Let's be clear about what @Google, @Apple & @amazon instantly destroying #Parler's ability to be the free-speech version of Twitter is. At its core, this is about the ability to freely communicate one’s thoughts to others — once considered a hallmark of "The American Way." 1/13

I am seeing a ton of confusion about protecting yourself on the Internet. So as a retired bastard genius kid, I wanted to share my own experiences and knowledge in this.

DOXXING, PERSONAL CYBERSECURITY, ANONYMITY for the average revolutionary. A thread:

If you're a regular user of huge Internet services like Amazon, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc., as well as over the age of 18, it's wise to assume that your personally identifiable information IS attainable and IS out there. These services all collect and save info --

to varying degrees, and to varying levels of security. And this information is VALUABLE. Data breaches occur frequently, retroactively, and unknowingly, and the data from said breaches are circulated around and cached in all kinds of easy-to-access places online.

Why does this matter? A (simplified) hypothetical: while someone probably can't find your street address from just your Twitter bio, if your handle is the same as your e-mail, and that e-mail is in a publicly available data breach with a street address attached, you're screwed.

Usually when doxxing happens, a much more elaborate version of said case happens. Doxxing really comes down to investigating all of an individual's available info and digital footprints, and narrowing it down to a single identity.

This interview from @OSchiffey has great quotes that directly refute the nonsense that many privacy advocates spout about how the death of cross-site tracking will help ad-supported publishers on the open web. https://t.co/bj1gWPKOei 1/

The interview is with a senior leader at a major global ad agency. Someone who actually knows what advertisers are talking about, where they are directing their spending, and what the future trends will be. Not a privacy advocate who knows nothing about the advertising market 2/

First, privacy advocates spread misinformation and bad research data that ITP hasn't hurt publisher revenue and/or hasn't affected advertiser spending. And yet here is an unequivocal answer as to the impact of ITP on advertiser spending. 3/

The agency exec also clearly shares the opinion that the end of 3PC will push money away from the open web, exactly what privacy advocates claim won't happen. 4/

She also talks about how context matters, but so does audience. Audience targeting is effectively dead without 3PC and non-Chrome browsers are doing nothing to change this. 5/

Transgenderism resembles a mass psychogenic illness that has spread thanks to the internet. If there were no Tumblr identity fluidity nonsense, and if Reddit and YouTube had never existed, most “trans” people would not have landed on “gender” as the source of their ills.
1.

It is handed to them in the same way religion is handed to children. Thoughts and ideas are set before them, and they have brought these thoughts and ideas to live in themselves. Without the Internet, their feelings of dis-ease would have found a different explanation.
2.

These ideas became a framework for self-understanding, a map that instructs their actions, a vocabulary that programs their tongue. The pursuit of identity was the task, the online bubble its surrogate. They were commanded by it, and it gave their lives purpose and meaning.
3.

It had benefits. It catered to vanity. Social adulation arrived with each new step. This is why they so fiercely cling to it, since any conceptual breakdown would shatter the world they’ve built, which has been buttressed and fortified through these concepts – these errors.
4.

Its appeal first came as an escapist fantasy for the dysmorphic and disenchanted. Unbound from the meanings thrust upon them by others, they could instead become self-creators. They imbibed the dogma that suggested only two paths lay before them: – transition or suicide.
5.

Chess may be a good analogy for explaining the difference between a descriptive model of reality and a generative model of reality.

A descriptive model of chess will describe the rules (i.e. initial setup, allowed moves, points per piece, objectives). This tells you how a chessboard might evolve and also narrows the combinations of realistic chess positions.

In contrast, a generative model involves the actual gameplay between competing players that follow the rules. It generates new styles and patterns. It establishes new strategies and tactics. It generates new openings, middle gameplay, and end game tactics.

A generative model is an evolutionary model that leads to emergent behavior. As a consequence, a master of chess is able to recall the layout of chess positions in a real game in an instant, yet is unable to remember pieces placed in random positions.

That is because causality is present in the movements of pieces in a chessboard. An intuitive system like the human mind is able to capture that causality as a means to understanding and recall.