A question because it doesn’t make sense. A corporation, its purpose, is to act according to a charter, thereby avoiding any personal bias and limiting the personal liability of those who are invested and employees acting according to that charter. Corporations register with the Secretary of State of a State, and in most cases are located in Delaware due to it being the most secure regarding secrecy. I say secrecy because a corporation, though treated as a person for tax purposes, is not alive, a corporation is a dead entity a “corpse” without the “e” (pronounced unlike the military use of the term). Incorporation in the US is an act of agreement to the laws of the United States by the mere intention of incorporation alone, affirmed by the terms of the documents of incorporation.

When a corporation acts in a personal manner, and inconsistent with its charter, that’s when it can accrue liability against directors, executives, and investors.

For example using Social Media, say a company is claimed, as CEO Jack Dorsey of Twitter said, “left-leaning.” Legally that’s only possible when registered as a political organization, otherwise “left-leaning” is inconsistent with the entire existence of a corporation. A corporation can have ethics. Ethics are a method of calculation in relation to risk where decision are entirely based upon what is in the best interest of the corporation, and that is how corporations have no bias and afford protection from personal liability. After Ford Pintos were exploding from a rear end collisions a memo that I can’t even find an image of which said “It’s cheaper to let them burn” featuring a cost benefit analysis using the ethical “whats best for the corporation” standard, http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/. This memo made it into court cases.

As one searches the web they can see Ford suffered greatly in the court system and had to afford the lives of those effected by Pintos that had exploded in a cash settlement or monthly payments until age 65. A friend of mine had been disfigured and unable to work due to surviving a Pinto explosion with around 90% of his body in 3rd degree burns. “Penetration of the corporate veil” is what occurred due to a publicly traded company ignoring its duty to uphold the laws of the United States and the State in the corporation’s ethical decision versus assume the corporation’s responsibility to public safety is paramount, and act accordingly. That analysis is here, https://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/. Incorporation is a privilege to use the incorporation laws of the State and United States to protect from personal liability so long as you aren’t placing that liability on the government’s shoulders.

I am pretty sure Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO(s) of Alphabet/Google, Google Plus, and Google’s Youtube, and any Social Media corporation & their networks are well aware of this general legal knowledge and understanding which is what begs the question, “Shadowban?” — A term to sum up the suppression of some users on Social Media platforms but not others, or even to suppress and change search engine results as Google Search appears to also be doing.

The kicker is that these same “left-leaning” Social Media corporations appear to be just like their Progressive cohorts in the mainstream media, banking, investment and insurance industries where over 80% of their executives donate to the Democratic Party, and are making a sincere and serious effort to prove Karl Marx right. What else would explain why they have assumed us all just numbers (par for the “left-leaning” course) but that we are viewed and our accounts treated like datasets & datapoints to be manipulated by the corporate policies of these Social Media corporations who Shadowban one group of people and do not do it to another group.

Of course Social Media corporations claim an algorithm or AI (programmed simulated intelligence) is causing these bans, asserting that these aren’t conscious decisions by policy(ies) or employee(s) but are objective acts by impersonal machines & their computer code; that Shadowbans are to be treated as an act of nature, an act of God, harmless and as though no one can do anything about it. Social Media corporations think they are protected by this. This sets up their last ditch view so they don’t fess up, and instead assert “plausible deniability,” for their acts of suppression in carrying on Political/Ideological Segregation.

The real purpose of Shadowbanning, other than publicity by controversy, appears to be to tailor a dataset that can be used to construct an erroneous “survey” tallying users as numbers to represent a falsehood and using Social Media corporation policies to claim those who are banned are “more violent,” “mentally-ill,” or “racist.” Thus Shadowbans can portray an air of legitimacy as the dataset for some Extremist Progressive group like the Southern Poverty Law Center to put together a fake news “analysis.” Of course this analysis is sold to the public with the goal of dividing us on the most sacred principle of Freedom: Freedom of Speech. See this is a rinse and repeat of old media methods to control us, “coloring” results with “numbers don’t lie” claims in a propaganda promotion. The claim “it’s an algorithm” or “AI,” is a complete lie as all these companies fail to mention algorithms use data sets of words or massaged calculations all subject to the bias of their author(s). To Social Media corporations users are pawns in a game, a game of statistics where Social Media corporations are the Scorekeeper, Umpire, and Record taker regarding the “teams” – Judge, Jury & Executioner of your social media existence when Shadowbanned.

Dorsey mentioned in a recent interview with Brian Stelter that Twitter isn’t acting on ideology but “behavior.” In light of how ones ideology can effect their knowledge, perception, and action upon what is right and wrong to them, where one ideology can feature a graphic of how to kill an ICE agent but after numerous complaints against the user tweeting the graphic out, their account isn’t suspended and nothing done about their tweet of this graphic. Yet a twitter user of the other “opposite” ideology and a mother in tweet conversation with a user admitting pedophilia who says “around 8 to 10 years old is okay to have sex with an adult,” replies, “you come near my child and I’ll kill you,” is thereafter suspended on the grounds of violating Twitter policy for threatening the pedophile’s life, Twitter not even caring about the threat the pedophile made to children! The blatant lack of an algorithm’s ability while exacerbated by an epic failure of “left-leaning” Social Media corporation employees to recognize right & wrong is so obvious by these examples and admits with little doubt that “behavior” is entirely subjective to ideology. Dorsey’s statement shows a disconnect to his and maybe every Social Media corporation’s ability to address the Shadowban issue.

Freedom for every user to express their political beliefs appears to be a blindspot for Social Media corporations in accepting and favoring a subjective ideology, their policies void of the arms length rule to assure all liability is contained in the corporation, separated from the personal beliefs and actions of investor(s) and employee(s).

Whether Dorsey’s statement is an egregious, intentional, fraud or not I do not know but it is clear Jack Dorsey admitted his incompetence to address Shadowbanning. Dorsey’s statement demonstrates at least an inability if not an unwillingness to appreciate, connect, and understand how ideology effects what is seen as appropriate or inappropriate (i.e. “right or wrong”, “violates policy or does not violate policy,” etc.), and thereby he cannot see how ideology taints the datasets and algorithms which do not comprehend objective corporate governance policy except to the extent their authors do. Sad to say I am not surprised at the outcome from these echo-chamber “left-leaning” Social Media corporations. What’s worse is that it’s an admission of a subjective policy inconsistent with being available objectively to the public-at-large. If Twitter really is this “left-leaning,” that the objective goal of their Social Media corporate policies is to silence all opposing views, Twitter should be registered as a Progressive political organization! But then, you see users would be absolutely protected by the regime of law governing political organizations and that protects opposing political speech. Do you see the legal sleight of hand (not sure Dorsey is a lawyer so not putting this on him)?

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman