Antipodean fruit growers 2 - Canary in the internet coal mine

[Bosky]

Continuation thread from Antipodean fruit grower statement

A statement from the owner reads in part:

Downtime Update as of August 26th, 2022

"What I fear more than losing my site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where [REDACTED] can [REDACTED] little boys and girls into [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], while normal people are not allowed to even discuss it.

The mob has already planned subsequent targets. Should we stay down, they will then attack 'gender critical' communities - especially those ran by and for women. No place can exist online which allows criticism of their [REDACTED], and nothing would excite them more than this power and domination struggle being inflicted on a female space instead."

I would link to the statement on the Internet Archive aka "Wayback Machine" but it has made all pages archived from the relevant site unsearchable (or deleted?).

Mumsnet does not permit links to the site Archive Today so that is out too.

1st Thread Antipodean fruit grower statement
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4620584-antipodean-fruit-grower-statement

Thanks!

This is the close of the article:

Mr Young said: “Withdrawing financial services from dissidents and non-conformists and those who dare to defend them is the new frontline in the ongoing war against free speech.

“The Free Speech Union will be lobbying the Government to put new laws in to prevent companies like PayPal demonetising organisations and individuals because their employees disapprove of their views.”

I’ve always found Toby Young to be a frightful prick (I was once assigned to look after him at a day-long press event at an arts festival. It was a very long day) but I’m going to join the free speech union now (obvs won’t be paying via PayPal!)

Big tech does not cave to pressure. They eagerly await the pretext it provides.

"I wouldn’t be so smug if I was on the ‘winning’ side of this, because when the tide turns, and it will, they should fear for their freedoms."

Is this some sort of threat against LGBT people?

Yes, what is that supposed to mean exactly?

Are you getting bored yet @MargaritaPie of me continuing to repeat asking you the same, very simple question??

No one is threatening anyone, what they are describing is more of a potential self-own.

Don’t be daft - it’s a warning about no one being safe from corporations, not a threat!

Jesus H Christ. Paranoid or what?

Not paranoid, was a genuine question as the original comment wasn't clear what it was referring to.
"When the tide turns they should fear for their freedoms" does sound like LGBT people should worry for their freedoms.

It's quite clear what was meant. "Be careful what you wish for".

It's quite clear what was meant.
No, it wasn't.
Seeing as there's more than one person questioning, shows it's clearly not.

And more than one person saying it was perfectly clear what was meant to anyone reading in good faith.

I think these are pretty threatening, don't you?

If you're careless of free speech, don't be surprised when the censors censor you.

well, now you know.

bit weird that you are here talking about freedom of speech but aren’t aware of the standard warning that if you don’t support freedom of speech for your enemy but would rather give up a universal protection to see your opponent suffer it will be back to bite you in the arse when the political tide turns (which it always does eventually, reference point: the history of the world)

They both know.

What is that even supposed to mean?
I asked a genuine question.
Keep your tinfoil hat on if it makes you feel better though.
Crack on.

No tinfoil hats here, just a Big Book of World History and being forced to study Orwell for GCSE English Lit.

Why do you assume all LGBT are on the "winning side" in that statement? Such a bizarre assessment.

Yes, such genuine questions. You're both so obviously genuine. You exude it.

It's always the exact same people wasting everyone else's time with the inane questions. You're transparent. Nothing you can say can change the fact that you're transparent.

There’s always a suitable Tweet.

Thats funny 😀

I think it really depends on who the two people questioning the statement are

Why do you assume all LGBT are on the "winning side" in that statement? Such a bizarre assessment.

one of the accounts that was shut down was Gays against Groomers. There already bloody is a threat to the freedoms of “LGBT” people, just like everyone else.

Marge loves a bit of forced teaming.

LGB have to be smushed right up against T whether they like it or not for ever and ever.

I'm curious? Are you (and Marg) actually so, so very ignorant of the world, basic history and human nature. Because you really would have to be to not understand what @ItsLateHumpty's comment meant. It's what has happened over and over and over again in revolutions. Have you never heard of Maximilien Robespierre? Leon Trotsky? Lavrentiy Beria? Any, even one, of the numerous purges or periods of 'Terror' even in the last 100 years? The Russian Red Terror of 1918-1922? The Great Purge (Russia) of 1936-1937? The Cultural Revolution (China) 1966-1976? Year Zero (Cambodia) 1975? Revolutions, even those that were initially justified, can backfire with utterly disastrous consequences if they go too far. The changes in laws and power structures that were introduced with righteous zeal, have deep, unintended consequences and it's so very often the people who initially supported those changes who fall foul of them.

I can't actually believe that anyone would be so ignorant of how the world continually works. But equally, I don't understand what anyone would think they'd gain by pretending to be so ignorant. Either way it really, really doesn't give the weight to your arguments that you seem to think it does. It just makes you appear to have no understanding of the argument you are trying to engage in and therefore, reduces the value of every argument you make to zero.

Ah, I was going to put, uneducated and uninterested in being educated.
But maybe that would have been mean of me?
@Wanderingowl You put it so much better.