Big tech has gone “nuclear” on the internet presence of [name withheld]. Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest, MailChimp and even LinkedIn have ALL cancelled his accounts with them. Are there implications here about the timing of this, and for Get Wisdom, and even the saving of humanity itself?

This, indeed, is a “sign of the times.” You have noticed this being discussed and seen more and more examples of censorship based on conflicting ideological beliefs of those who are in charge of the social media platforms, and users who may espouse differing views and be targeted in a discriminatory fashion, despite the stated welcoming of all and the founding principle of the Internet being one of freedom in having a forum of ideas open to all. We appreciate the need to have some oversight to restrict access to the mentally deranged and those with criminal intentions desiring to harm people in some way and to foment criminal activity, such as violent confrontations. There are always extremists who can turn almost anything into a weapon and may crash a party or a gathering to foment trouble, and they can be rightfully expelled from the premises, even with law enforcement assistance if that proves necessary, in order to have order and safety for attendees and to allow the function to occur as intended, without disruption that could prevent those gathered from achieving their objective. If it is not a forum for an exchange of ideas, but simply someone intruding to cause a disruption and turmoil by challenging someone to castigate them for differing perspectives or political agenda, then this is truly an interloper who has no legal basis for this trespassing from an ethical perspective. There are other ways people can air their grievances and opinions, but intruding on someone else’s lawful gathering and invading their space to cause confusion, distractions, a disruption of the agenda, and potentially serious negative emotional responses of fear, are truly overstepping a boundary and engaging in malicious mischief, and deserve censure and expulsion in response. The example you cite is part of the disturbing trend that is being met by a growing chorus of complaints because of the unfair application of privileges for seemingly arbitrary reasons or political favoritism. The reason this is happening is not because the heads of these companies and their staff have suddenly decided to take sides and go to war against their perceived opposition, but something more sinister than their free will choice to become a rigid ally for a particular perspective to the exclusion of others. They are uniformly being subjected to serious mind control manipulation, so their choices and their logic are illusory. They are doing what they are being persuaded to do, without careful consideration or analysis, other than that of the most superficial kind. This is in service to growing trends that will begin to isolate dissent and create further experience, with people seeing censorship, confrontation, exclusion, and punishment of those with of an opposing view become more and more the norm, and the standard of conduct being lowered, and lowered, and lowered yet again, to growing tolerance of extreme measures that border on illegality and cross that line as well. All being, in the end, acceptable to those being persuaded from within that there is a righteous cause being served, and that those with an opposing view deserve what they get. This is a suspension of morality involved here and a sinister hand at work. No one has an exclusive access to the truth 100% of the time. Political notions come and go. Political movements come and go. Cultural standards evolve over time. What is acceptable today and what is anathema might be quite the reverse given a sufficient span of time and a change in thinking that will evolve as a consequence of human experience, and often learning hard, painful, lessons causing a shift in those perspectives. It is not only arrogant but foolhardy, to pronounce oneself as a perfect arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not, and therefore, what is permissible and what is not can be decided unilaterally, and then enforced with one’s power to punish those who differ, by excluding goods and services that are freely offered to those with seemingly acceptable viewpoints. This is a dangerous precedent, and a growing trend that will not end well for humanity. There needs to be an ongoing robust debate. Many evil deeds are cloaked in humanitarian messages and begin with a justification based on helping, and expressing and defending lofty ideals, and this is often a kind of propaganda that would seem to justify discrimination, for example. But this is never justified, no matter for how lofty a reason. There are ways to be evenhanded, even when this is less rewarding or convenient for a majority, and at the expense of their being able to appear righteous in their opinion of themselves as being on the right side of truth. This indeed is a sign of increasing pressure being applied in a stranglehold on human expression. All such censorship is sinister and not to be trusted because it all works against human freedom and liberty, and these are the most precious of resources.