Does social media restrict freedom of speech?

More and more people are joining in with social media / networks, but are we all being fooled is social media really the best way to express your thoughts and ideas? Yes social media maybe the quickest way to communicate with your friends but it is also one of the quickest places to be if you want to be censored.
If want you say does not comply with the rules of the social network or a moderator on the social network deems what you post as spam then you could find that you cannot really say anything at all.

SPAM! Spam is a term used by major internet businesses to hinder other company's from advertising on the internet and also helps them to censor material that they do not agree with.

But what actually constitutes as spam? Something advertorial? something a website owner disagrees with? where are the real borders and guidelines when it comes to spam? the truth is that their are non and it is up to the website owner to decide whether what you write is spam or not..... so if the website owner, comapnys or a moderator disagrees with what you have to say you could be labeled as a spammer and banned from the social network...

So your political views could simply be labeled as spam... That is why you should not join a social network to express your views but get a blog or website at-least where you have the freedom to say what you like (under the laws where you live however).

But do remember that the main source of traffic to websites is from search engines. so if a search engines views your website as spam for whatever subjective reason you maybe still online but nobody will hear what you have to say because nobody can find you on a search engine.

A few things that should get you thinking about wether the internet really allows for freedom of speech when it is ruled by big company's that tell you what to think.


Putting your business on a social media or using social media to promote your business isn't good as it lets the social media website be control of your business essentially.

The American war of independence – a lesson from the past and contemporary parallels

The American war of independence was a civil war with 100,000 loyalists having to leave at the end. Also it was a world war that the Americans could not have won without the help of France, Spain and the Netherlands. Britain was the highest military power at the time but it could not fight a war on multiple fronts and this is a recurring problem in history, multiple front wars can overwhelm and destroy you even if you have the best army or the best economy, better than your rivals.
The American civil war started due to tax revolts on a wide range of issues but at the basis of it was the fact that there was no representation despite the high taxes.
The British were doomed to lose the war from the start and the American war of independence shows historically that a small guerrilla force can win against overwhelming force so long as they avoid catastrophic and decisive defeat. All that is required is to engage in a continuous struggle. This is exactly the kind of tactics employed by the Vietnamese against the Americans in the Vietnam war.
This is why the Syrian war despite Assads victories will probably result in Syria being split into 3 different countries as he cannot fight a multi-front war, so long as the rebels avoid a decisive defeat. A break up is unavoidable, ethnic cleansing and population exchanges will result, the UN will try to bring the parties to the bargaining table after enough people have died (sad but the west is cautious after the Libya debacle and the public are weary of entering into another conflict, only after exposure to the humanitarian situation in Syria will the west have to face up to finding a solution for the problems there)and a compromise will eventually result or be forced by western backed forces? The split will be based upon sectarian and racial lines: a Shiite and Alawite state loyal to Assad backed by Hezbollah and Iran, a Kurdish state linked with similar separatist movements in Turkey and Iraq and finally a Sunni state backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia etc. This is a similar situation to the collapse of Yugoslavia which resulted in countries forming based on racial and sectarian lines.
We have dealt with the parallels with current conflicts I.e. warfare but also must be considered is the rise of UKIP in the UK as a response to perceived injustice or strains in Britain’s relationship with the EU. If the EU is to remain in shape legitimately then it must make up for its democratic deficiencies and start addressing the real concerns of its citizens such as rising unemployment, a dire economic situation and tension resulting from freedom of movement between member states.

So thats why politcians should wear heel lifts

Hey i found this quite interesting article on Berkeleybubble called: why it is important to be tall especially if your a politician which just confirmed for me my thought on one of my older posts about politicians needing to be tall to be able to properly run a country and to be taken seriously not only by the own countries public but by other countries as well. It is worth reading the article on berkelybubble.. plus there are also some very valid points about politics on that website too! Even though i am not a politician i may buy a pair of heel lifts just to try and see if they will work for me. IL post my results later on and see whether peoples attitude towards me changes or not.

Living in a selfish world

7 billion people in the world where differences in wealth can be huge in one city and even on one street. Where one person could be complain as they didn't get there bonus this year and another could be complaining that they haven't got a job or haven't got enough money to live.

The rich deny people life.

Why do British mps resort to calling a loosing election down to a protest vote?

It seems that in England it becoming more and more often that mp's call a loss or a under performance down to the public using there votes as a protest for change? How undemocratic is that how dare they even suggest that! That is by far a big example of how little the politicians in the united kingdom think of the "general" public.

Also it seems very much as though the politicians believe that people cannot vote for who they want anymore.

Idiots! who are we meant to vote for then? if all three of the major parts in England are practically the same?

Politicians wear shoe lifts,

Believe it or not but politicians are now wearing shoe lifts to appear taller.. a good and clever way to increase your height that was only thought to be used by the stars and celebs but now however shoe lifts are proving to be a hit with the politicians to make themselves look more dominant and have more authority..
Ordinary people can also wear them to increase their height... much preferred over elevator shoes as with elevator shoes you can see that the heel is much bigger than normal but with height increasing insoles you cant tell.

What you guys think?

Here a link to info on shoe lifts you dont know what i mean.. there like height increasing insoles.

D-Day?

Agonist reports we've dropped paratroopers in Iraq.

5:32 EST US troops parachute into Northern Iraq. Breaking news on Fox. 1,000 troops flew in from Italy, securing an airbase. 173rd Brigade Airborne. Rangers.

Let's hope they will be effective, since this "undefended supply line" shit is second-rate military commandeering. Rumsfeld is horrible at conducting a war. And Americans are paying for his mistakes.