This is about two stories – the first from the Wail:
Whistleblower reveals how Pinterest BANNED pro-life group Live Action by categorizing it as porn and censored Bible verses as ‘sensitive terms’
Right, the whistleblower is, of course, a pretty girl and so we have the first issue – the scurrilous click-bait nature of the press, with the Express maybe the most brazen user of it I’ve seen, the Wail not far behind.
It hardly need be spelt out but let’s anyway. Pinterest is like all the other tech giants/platforms – was started up or financed by someone:
As always, I want to know how it happened – how did one person or a group at the top all think, politically, the same way, with the same prejudices and same lack of principle in applying the rules. The same concept of ‘community standards’?
Prior to Pinterest (which launched in March 2010), Silbermann worked at Google in the online advertising group. However, after a short time with the company he left and started designing his own iPhone apps with a college friend, Paul Sciarra. After their initial application, Tote, failed to gain significant traction, the cofounders teamed up with Evan Sharp to create a pinboard product that would eventually be named Pinterest. Silbermann says that the genesis of Pinterest really came from his love of collecting as a kid.
Noted entrepreneurs and investors include: Jack Abraham, Michael Birch, Scott Belsky, Brian Cohen, Shana Fisher, Ron Conway, FirstMark Capital, Kevin Hartz, Jeremy Stoppelman, Hank Vigil, and Fritz Lanman.
So what do you take from that?
Well firstly, I relied on Wikipedia for my facts and that was through search engine Google, whence Silberman sprang. And if you follow those links, that of Evan Sharp, for example, comes up. Bright boys in one way, political clones in another, like Zuckerberg, like Dorsey, like Youtube’s Wojcicki.
Somewhere in this tale, big money for R and D appears, it’s not a case of going to your local manager. Those on hand to lend put the borrower through scrutiny – is he or she ‘sound’? if so, the money flows and that company comes out on top, is given much advice.
That seems to be the way it goes. The left would call this Capitalism, the sane might call it crony capitalism or entrepreneurship but actually, it’s far more – it’s quite politically stringent. Only a certain type gets through, gets backed, gets the breaks.
Much has been made of the failure of the non-left, non-establishment to set up such things as Pinterest and yet I know people of the requisite skill, even the ability to run a company … but they never do … or at least that company runs into trouble.
The other tale concerns a Dutch school and the details seem sketchy, plus who the reporters were, why they were on the scene, how the kids left the grounds to talk to them.
Apparently, paedophilia came up in a middle-school class discussion and the teacher countered by saying that Mo was one, with Aisha or whatever her name was. It was not just the Muslim kids in the class who took umbrage at that, it was the indigenous too.
Teacher was suspended.
Outside the grounds, ordered off by the principal, they interviewed these kids and two were outspoken – a Muslim girl, plus a Dutch, a budding SJW, narrative down pat.
The thing centred around Mo having been called a paedo. The interviewer said – well he was. And what?
Choruses of no, no, no. Then the Muslim girl said – well he had no right [the teacher] to disrespect the prophet. They were all incensed, the kids, calling the teacher a paedo.
There’s no way to know the full story but it does seem iffy that the teacher spoke of it with kids – one hopes he was not another Patricia Hewitt or Harbag. Then again, headteachers are welcoming trannies and dragshows for kids now.
Equally as worrying to me though was the way the non-Muslim kids, who MUST have seen all the atrocities across Europe, who must use social media, could just blindly support the Muslim in her wrongness, factually.
It’s a fair question to ask – well what do I suggest here? That the Dutch kids ostracise the Muslim kid in her bin liner? Because clearly that’s not on once the kid is enrolled.
The damaging thing is that she’s even there. You can see the kids’ notions of love everyone, peace and mutual understanding and those are good things to aspire to.
Yet that kid is backed by a family indulging in throwback practices and the leading lights in that community have clearly stated that they’re going to replace the west with Shariah.
What does one do?