Opinion – Brian J. Pfail

American Tradition is About ‘Merry Christmas,’ not ‘Happy Holidays’

Vincent Dao, Editor-in-Chief of American Virtue, took to YouTube to explain why we need to stop saying “Happy Holidays.”

“Who cares, bro? It’s not a big deal. Oh yeah, then why did you stop saying merry Christmas,” Dao began. “If it wasn’t a big deal, then why did people change it?

“The truth is as small as they may seem, words matter, language matters, and these things can drastically change our perception of the world around us. And that’s why the leftists and secularists are doing this.”

“Every single Christmas, conservatives get into these culture war debates of ‘Merry Christmas’ versus ‘Happy Holidays,’” Dao said.

He says most people “roll their eyes” at the debate, acting as if it isn’t much of a big deal.

“It’s a part of a great war on Christmas and a greater war on American tradition,” he added.

“Realize it or not, words matter, language matters. Language impacts your perception and understanding of the world a lot more than you realize,” Dao said. “Language is a reflection of who we are and what we believe in as a civilization.”

He asks his viewers to picture “Merry Christmas” in their minds and then “Happy Holidays.”

“Do you see the same image in your head?” Dao asks.

He also remarks on the wordage of democracy and republic and how they are drastically viewed differently.

“Don’t you see how a small change in your vocabulary can drastically change your entire perception of our civilization?” Dao asks again.

“America celebrates Christmas versus America celebrates the holidays,” he said in air quotes.

“It’s not some stupid inconsequently thing—it’s very intentional. Language matters. The left knows that language matters, which is why they try to change it,” he added.

He argues if it wasn’t such a big deal, the left would not have changed it to “Happy Holidays.”

“They say it for inclusivity’s sake—happy holidays is about inclusivity, but that’s not really ever true because the left is perfectly happy to be exclusive when it comes to Christians, or white people, or whatever.

“Inclusivity and diversity is really always an excuse to wage war on parts of America that they don’t like,” said Dao.

His main argument is that “Happy Holidays” is a war on American tradition and Christianity, both of which are “intertwined” within Christmas and are “natural enemies of American leftism.”

“American culture as a whole has always celebrated Christmas … it’s our holiday as Americans—it’s our thing—it’s been our thing,” said Dao. “Wholistically, Christmas is the American holiday.”

He also says almost everyone celebrates Christmas in some fashion, but when we cannot express Christmas, then we are rendered as less unified of a culture— “less we can share in common.”

“American identity is far less coherent,” says Dao. He says leftists are petrified of Christianity which we why we are seeing the secularization of the holiday.

“I think the true meaning of Christmas on many levels has been erased from American culture.”

He cites American commercialism and the decline of actual conversation about Christmas.

“The war on Christmas is real and is deliberate, and the only reason I’d say they ridicule for pointing it out is because they don’t actually want you to talk about it,” said Dao. “Sound familiar like most cultural issues?”

“America First” Gubernatorial Candidate Sets Sights on New York

Aside from taking a hardline stance on New York’s crime wave, Republican gubernatorial candidate Andrew Giuliani presses on traditional conservatism through his populist appeal.

“I think more than anything, this has been a problem with our institutions. I’ve positioned myself as an America First,” said Mr. Giuliani. The son of the former New York mayor went on to express his disgust with the politicizing of the January 6th committee, which he claimed violated House rules.

“Where’s the congressional investigation about the 270 plus riots that happened between May of 2020 and January 5 of 2021?” Questioned, Mr. Giuliani. “Parts of cities on the West Coast literally being taken over as autonomous zones is pure chaos.”

Regarding academia, Mr. Giuliani plans to take on private universities. He said, “They should pay their property tax. They have an exemption on their tax status.”

“We’re talking about universities that have multibillion-dollar endowments. They can afford it. They can do it,” said Mr. Giuliani. “It will take some relief off of New York taxpayers.”

With CRT in the “progressive” mix, he plans to enact legislation similar to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act. “If that did not pass, I would do everything I could from an executive fiat perspective to pass it by executive order.”

He also mentioned a tax credit system, so monies go directly into teachers’ unions. New Yorkers would then be able to decide which school they want their child to attend. Mr. Giuliani said, “It’s bringing the free market and more choice into education. If you do that now, all of a sudden, the curriculums become accountable at that point.” He said he would push back against the Justice Department’s labeling parents attending school board meetings as domestic terrorists.

Mr. Giuliani insisted the lockdowns were harmful to our children’s growth educationally and interpersonally granting a susceptibility to drugs like many of the opioids filtered through the southern border. He commented on the hypersexualization and gender education, saying we can’t be teaching this and to “let our kids be innocent again.”

Pivoting to economic woes, he compared Florida’s budget to New York’s. He plans to cut the state’s budget by 20%. “Florida actually has a million more people than New York. Florida state budget is $98 billion. New York’s is $220 billion,” he said. “New York is going to be right on the path, unfortunately, of Illinois. And that’s not a place where we want to go,” commenting on New York’s population flight, particularly to Florida. Mr. Giuliani has also promised no property taxes for residents older than 60 and under the salary cap of $100,000.

With Big Tech, he plans to push Congress to repeal Section 230, protecting social media outlets from being responsible for published material. “That needs to be done on a federal level, but I would look at from a state-level how we can hold social media companies accountable,” said Mr. Giuliani, commenting that Twitter and other like platforms have “become publishers and that [Section 230] protection should no longer exist.”

Mr. Giuliani vows to secure our elections and make voter ID mandatory. He will make voting machines obsolete and maintain and update voter rolls annually.

Regarding the state’s mandates, Mr. Giuliani plans to eliminate all unconstitutional COVID-19 mandates, hire a new Health Commissioner, and rehire all state workers with backpay. He intends to end a 2019 Andrew Cuomo law that ended religious exemptions in New York.

If he loses the Republican primary, he plans to keep fighting for the America First agenda as long as he has breath. “We need to do everything we possibly could so that way we could leave a better country, a better state for our children than was left for me.”

New York’s gubernatorial primaries are Tuesday, June 28 and early voting started June 18. There are currently four Republican candidates: Mr. Giuliani, GOP designated nominee Lee Zeldin, former Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, and businessman Harry Wilson.

The Ideological Walls Dividing Social Media Equality

In the postmodern era, communication accessibility has expanded to an unmatched level—not ever before seen since the abandonment of Latin within the Church. With this grand expansion and abundant freedom has come a necessity of civil responsibility. However, not all are called to uphold their duties and responsibilities. To counter the reckless, totalitarian limitations are placed, resulting in a curtailing of free speech and a forced acceptance of leftist culture.

This tension in social media is centered around ideology. Twitter, the primary platform of modern discourse, claims to promote free speech and diversity of opinion. As a platform, it does not. It is a vacuum of common ideological culture, ill representative of the populace. A lack of tolerance towards conservative or dissident thinking has also led to suppression and censorship.

“I don’t think that’s fair or right,” says CEO Jack Dorsey in reference to Twitter’s own company environment. Twitter has become so liberal that its conservative employees “don’t feel safe to express their opinions.” Dorsey acknowledged the company’s overwhelmingly strong viewpoint in a 2018 interview with NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen. At the time, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions considered a formal investigation into the suppression of conservative viewpoints. Like other social media platforms, Twitter tries to avoid political bias with the use of software algorithms. However, these algorithms are written by humans, making them innately biased. Policy development and enforcement philosophy are thus geared towards a left-wing progressive viewpoint more representative of Silicon Valley.

Twitter claims it does not tolerate behavior that “harasses, threatens, or uses fear to silence” individuals (“Twitter’s Enforcement Philosophy & Approach to Policy Development”). Controversial, offensive, and even bigoted perspectives are allowed to reflect real-world conversations. When it comes to policy, Twitter conducts its research and drafting through its internal teams and Trust & Safety Council. Enforcement is primarily focused on the context of the messaging. Twitter considers who the behavior is being directed at, who files the report, the severity of the violation, and if the content is of public interest. Furthermore, the impact of the content and its source are also considered providing room for editorialization (“Twitter’s Enforcement Philosophy & Approach to Policy Development”).

Many conservatives allege suppression and censorship, but it may not genuinely be either. Ideological values may be the true focal point of the problem. However, Twitter is not very transparent and rather ambiguous with its rules. The primary biases, if they lie in values, must lie within what is deemed “hateful conduct” and “abusive behavior.” What is considered “hateful” and “abusive” does not correlate to each value system equally. This leaves room for bias to take root and manifest in suppression and censorship.

In June of 2018, a Pew poll found 72% of Americans believe social media companies censor views they don’t agree with. Conservatives had relied on anecdotal proof until 2019 when Quillette conducted their own empirically driven research. Still, evidence of abuse does not answer the “how.” In Quillette’s research, Richard Hanania remarked:

Harassment and the advocacy of violence are serious issues, and there is nothing morally objectionable about social media companies removing this kind of content from their platforms. However, such laudable objectives should not be used as cover to prosecute ideological campaigns.

Hanania acknowledges the root of the issue to be the contextualization of the code of conduct.

Twitter’s contextual evaluation came under hardened scrutiny after a New York Times tech writer’s tweet displayed anti-white racism. Sarah Jeong tweeted several derogatory tweets aimed at white people. “Oh man its kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” Jeong tweeted in 2014. “White people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along,” tweeted Jeong. “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” Those are only a few of the racist tweets from Jeong, who tweeted a hashtag “CancelWhitePeople.” Twitter did not suspend Jeong’s account or remove the tweets. She also posted a graph claiming that “whiteness” resulted in being “awful.” She has claimed that it was only satire but apologized, nonetheless.

In an attempt to expose the double standard of leftist antics, prominent conservative activist and commentator Candace Owens mimicked Jeong’s tweets. She swapped “white” and “men” with “black,” “Jewish,” and “women.” Owens was banned for 12 hours, with Twitter citing her tweets about Jews as the reason for the ban. Strange how when its derogatory against Jews its bad, but with whites its not. Twitter later reinstated Owens’ account, claiming they “made an error.”

The anti-white sentiment has emerged full throttle after the death of George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer. Leftists claim the rhetoric is “antiracist.” Preaching the decline of whites doesn’t appear to be “antiracist,” though. These illiberal progressives believe in a notion of white repentance or social reparations. Many claim that it is impossible to be racist against whites. As a result of this discrimination, many alt-right and dissident right responded on Twitter with the hashtag “itsokaytobewhite.” The hashtag was almost purged from Twitter, but too many stood against anti-white racism to let Big Tech decide their values. It is odd enough that white progressives are okay with this anti-white racism. It is like they do not value their own identity. Nonetheless, the anti-white sentiment is stronger than any white identitarian belief which is why it is more palatable for Twitter’s platform. That does not excuse the racism, particularly from whites; it only demonstrates the substantial divergence of values, logos, and perspective.

Jeong is one of many who have overstepped the boundary. Former democrat congressional candidate Saira Rao has made similar tweeting decisions. Her timeline is fully dedicated to the “white man.” She has made it clear what she is about, and yet Twitter struggles to see any hate. In 2019, Rao tweeted, “White people have done everything to make my life miserable. Yet I’m supposed to not hate white people? If we were to replace white with black or any other race, she would have been suspended. She has a verified account and tweets the vilest things against white people. Rao is known in the dissident circles of the right as a “racial comic.” However, there is nothing funny coming from this first-generation American Indian. After her primary defeat, Rao said she was ready to “give up” on white people, accusing them of her loss. She has furthered the claim of racism against the DNC with rather bombastic accusations. Ironically, Rao even hosts her own club called “Race to Dinner,” where she invites white women to join her private dinners to “bear witness” to the pain of “Black and Brown” women. If it isn’t clear enough, this woman wholeheartedly hates white people.

The white guilt of modern culture has gotten out of hand, but it is a tenet of the new liberalism. How can one who values their identity adhere to the new gospel? Twitter demands adherence, and if you are to repulse the anti-white rhetoric via discourse, expect limitations on your account. Imagine if Rao’s words were about any other race. She would be shunned, publicly shamed, and banned from these platforms. Strangely familiar, that is what has happened to Donald J. Trump. And yet, we have struggled to find real racism in the former president’s words. But he said, “China virus!” Wuhan is in China, so his words seem fitting. Regardless, Twitter cannot expect white people to allow this. They have been letting enough slide by with illiberal thought, intolerance for their heritage, social classism based on racial identity, etc. It is maddening how strange the world has become, especially to the apolitical white person. Twitter should at least acknowledge the cultural reckoning and set aside some “privileges” similar to the protected classes.

Regrettably, the anti-white embracement of liberal whites prevents a conversation about equal treatment on the platform. Far-left democrats understand this while also understanding their protection as “protected classes.” No one stands up against anti-white racism except the dissidents who are falsely labeled and shamed to the corners. No one is “supposed” to advocate for the white masses.

When Ilhan Omar tweets antisemitic commentary, things are handled differently. In June of 2021, Omar tweeted a moral equivalence between the U.S., Israeli and Afghan actions to those taken by the Taliban and Hamas.

We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked @SecBlinken where people are supposed to go for justice.

In a Morning Consult/Politico poll, 31% of voters said the tweet was antisemitic, while 41% said it was not. 35% believed it was hostile to Jewish people. Alas, Omar has apologized for her tweets, so “it’s okay,” at least according to the people who count. In 2012, she tweeted “Israel has hypnotized the world” and in 2018 she posted, “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews.” In 2019 she tweeted, “the Benjamin’s baby,” a reference to a song about $100 bills, and AIPAC, a pro-Israeli lobbying group. The Jewish Committee Relations Council of Minnesota claims the references are clearly antisemitic. Again, after racist remarks, democrats issue an apology, thus immune from responsibility and cancellation. Twitter still has yet to take any action against Omar. She is of a protected class which apparently supersedes her accountability as a public figure. This is why care ethics may be ideal but not practical.

In 2015, after Donald J. Trump declared victory in the U.S. presidential elections, comedian Kathy Griffin tweeted an image of her holding a bloody decapitated head of the newly elected president. Griffin did not provide any “context,” which might explain why the photo was up for 9 hours. It broke the sensitive media policy, which states a user “may not post media that is excessively gory or share violent or adult content within live video or in profile header, or Lists banner images. Media depicting sexual violence and/or assault is also not permitted.” The exceptions to this rule are for documentary or educational content, of which the tweet does not fit the two. Twitter claims, “to limit exposure to sensitive images and videos and to prevent the sharing of potentially disturbing types of sensitive media,” and yet the tweet had 10.9k retweets and 48.5k likes. That would extrapolate to millions of impressions at the minimum.

In 2017, Griffin posted to CNN’s White House Reporter, Jim Acosta, who observed Trump speaking at an event about protecting seniors with diabetes. The tweet read, “Syringe with nothing but air on the inside should do the trick. F*** Trump.” Such a syringe would result in a potentially fatal air or gas embolism traveling to the heart or brain. Twitter removed the tweet as it was clearly against community guidelines. Griffin wasn’t suspended or removed, even after calling for a doxing of the Covington Catholic High School students. Twitter claims, “you may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so,” and yet Griffin tweeted, “The reply from the school was pathetic and impotent. Name these kids. I want NAMES. Shame them. If you think these f*****rs wouldn’t dox you in a heartbeat, think again…”

All three of these accounts are verified; however, Jeong’s was not at the time of her indiscretions. None of the POCs were suspended, banned, or forced to delete said tweets. However, Griffin was suspended and forced to delete her tweets. Separate but equal does not exist, yet whites are treated to have more responsibility and better judgment. That seems to allege POCs do not have the capacity to understand nor the demeanor to hold civil conversation. Race eugenicists may argue for this tiered system based upon cognitive ability, but others would argue against it. It appears the hood has certainly been revealed with Twitter’s embracement of such contextualization of policy. Lowering the threshold of accountability may pave the way for equity, but certainly not equality.

Acknowledging the difference of treatment based upon “class status” is only the beginning of Twitter’s troubles. Rules should be equal for all, but understandably some individuals, not groups, may need that extra protection. It is a far cry from social justice to demand higher accountability for whites. It is also remarkable the blatant double standard attributed between different ideologies, conservative and liberal. All of the women excluding Rao offered apologies after public angst. The same right to apologize is not acknowledged among those on the right. Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia is a fine example. Greene has been known to push the envelope.

Last May, she stated, “Vaccinated employees get a vaccination logo just like the Nazis forced Jewish people to wear a gold star.” Many found her comments to be antisemitic. As a result, she was booted from her committee assignments, although she apologized. The point here is that culture has shaped Twitter, and Twitter has in turn shaped the culture. Only those “worthy” of repentance may be granted the ability. The mixing and mashing of cultural relativism with social media has transformed American culture to the very thing that has set it back. Politically correct, third-wave feminism-driven, and anti-due process social media is now the mainstream culture. As one Fordham University communications professor proclaimed, “We can’t make everyone happy.” So why do we cater to the 1%, 4%, or even 13% while admonishing the 40-50%? Strange it is how utopias work, although the decline matches its lack of practicality with hard realism.

Continuing along the lines of Twitter’s privilege system and its allowance of fact. Prominent paleoconservative journalist, columnist, and blogger Steve Sailer understands “wrong think” well. Sailer tweets data-driven analyses of crime almost daily. Last January, he tweeted, “There were 14 unarmed blacks killed by cops in 2020. Unarmed blacks are more likely to grab for other’s guy’s weapons: e.g., Michael Brown, Armaud Arbery, Rayshard Brooks.” Two days later, he tweeted, “What caused 2020’s record increase in urban murders? It’s Black Lives Matter that got those extra blacks murdered by other blacks in 2020,” supplemented with a link to an article by the National Review. Both tweets granted him a 12-hour suspension on the grounds of being hateful and promoting violence. Sailer appealed the tweets citing his sources which appear to be true based on the Washington Post’s database of police killings and Brooklyn College professor Robert Cherry’s studies on murders. Twitter has removed both tweets after providing Sailer the opportunity to remove or appeal.

Sailer’s tweets did not break community guidelines of hateful conduct or promoting violence. This goes back to the protected class issue. Nothing bad can be alleged of the protected groups, regardless if they are true. Again, raising the accountability for some shuns the truth of others. At this moment, while Sailer and other crime analysts tread thin ice, Rao continues to tweet derogatory sentiments about white people. One goes punished, the other acclaimed, although both are not comparable but may seem comparable in the light of new liberalism. Context is everything for Twitter; remember that.

How can we amend this rather significant problem with Twitter? It is not about the rules per se. The contextualization is biased. The viewpoint of Twitter is progressive left-wing with a partisan “interpretation” of care ethics. Contextualization, the lens through which the conflict is analyzed, is biased. That may be due to the company’s employment, but also its philosophy. Individuals are not provided with an equal opportunity to build themselves up and effectively deliver their messaging, which is the only purpose of such platforms. Here is where there is a need for true diversity—ideological diversity.

Resolving the problem at hand may require a dismantling of the culture. The majority, the some odd 50-60% of the country, represent the whole. And yet, care ethics and this newfound liberal ideology demand representation of the few, or at least it claims. Ideological diversity has never been a part of progressivism. It just needs to appear that way. The allowance of counterpoints would strip progressivism of its perceived values showing its true worth, and that cannot be allowed. If Twitter did not embrace its platform’s culture of relativism, neutrality could be attained. Nonetheless, the ideal can still be wanted.

Twitter should consider ideological and cultural initiatives for prospective employees. Diversity can only be pragmatic in representation, so with the expansion of different minded employees, there can be nuance to the context in which problems are evaluated. Twitter should revamp its rules to represent the populace’s values. The rules should be detailed, clear, and evolving. Those who have their accounts suspended should have the opportunity to express their opinion and request to have the suspension reviewed by another Twitter specialist or team. These steps should be taken at a slow, gradual pace to maintain the platform’s current ebb and flow. Only through slow determination can a lack of ideological representation be amended.

Regarding the over policing off non-protected classes, it should be acknowledged that this distributive justice can lead to arbitrariness in interpretation and application of the rules (Sama and Shoaf 95). As a result, it can appear unfair or dishonest. Twitter should provide the ability to opt in and out of such classes. Since it is not the user’s account that is deemed protected, but the messaging of the received tweet, contextual evaluations should place its emphasis on the account before the message. Understanding that there never is “perfect information”, contextual evaluations are very important to the platform’s due process. Users would have the ability to disclose their protected status to Twitter or omit and relinquish such privileges. From the information based upon the account’s protected status, Twitter should be able to make more accurate decisions. The algorithms will have to be refined in order to decipher protected status as well.

Over time, Twitter’s culture should become more representative of the populace. This will be a painstaking process filled with errors. Errors are where Twitter can find its flaws in order to create a sturdy foundation in which true inclusion is achieved. This does not mean the platform will foster pure harmony. What will be achieved is equality of speech for all users.

Works Cited

Chamberlain, Samuel. “Rep. Ilhan Omar Claims America Has Committed ‘Unspeakable Atrocities.’” New York Post, 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/06/08/rep-omar-claims-america-committed-unspeakable-atrocities/.

Davis, William. “Former Democratic Congressional Candidate Saira Rao Says She Hates White People And America.” Dailycaller, 2021, https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/03/democrat-congress-hates-white-people-america/.

Durden, Tyler. “Twitter Again Refuses To Censor Kathy Griffin’s Pic Of Decapitated Trump Head.” Zerohedge, 2021, https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/twitter-neglects-censor-kathy-griffins-retweet-pic-decapitated-trump-head.

Flood, Brian. “New York Times Stands By New Tech Writer Sarah Jeong After Racist Tweets Surface.” Fox News, 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.

Fredericson, Colin. “Former Candidate For Congress Goes On Racist Twitter Tirade.” NTD, 2021, https://www.ntd.com/former-candidate-for-congress-goes-on-racist-twitter-tirade_339360.

Hanania, Richard. “It Isn’t Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals.” Quillette, 20 Feb. 2019, http://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals.

Kirkwood, R. Cort. “So Far, No Twitter Punishment For Kathy Griffin After Another Trump-Should-Die Tweet.” The New American, 2021, https://thenewamerican.com/so-far-no-twitter-punishment-for-kathy-griffin/.

Mittelstadt, Natalia. “Twitter Bans Candace Owens For 12 Hours But Not Sarah Jeong For Racist Tweets.” Cnsnews, 2021, https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/natalia-mittelstadt/twitter-bans-candace-owens-12-hours-not-sarah-jeong-racist-tweets.

Murphy, Esme. “‘All About The Benjamins’: Ilhan Omar’s Tweet Criticized By Republicans, Dems As Anti-Semitic.” CBS Minnesota, 2021, https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/02/11/ilhan-omar-twitter-anti-semitism-aipac-its-all-about-the-benjamins/.

Omar, Ilhan [@IlhanMN]. “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.” Twitter, 31 May 2018, twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1002295140172664832?s=20.

Omar, Ilhan [@Ilhan]. “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked @SecBlinken where people are supposed to go for justice.” Twitter, 7 June 2021, twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1401985884191404041?s=20.

Sama, Linda M., and Victoria Shoaf. “Ethics on the Web: Applying Moral Decision-Making to the New Media.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 36, no. 1/2, 2002, pp. 93–103. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25074695.

“Twitter’s Enforcement Philosophy & Approach to Policy Development.” Twitter, Twitter, http://www.help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/enforcement-philosophy. Accessed 25 June 2021.

“Twitter’s Sensitive Media Policy | Twitter Help.” Twitter, Twitter, http://www.help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/media-policy. Accessed 25 June 2021.

Wagner, Kurt. “Twitter Is So Liberal That Its Conservative Employees ‘Don’t Feel Safe To Express Their Opinions,’ Says CEO Jack Dorsey.” Vox, 2021, https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics.

Yokley, Eli. “Voters Are Slightly More Likely To See Antisemitism In Ilhan Omar’s Latest Comments If They Know She Made Them.” Morning Consult, 2021, https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/16/ilhan-omar-marjorie-taylor-greene-antisemitism-polling/.

Google Stadia: A Bold Bust, Keep Your Receipts

With the release of Stadia Pro, Google has been receiving its fair share of backlash and criticism. From the beginning, many techies were not confident in Stadia, and for good reason. Maybe Google was able to coerce the eager buyer, especially by its renowned brand, but those who did a bit of research certainly knew what to expect – latency issues, pseudo-high-res gaming, and the troubling fact that games had to be purchased via the Stadia store.

Stadia’s initial release issues were expected, as it carried many technical hiccups. Customers complained about latency issues as well as noticeable dips in graphical fidelity during gameplay. Stadia’s promise of power-hitting resolutions up to 4K with HDR made consumers wary of its required 35 megabits per second speed. Generally, gamers assume the minimum speed is not acceptable, thus requiring higher speeds than the mandated 35 megabits per second.

As it stands right now, Stadia has a total of 42 games. That is, 42 games available for purchase, unlike other cloud-based gaming subscriptions that provide a library of free games. Google will soon offer Stadia Base, which is a free subscription running games up to 1080p at 20-megabits or 720p at 10-megabits. The problem isn’t the price of the subscription, but rather the cost of games. The customer is buying these games strictly for Stadia at the full retail price. Rival cloud-based gaming services allow you to either play from their library, like PlayStation Now or play from your own library, like GeForce Now.

PlayStation Now is both available on PlayStation 4 and PC with a collection of over 600 games for $10 for a month, $25 for three months, and $60 for a year. However, games only run at 720p. Then there is GeForce Now, which is available on PC, Mac, and Android. It plays almost any game from your Steam, Uplay, or Battle.net catalog at 1080p for a mere $4.99 per month. GeForce Now recently wrapped up its beta, so it is now offering trial subscriptions and its paid Founder’s subscription previously mentioned.

Nvidia’s GeForce Now seems to be the ideal option. It is undoubtedly making Stadia customers shake their heads, especially at the stability and pricing of GeForce Now. Google initially pushed their $129 Premiere Edition, which covers a $69 controller that allegedly reduces latency and a $69 Chromecast Ultra – a measly $10 savings for this bundle. The only attractive offering is the ability to play games at 4K HDR; however, according to many customers, it does not compare to traditional physical hardware, especially with its latency issues and lackluster graphics.

It is quite troubling that a company so large, powerful, and “connected” is having these technical issues. Google Fiber is touted as the “best” high-speed internet available to the American consumer mainly due to its reliability, 1-gigabit speeds up and down, and its low cost, particularly in comparison to other pricey fiber-optic options like Verizon Fios. Then again, Google has had problems furthering the infrastructure of Google Fiber due to legal battles for the most part. Perhaps, Google came out too soon with cloud-based gaming. It should have focused more on its network infrastructure, then implemented Stadia. Stadia could even have been used to market Google Fiber and possibly been attached in some sort of combo subscription. However, Google expecting people to buy from their store on top of paying for a subscription seems unfair. Also, if Stadia fails, then the purchased game is gone. At least, with physical media, cloud-based catalogs, and game licenses, purchased games are, at least, much more viable.

Hopefully, Google will realize its mistakes as more and more cloud-based services are coming about through Sony, Microsoft, NVidia, and others. Their “effort” is not commendable. Consumers who want cloud-based gaming should consider using GeForce Now. It is reliable and very cheap. It also offers ray-tracing at 1080p resolution, a free 90-day introductory period, as well as a free 1-hour session without credit card registration. Don’t be fooled by Big Tech; they would be wise to start appreciating their consumers and not take them for granted.

Joe Rogan and the Disappearing Experience

With over 1,500 episodes, The Joe Rogan Experience is one of the most popular and influential podcasts available. Comedian, television host, and former UFC commentator, Joe Rogan hosts a casual talk show with various guests from politics, sports, culture, Hollywood, and the music industry. Starting in 2009, partnered with comedian Brian Redban, Rogan streamed from Justin.tv. As the podcast gained traction Rogan expanded to other platforms such as SiriusXM, iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and, more recently, Spotify. Rogan is known to push the envelope on controversial subjects and sometimes host controversial guests.

Rogan has garnered substantial support and influence through his podcast, so much so he has given a voice to the censored, censured, and has offered a palatable option to listen to differing opinions. His show, much like a conversation, is low-key but manages to gracefully touch on subjects that are especially sensitive in postmodern America. Rogan has proven himself to be neutral to much of today’s political and social divide, making him, in essence, the “voice of reason.”

Rogan’s podcast has offered a platform for many individuals deemed to be radicals, dissidents, and alleged extremists. Outspoken establishment pundits haven’t always been happy with Rogan’s selection of guests. They claim that he gives a platform for hate, bigotry, and conspiracy. Since Rogan has amassed such a broad audience, he is, in a sense, a gatekeeper and an influencer. His podcast opens the airway to views that may appear detrimental to society and culture, but then again, who can genuinely make such judgments? Platforms don’t have the legal authority; the responsibility falls on the publisher, Joe Rogan.

It isn’t hard to see that Rogan’s podcast has been a proponent of freedom of speech. He has brought together many people, especially in these recent times of discord. Although some dislike a handful of his guests, he allows the individuals to speak for themselves. The audience is left to determine what they think about the guests. The listener should be the one to determine the “ins” and “outs” of the message. Today, many have their vocal cords cut and replaced with the stigma of “outcast.” Rogan mends that breach of civil liberty.

Although Rogan has provided societal outcasts with the opportunity to voice themselves against critics, his move to Spotify has laid siege on free speech. Rogan being a libertarian liberal embraces out-of-the-box thinking regardless of the labeling. He has moved many, demonstrating that media pundits can be more faithful to their biases.

During his transitioning from YouTube to Spotify, episodes included Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, Milo Yiannopoulos, Chris D’Elia, Tommy Chong, Stefan Molyneux, Owen Benjamin, Nick Kroll, and Joey Diaz have been flagged and removed. It is no surprise that Big Tech would censor these individuals. The repeated abuse of censorship has been rampant, especially during the last few years. Rogan has been the “middleman” too much of the censorship issues.

Last September, he was even trending on Twitter to be the moderator for an upcoming presidential debate. His audience understands he is simply a host and remarkably without an agenda. More podcasts like his will bridge the gap between our fellow man, providing the opportunity for reconciliation and clarification. Remember, though, the host is limited by his platform, although it should not be the case due to the law.

Since these platforms are taking up the responsibility as publishers, Congress should limit their vast freedoms and benefits and treat them like such. There is a line between publishers and platforms, and today’s platforms have been attempting to blur it in attempts to delete who they deem problematic.

Quibi, or Not Quibi, That is The Question

Quibi is a streaming service that was launched on April 6^th of this year, to be the “in-between” market of movies and binge shows. Quibi specializes in “short burst” content, hence the name stemming from “quick bite.” What makes Quibi different than its competitors is that it is only available on cell phones.

Quibi hosts three different types of formats: marquee scripted titles, also known as “Movies in Chapters,” which are seasons divided up into twelve to fourteen daily episodes with one released every two weeks. Second is the unscripted titles such as reality and competition shows as well as documentaries. The last is called “Daily Essentials,” which consists of short news bites, entertainment, and lifestyle content. NBC News, the BBC, Canada’s CTV, and Telemundo will assist on the news front. While the Dodo, E!, and TMZ will offer daily lifestyle and pop culture stories. In regards to the latter two formats, Quibi investors like Warner Bros., NBC Universal, Disney, BBC Studios, MGM, and Lionsgate will surely provide quality content. Let’s not forget Quibi’s founder, Katzenberg, was one of the founders of Dreamworks and the former chairman of Disney.

Katzenberg has been at the helm of Quibi’s launch; “I don’t think of this as revolutionary as much as it’s evolutionary, in that you’re combining together two test forms of film narrative. He claims Quibi is “setting out to do the next form of film narrative – the convergence of (film and television) together.” The idea is to condense the narrative into short bursts of seven to ten minutes designed to be watched on one’s phone. The other significant innovation with Quibi is it’s “turnstyle mode,” where the content can differ depending on viewing it in landscape or portrait. Specifically, this interactive feature has enabled directors and producers such as Steven Spielberg to innovate in creative ways.

The service is primarily aimed at millennials, Gen Z, as well as younger Gen X. Quibi claimed to Vulture its platform is for 18-to-44-year-olds, with a “very, very targeted” audience at 25-to-35 millennials. More specifically, it is aiming for a “multicultural” and “diverse millennial audience.” I am not surprised I haven’t heard of Quibi; I am not “diverse” enough. Quibi has even stated they are not promoting family material. That’s no surprise; traditionalism isn’t a proponent of Quibi’s targeted group. A lot of the celebrities participating in this service aren’t ones I’d spend time watching. Plus, why pay for a tiered service with one providing an essentially an ad-blocker? Then again, my mind can’t wrap about the TikTok phenom, so I don’t believe people of my intellectual facilities and ideology would be keen to fork over the five dollars a month.

Regarding Quibi’s content, it doesn’t need to be good. Quibi has been explicit about what their content is meant for – the “in-between” moments. It’s for the young millennial or Gen Z that is waiting for his or her bus, train, or subway stop. Or perhaps just when you’re waiting for your favorite TV show to pop on. I believe its strongest competitor is YouTube. YouTube’s growth, especially during COVID-19, has reached its peak, so much so that they have made the default resolution as low as possible to conserve bandwidth. YouTube’s content isn’t so much “commercial,” though, which makes it not a direct competitor to Quibi. As it stands right now, Quibi is in a market of its own, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see more Quibi-like services emerge.

Quibi release during the pandemic hasn’t hurt it either. If anything, it has given Quibi a bit of a boast. In its first week, Quibi hit over 1.7 million downloads. Entertainment is almost a necessity at this point in time. However, with Comcast and Verizon providing free films and channels, a paid service with ads doesn’t sound too friendly. Quibi has allowed studios to become investors, giving them the incentive to create entertaining projects. The fact that Quibi is allowing the intellectual property to the owners and creators of their own IP is significant. Exclusivity rights cease after seven years, so owners and creators will be more driven through a profitable push for a better product.

Recently, reports surfaced showing that Quibi users’ email addresses were leaked through third-party advertisers, allowing them to track users and target them with ads. Quibi claimed to Digital Trends that “Data protection is essential to Quibi and the security of user information is of the highest priority.” A spokesman also stated that “the moment the issue on our webpages was revealed to our security and engineering team, we fixed it immediately.” To an extent, this is understandable, especially for a new company. As Dr. Noah Johnson, co-founder and chief technology officer of data security startup Dasera says, “When thousands of insiders – analysts, data scientists, contractors – are using consumer data daily, there is always the chance that one instance of carelessness or malice can cause users to lose trust with your brand.”

Regarding Katzenberg’s appearance on The Today Show, Katzenberg backpedaled a bit on the main focus of Quibi. He focused more on the tech behind it. To make watching on cell phones “beautiful.” I don’t believe he used the correct word, immersive would have been more fitting. He demonstrated “turnstyle mode,” and it seemed not only to be immersive but practical for cell phone users. Katzenberg also dove into Spielberg’s new show on Quibi, but it sounded very Orwellian. “Our phone knows where we are, what time of day it is, and when the sun will set to the minute.” That’s a little off-putting to say, especially after their “data breach.” Nonetheless, some will neglect those comments, the same who relinquished their privacy to TikTok.