Tag: free market

The Trouble with ‘Visibility Filtering’: If Twitter wants better ad revenue under “X,” it could do much better by removing that practice

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 Danger of Masons and RINOs: What we learned from the Judge Edelstein case and how it’s being applied to Darbi Boddy

I didn’t want to bring up the whole Mason connection to the Butler County judiciary, but there is a pattern that has emerged that reminds me a lot of the case with Kim Edelstein, the former judge of Butler County who ran sideways with Judge Stevens. All this drama against Darbi Boddy, the Lakota school board member who has now had the legal brotherhood turning its wrath toward her through Judge Lyons, has brought all this to the surface. Because most people have an assumption of constitutional law protected by our judges. But we have judges who belong to all these brotherhoods, such as the Masons, who behave as if their international order superseded constitutional law. I learned much more than most people have the stomach for regarding some of these cases, such as why Judge Stevens let his assistant waste over 500 hours playing the video game Candy Crush when she should have been working, according to witnesses. After the human resource conflict between Judge Stevens and Judge Edelstein erupted into her moving to another county to get work, Butler County prosecutor Mike Gmoser called Wood County to pursue the case further. Now I like Mike, he has said to me that he’s a MAGA guy. But then again, so did Isaac Adi. A lot of mystery only makes sense when considering malicious intent. And the more you look, the more you discover that many of these people are seduced by the temptation to abuse authority. They care about power too much, and it’s evident that they are more interested in employing losers and malcontents instead of qualified people who might show them up. And to hide such incompetence they seek out these brotherhoods to protect them from public scrutiny. I want to believe in these judges, I know many of them, and I want to like them. But this antagonism against Darbi Boddy forces a lot of unsaid things to the surface which we must explore if we want honest government.

Most Masons lean toward political Marxism

It’s not a matter of conspiracy theory to talk about the Masonic lodges’ membership and the judicial activists’ desire to seek an alliance in brotherhoods. If you peel back the apparent layer of politics that most people agree on, when it comes to trying to understand the mentality of RINOs then you have to consider the desire of these people who call themselves Republicans to belong to collective-based brotherhoods, such as labor unions, and Mason Lodges, or even membership to the Eastern Star. These have been networking tools for gaining access to better jobs for a long time. And by the looks of things, Mason membership is a criterion for the legal profession, especially at the level of judges and prosecutors. This is a problem because these international organizations think of themselves as succeeding the American Constitution. That’s a long story in itself, considering that it was Masons that largely formed the American Constitution, or at least debated it. So many people don’t see a problem with it. But then again, when it comes to Butler County, Ohio, and Ohio, we know of several 33-degree Masons who hold public office, such as Judge Powers, and State Rep Scott Lipps of Franklin who were announced in the Journal News. Memberships are only necessary when they say something about the people who seek membership, which takes them away from their public duties should they decide to serve the public. At that point, what they believe can become very dangerous. And by all indications, it looks like it is by these means that we end up with what we call RINOs in Republican politics.

These memberships are important to many public officials.

To understand why Masons and RINOs are almost synonymous, all we must do is look at the words of one of the most famous Masons, Albert Pike. If you’ve ever seen the Masonic Lodge in Washington, D.C., where George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were prominent members, it’s a magnificent structure. In that case, you can see how those people might think of themselves as a government independent of the rest of America, that their brotherhoods were more important to them than their Constitutional duties. I’ve been in several Mason lodges, particularly the one in Cincinnati by the old Taft house, and I understand all too well the purposes and the stars painted on the ceiling. Let’s call it a “research project” not an invitation to membership. Albert Pike was famous for saying, “What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us…what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Otherwise, Karl Marx would have said these kinds of statements, which makes sense because he was a Mason, just as the Masons organized Vladimir Lenin to come out of exile and raid Petrograd for the communist revolution that destroyed Russia. And when you listen to the political positions of RINOs and the legal gymnastics that have emerged in the Darbi Boddy case in Butler County in 2023, then it is pretty clear that these Mason memberships are a problem because the members are more loyal to their brotherhood than to their constitutional oaths. And from there the contents of the SWAMP and their hatred for Trump and MAGA Republicans starts to make a lot more sense. These are people who are insecure and want to touch the face of immortality, as was articulated by Albert Pike.

33 Degree Masons is as high as you can go.

I’m not against Masons. Andrew Jackson was one of my favorite presidents, and he took on the epic battle that we need to have again with centralized banking. All members are not joined at the hip in political strategy, and membership doesn’t make them all bad. But it does say a lot about their character and the problem of Marxism failing all over the world and populism moving to the far right of Karl Marx, and away from this scam by the Masons that goes back hundreds of years to the Friday the 13th murders of the Knights Templars, forcing their movement underground in secret so that they could rule from the shadows. But for these timid types, there is safety in numbers, which is the origin of their desires for power and their tendency to abuse it. Such was grotesquely obvious when the Judge Edelstein case was occurring, and in many ways, it is still happening. The way this judicial network seeks to personally destroy people they think is a challenge to their authority is a real problem, showing itself in the Darbi Boddy case. For them, it has nothing to do with constitutional law. It’s all about protecting the brotherhood, and that’s not something we talk about when we elect these judges. If their memberships in brotherhoods keep them from behaving like Republicans, small government constitutional supporters, then we need to know all about it. Because we can’t have a representative government if we aren’t talking about why these people seek the memberships they do and to what extent it impacts their social judgment. As Albert Pike indicated, it’s all about the collective where immortality resides, and these older adults are very concerned about life after their deaths. So they turn out to be more loyal to their order, which lives on, than the merit of their individual decisions, which is at the heart of the modern MAGA movement. Voters have shown they want more Darbi Boddy’s, fewer Judge Powers, and their 33-Degree Mason memberships. I usually am pretty proud of Butler County law enforcement, but I have too much information that calls into question all these characters. And when they think they are going to abuse another person, such as Darbi Boddy, without it impacting their sacred safe places, well, they have a lot to learn about the future.

That’s a lot of memberships. What’s that say about the individual person you vote for? Who are they more loyal to?

Rich Hoffman

The Company of Tomorrow: Political trends are shifting away from the World Economic Forum values, and that’s a great thing

Everyone is always looking for the next great business tip for a competitive advantage, so here it is.  You can tell because of trends like what is going on with the Washington Redskins NFL team and the Cleveland Indians.  The fans of those teams are getting petitions signed to restore their names to what they were pre-woke.  The momentum of wokeness has shifted, and we see the political pendulum swinging the other way.  The Marxists had their chance, which didn’t have a positive impact that society could see for themselves.  The Beatles song “Imagine” didn’t come out very well when the World Economic Forum was starting mass viruses for their Great Reset and turning the responsibility of enforcement over to your local human resource office to do through businesses what nobody would ever be able to do through government regulation.  The Marxists of the world figured out that by design, our political systems in America were established to go slow to keep the government from interrupting the machine of capitalism.  So, they turned their attention to businesses to attack them there, and what we have seen happening in business climates over the last several decades has been Marxism, and people didn’t notice until recently.  Because most people have an adversarial relationship with their employers, it wasn’t something people saw coming in the front door.  But now that it’s here, they want it gone.  And that is the future state of business.  I’ve seen this communist, Marxist approach in the industry for a long time, growing year by year, and finally, after Trump was removed from office after a government-organized coup, no different from the many communist revolutions around the world, people finally have had enough of it, and that trend began to go the other way after the last Covid vaccine mandates. 

Just as professional sports teams were tricked into changing their names into woke acceptance, this is not what society wants.  They want cool names for their sports teams, not the Guardians, but the Indians in Cleveland.  I was just in Cleveland, and that name change a few years into it is still a joke, and it’s not getting better.  I have had some interactions with members of the family of that team, and their woke acceptance has not gone over well.  People are turning on them for allowing woke politics into their sacred sports franchise.  And that is certainly the case with the Washington Football team in D.C.  People want their Redskins back.  This anti-capitalist approach to life is not what people want in the world.  They have been patient with corporations that became politically active toward Marxism, some of America’s largest corporations.  When we talk about globalism, we are essentially talking about Marxism because that is how it is everywhere else.  Americans have taken the advantages of capitalism for granted because they didn’t know any better.  And they assumed that the companies they worked for had at least primary American values.  But that’s not how most corporations are these days; they have drifted into this Marxist compliance because if they had manufacturing plants in China, Vietnam, or Europe, they were dealing with some level of Marxism, whether it was outright communism or socialism.  It was not free market capitalism that was the driver of their economies.  It was the slow-moving and lazy administrative state, and it was slowing things down to levels that have been unacceptable in America.  I’m old enough to know what it was like before, and I have watched over several decades of being on the front line how Marxism has migrated into the human resource departments to influence how people live their everyday lives.  But the final straw happened during Covid and the slow realization that most people have from President Trump being in the White House, then Joe Biden.  Bidenomics has not been good for anybody but the global Marxists. 

I have often pointed out, over a long period, how the Lean Manufacturing trend was filled with cultural Marxism.  Many of the central foundations of business ethics these days attack the notion of the golf-playing CEO with a nice car, a trophy wife, and is oozing with success.  In Lean Manufacturing, they want the members of management to come from their offices out to where the work is done, not just to become more effective in understanding a problem.  That is how it sold to them.  But it’s really to minimize management in the eyes of the employees, to establish a level of sameness among everyone that displays nobody is in charge but the centralized employees.  Not even the marketplace.  Compliance with regulators as they get their talking points from the World Economic Forum has been their weapon of choice and has been a slow burn.  The CEOs and CFOs who have survived the most were those bootlicker types who appeased the bureaucratic regulators and were not focused on giving the public what they wanted—but imposing on the public Marxist restrictions not just in the employer but in the marketplace itself.  Rather than march people into Washington D.C. at gunpoint as Castro did in Cuba and kill political rivals off point blank, the Marxists took a much more passive-aggressive route.  They regulated capitalists out of existence.  But the marketplace is catching on and is pushing back.  Because of Trump’s successful administration, people tasted the good life again and want it back.  So, the political sentiment is swinging the other way. 

The World Economic Forum is failing; many of their 2030 plans, as scary as they are for their intent, are falling apart, much the way the name changes in sports are getting so much public pushback.  I do get to talk to people worldwide for perspective, and the sentiment is pretty much everywhere the same.  They are upset with Marxism and don’t want it in their products or the companies that make them.  And they certainly don’t want it in their sports teams.  People were willing to put up with it as long as they had the illusion of capitalism functioning in the background.  But now that they know differently, they want their capitalism back, so the future of business will go to those companies who most embrace capitalism for the majority of market share in the future.  Further woke trends from the human resource departments, such as paperless paychecks into bank accounts that centralized bankers can completely control, are not tomorrow’s trend.  But quite the opposite.  Ownership was diminished by the Marxists, including how pay was distributed or whether or not your employer could force you to get a vaccine of poison to keep your job.  The Marxists got caught talking out of both sides of their mouth; while they were saying work from home, fair pay for fair work, and make sure you get an excellent ESG score, the radical leftist Larry Fink and the Wall Street insurgents were saying, if you value your job, you’ll get the government medicine from the world’s largest drug dealer, the federal government.  People were willing to listen before and in the years leading up to these ridiculous sentiments of globalism on American corporations.  But now they aren’t, and success will be measured differently.  The less compliant with Marxist measures globally, the better companies will be.  And that is tomorrow’s trend for those who want to get a jump start.  Capitalism works not just because it makes money for those who utilize it.  But also, it’s a measure of morality that the public can influence, which was always at the heart of all economic activity and always will be.

Rich Hoffman