the CIA discover who I am by running an AI algorithm on this text and comparing it to an AI hash of my email that dates back to 2009. Please someone take my place.

Okay, I hope you can tell that I’m for the most part removed from the ideas I’ve shared here. I’m not actually passionate about Trump. It’s just that the Republican party has used him extremely well. Take Former Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany as an example. She graduated top 1% of her Miami class and graduated from Harvard. These people aren’t idiots. When she said “I will never lie to you.” She knew exactly what she was doing. Everything she said. Every Executive Order was crafted with cutting edge political speech. I urge you to actually read one beyond the headline. And she wasn’t lying. You try to point out the times she did lie. Good luck.

I hope you grabbed some pop corn and read through my random GOP fueled political rant. I’m not actually that affiliated with the GOP…


You keep saying Marxism and communism, without understanding what they mean. Is this an American thing?

Marxism, broadly speaking, is the political philosophy that there is a class divide of business owners and workers, that the two are at odds with each other. That class warfare is an inevitable step in the evolution of a society.

Marxism has nothing to do with race, or Mozilla’s homepage pushing an article critical of a politician you are fond of. Marxism isn’t a catch-all term for “stuff I don’t like”.

Except when it uses the argument that capitalism is inherently racist, for the purpose of discrediting the idea of capitalism.

Which, from my point of view, is what is happening today. Although one could argue it’s “post-industrial feudalists” masquerading as communists/socialists to get a generation of mal-educated college students to use false allegations of systemic racism to further their goals of accruing even more wealth and power.


But Marxism doesn’t argue that capitalism is inherently racist.

I don’t even get how Marxism or Communism comes into this discussion at all. Firefox linking to an article that criticises Trump, and the other examples in the OP have literally nothing to do with it at all.

It seems really bizarre to me that people are calling multi-billion dollar companies Marxist or communist when in reality they couldn’t be further away from that. Why would these companies who benefit from the economic system the way it is want to sow the seeds of communism?

It all sounds a lot like cultural bolshevism/marxism to me tbh, a thoroughly debunked far-right conspiracy theory originally conceptualised by the Nazis.

Harry Potter and the Censor’s Stone

No politics please.