On Twitter’s Alleged Left Leaning Bias, Crypto-Anarchy, and (False) Duality

Although one can argue that wiki is itself left bias it really comes full circle when we consider the major themes behind the movement (and the intention to usurp the constitutional infrastructure of the French parliament):

The yellow vests movement or yellow jackets movement (French: Mouvement des gilets jaunes, pronounced [muvmɑ̃ de ʒilɛ ʒon]) is a populist,[63] grassroots[64]revolutionary[65] political movement for economic justice[66] that began in France in October 2018. After an online petition posted in May had attracted nearly a million signatures, mass demonstrations began on 17 November.[67] The movement is motivated by rising fuel prices, a high cost of living; it claims that a disproportionate burden of the government’s tax reforms were falling on the working and middle classes,[68][69][70] especially in rural and peri-urban areas.[30][71] The protesters have called for lower fuel taxes, a reintroduction of the solidarity tax on wealth, a minimum-wage increase, the implementation of Citizens’ initiative referendums,[40] as well as the resignations of President Emmanuel Macron and the Second Philippe government.[citation needed]

There seems to be no perfect convergence on what political spectrum the movement represents…most notably that most participants here are said to either not be voters or to be from either of both extremes:

The movement spans the political spectrum. According to one poll, few of those protesting had voted for Macron in the 2017 French presidential election, and many had either not voted, or had voted for far-right or far-left candidates.[72]

One would have to suggest wiki is a biased source in order to support the yellow vest movement and identify as anti-left/anti-marxist with assertions such as this one:

The yellow vests movement has been described as a populist,[63][72] grassroots[64] movement for economic justice,[66] opposing what it sees as the wealthy urban elite and the establishment.[112]

In poker or game theory in general when there is not definitive information in regard to the circumstances of the decision to be made there is known to be a balanced action that exists which becomes a best case, unexploitable, response. If we raise this concept to our inquiry of unbalanced political perspective and start from a theoretically objective view there can only be the observation that the propriety of the entirety of participants is what is social order.

Put another way what is the most safe stance is to query the entirety of the network and adhere to the most popular position.

For the vocal left/marxist opponent (and probably the opposing self-identified right etc.) this is terrible news. It means the very division they have been working on solidifying and deepening becomes the very incorrect effort in regard to seeking what is “truth”.

For the crypto-anarchist this also encroaches on their core beliefs suggesting that they have a very limited view in regard to “what Bitcoin is”. It’s not a fatal observation however (for “bitcoin”).

It means that “what bitcoin is” in regard to the average person wanting to be on ‘the chain that serves them honestly to their honest wants’ they need to continually ask the different kind of peers for advice (here this could be actual IRL friends or exchanges or media sources etc).

This suggests that all coins (ie alt-coins) are at least in part to be considered as part of bitcoin (probabilistic etc) and only become not bitcoin, to the sincere inquirer) as more information is conveyed clearly.

Bitcoin then, as defined by crypto-anarchists, really does not scale socially in the sense that there are very few people that hold the nuanced and unbalanced ideology that a very limited political view will win out over the consensus that general population adheres to.

The idea that the left can win over the right, or the right over the left, becomes the similar view that politically leaning intellectuals share regardless of their orientation.

It is only those that seek to balance their own views by understanding how it is perspective only that divides them from their natural counter opponents. And to those that don’t adhere to the dualistic perspective and conflict the action of seeking balance is quite identifiable to the action of perpetuating duality.

In other words the anti-Twitter censorship crowed is neither anti left nor anti right (nor pro left or pro right) but rather a crowd that seeks to solidify the existence of duality by nourishing and frequenting platforms that perpetuate debate.

Its not the balancing of unbalanced perspective of Twitter they claim is oppressing them that is really their motive but rather these opponents mean to take away Twitter’s ability to control the conditions that create and foster the dualistic setting-they want to be able to fight for fighting sake so they don’t have to confront their own bias and dualistic conditioning.

For this Twitter will very much affect (future) elections as in the future the meta-data will begin to help evolve how we convey and receive information (ie evolve our communication/language) such that we can re-solve the differing sides of the political spectrum (inspiring convergence towards balance).

Something that scares the shit out of people like Nick Szabo.