Boris was wrong

Obviously a dementor m8

Search dementor costume and tell me I’m wrong.

Actually, maybe we can get them to ban dementor costumes?

Imagine if everyone going to a right-wing protest now wore dementor costumes. They couldn’t use the footage. Anti-fa would be appearing to beat up Muslim women.

What a Xanatos gambit.

Either they can’t put you on TV and twist it, allowing you to walk around e.g. Charlottesville freely saying whatever you want (bonus points Koran quotes) or they ban it.

You could go the whole hog and play the “I self-identify” game.

Picture Rowling totally losing it on twitter, oh my God it would be amazing.

What a cultural coup. The Potterheads would never, ever shut up about it.

As for the law.

We’ve had clothing laws (sumptuary laws) for CENTURIES.

Yes, it is part of our culture to ban dangerous clothing. Seeing someone’s face is the legal requirement.

The Left are the ignorant ones

I’ve never had to explain shadow banning to a right-winger.

It’s always the left wing.

You can explain in five different ways.

They still won’t get it.

“But I posted it, people can see it!”


It’s only up FOR YOU.


To trick you into using a service that won’t serve you.

This means you won’t seek out or make competition.

It’s anti-competition and hence, illegal.



Another point:

Just because they write something in a shitty Terms of Service doesn’t make it legally valid.

It has to end up in court and be maintained, which almost never happens.

Otherwise they could take all your rights away because TOS.

Anyone can write a TOS. You can write a TOS. It means nothing.

So no, instagram don’t own your photos and if they use your copyright for a profit, you can and should sue. You didn’t negotiate terms and they didn’t expressly pay on a photo by photo basis. They can’t deprive you your IP rights as a content creator. Same with YT videos.

They are a hosting service with delusions of ownership.
On the DailyMail, a celebrity’s selfie will have the copyright logo and …”Instagram”.


Challenge that, Trump.
The copyright is created when the photo is made, there is no transfer without a specific contract and exchange of money. No.
They use this data, sell it and things you always own (even after death) like your likeness can be used for deepfakes and AI “research”. Informed consent in experiments means you must know what you’re entered into, study by study, with an option to opt out. They stole the data for research so it isn’t scientific and none of it actually counts.

They are acting as an illegal government, over-ruling the real one.

That’s why their stock price is so high.

Silicon Valley’s social media will go down in history as the biggest attempted intellectual property theft in human history. They don’t own your crappy poetry, your book reviews, NONE OF IT.

Things also turn invisible, disappear entirely from the selected page the FIRST time you load it (because who loads twice) and Twitter decides to unfollow people for you and follow other people on your behalf if you’ve been away from it for a length of time and presumably, won’t notice.

Make an offence for digital gaslighting?

Project Veritas and the shadow banning

We all knew. Thanks? Even the black beauty guru Youtubers knew.

What, do you think the Black Eyed Peas are genuinely popular with teens who never grew up during their peak?

The normies will only care when it affects their vanity.

So I tipped them all off.

Islam in Europe this week
Typo? World’s fastest breeding religion.
In the 22nd Century, we can all be oppressed!

They are going at cannon fodder levels there. Islam is impossible without polygamy. Christianity used to compete but then it stopped fucking its relations and farmyard animals and became civilized. All you need to do is take the feminist approach – force the women to work and they won’t breed.

Burqa ban is legal, acc. to EU Human Rights court


“The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday upheld France’s controversial burqa ban, rejecting arguments that a 2010 law outlawing full-face veils breaches religious freedom.

In a case brought by a 24-year-old French woman with the support of a British legal team, the court ruled that France was justified in introducing the ban in the interests of social cohesion.”

Good news for once thank Fucking GodsGood news, enjoy it boys