A term called “visibility filtering” goes on all over the internet, and I am specifically a target of it. That is probably more than most of anybody out there, even celebrity pundits. There are people online with millions of followers, and the talk has been that many of them are bots or purchased in some way. Every day, I get offers from online tech helpers to help me expand my followers and visibility. The trick to the sauce on these helpers is that they know when a name or account has been weighed down with “visibility filters.” And for a price, they can remove some of the causes of that filtering and expand your online visibility. For a long time, this practice has been called “shadow banning,” and is what the intelligence agencies were doing to people they thought were provocateurs. The reason I have been a specific target, and this goes back well over ten years to the early days of the Tea Party, is that I am very dangerous because the manipulators aren’t sure how to deal with me. So, they might shadow-ban an online account and eventually ban them, such as what happened on Twitter to people like Alex Jones and President Trump. They aren’t sure what to do with people who aren’t so overt with the rules and are not motivated by the sense of popularity, socially, for which they control. When Elon Musk bought Twitter, a central problem he had to deal with was the practice of visibility filtering. He could claim that Twitter, now “X,” was a free speech platform, so people like me weren’t banned by the content they exhibited. But they could put serious visibility filters on a person so that nothing they produced would go viral and reach tens of millions of people. They might allow the content to be on their platform, but they weren’t obligated to help make it visible to anybody who didn’t come to find it shoved over in the corner where they hope nobody will see it.
This is largely a liability thing, with Elon Musk, Twitter has been better. But once the word is out on a person, like me, then everything they are involved in gets tagged with visibility filtering. I’ve told people for years that this was the case with me. While my blog gets millions of hits per month, I can see the activity on my administrator side, so I have known what’s been going on for a long time. But interaction with me or my content has been very frustrating to all but those who deliberately seek out what I produce. You indeed won’t find it on a Google top search if it’s the only thing made with the keywords specified. The internet was never free and built to control the human population. Not to free it with the intentions of free speech and open elections. The intent of the internet was the other way around. Most of the world is a socialist or communist hell hole, and the internet has been perfect propaganda for their political movement; it has been the menace of globalists for sure, especially those acting as domestic enemies within the United States. But my motivations don’t fit nicely on their profile sheet, so they don’t know what to do with me. So my name, associated with anything Rich Hoffman, “overmanwarrior,” or gunfighter, has a lot of visibility filtering on it to frustrate people from finding my content. Even with all the restrictions, it is still worth doing what I do because a lot of people do see the material, and it provides context to what they would otherwise observe in mass media.
I have the same problem with Truth Social and Gettr as with YouTube and Twitter. I have been completely removed from Truth Social at least five times as editors on their server have been alarmed by my content and removed me for liability reasons. Elon Musk is challenged with the same legal premise. How do you provide free speech to just anybody? What is the social media’s responsibility to constitutional concepts when dealing with a global exchange of ideas? To avoid these complicated legal parameters, the safest thing for them is to reduce visibility and provide free speech but do everything they can to ensure that nobody sees it except those who seek the information out deliberately through that user profile. You can see the evidence of this by looking at my YouTube account, which I hardly ever use anymore. I have videos on there that have been up for over ten years with less than 100 views on them. While the same type of content put up on my Rumble account has that many views in just a few hours. Twitter has been really bad about it. And Elon Musk has been happy to extend that criteria under the advice of the lefty lawyers that are part of all law firms these days. However, he has been torn about the practice and has supported characters like Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones. However, they are known celebrity commentators who have a free speech parameter that stays within the intelligence agency safe zones. What they say might be dangerous, but it falls within the controls of the specified groups that can be monitored more easily by the FBI and CIA. My stuff often goes many steps further and is just too controversial to roam free all over the internet. So, it is visibility filtered heavily.
Many of these social media platforms were never supposed to be profitable, so these controls are how they operate with content restriction while still being a fly trap for radicalism that the lazy intelligence agencies can monitor from the comfort of their office cubicles and corner offices. However, Musk bought Twitter to make it a profitable enterprise and quickly converted it to “X” to facilitate an online presence that he had been thinking about for a long time. And it’s a pretty good idea. However, like all things free market-driven, the social controls that exist in the background, the “visibility filtering” that has been going on so aggressively, is holding back the ad revenue Musk is seeking. When woke corporations make up most of the advertising dollars these days because they know the social controls are the driver to visibility, so they all play by the same woke rules; if Elon Musk doesn’t operate “X” the same way that BlackRock is running the boards of all their other companies, then ad revenue can choke out the business model forever for “X” and ownership will continue to be a drag on Musk, forever. Which is the game that is played and how they get everyone to follow the rules. But of course, there is a strategy that can make “X” profitable, and I would point to MMA fighting as the model everyone could follow. The fewer restrictions on a social occurrence, the more people want to see and participate. If “X” eliminated the practice of “visibility filtering,” more real people would be attracted to its use, breaking the ban from advertisers and forcing everyone into woke criteria. The advertising would indeed be market-driven based on the need for authentic content. Not social media editing. People want to show up to see a fight and enjoy advertising supporting that consumption. But suppose all the rules are the same woke garbage. In that case, people are indifferent, and advertising is greatly restricted within the funnel of woke social rules and global goals of communist centralized authorities of state media, such as Russia, China, Cuba, and most other places all over the world experience—just some friendly advice. I don’t care; I’ll do what I do regardless. But if you want social media to be profitable, get the “visibility filtering” out of the business and watch how quickly things change for the better.
Rich Hoffman
Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707
The Overmanwarrior 