​"Free Market" is not a carte blanche thing that can be thrown around when we do not live in a free market economy. I know this whole "they are a private company" thing is always the retort for crazy right wing Trumpers pissed their Q-Anon memes get blocked or noted with a warning. Totally get it.

It is especially funny when it comes from that camp of right-wing trump dudes decrying commie threats all the time. I scoff at that too. Like hey bud, you cannot complain about socialism while also complaining about free market private company decisions. That works in the paradigm of this vs. that, in a vacuum.

But that is not how it works in reality. In reality, USG has its hand in free market a massive amount. The best example is the anti-trust case against FB now. If the USG - and as such the will of the people, in theory - can demand FB cannot be a monopoly or engage in nefarious activities, then the same is true for how they respond to freedom of speech.

In fact, the latter of those two is more important I reckon. Every company in this "Free market" economy is bound by city, county, state, federal and international laws. That alone means it is not an *absolute* free market. So dropping "private company" and "Free market" is not some panacea as answer to complaints of potential violations of freedom of speech (as theory or law) or biased implementation of such.

The inconsistent application of rules by FB, et al, but FB mostly, is non-negotiable. I have seen it a bunch of times, and tested it out. And my assessment is that it does lean left. I am not saying far left, but definitely a bit over the line. Additionally, even if it is not inconsistent, it is still inaccurate. My two hits for Hate Speech is solid evidence of that. That inaccuracy is evidence enough to warrant a change in the application.

Even if we were to wipe away the paragraphs above. And let us just say that their application is not biased, and they are a private company so whatevs. Even with that, I would posit that like cigarette ads, FOSTA, SESTA, etc, that the USG and thus the people, have determined that in some cases, the invisible hand needs to be visible.

In the case of internet stuff versus such as a bakery for example, these platforms have ceased to be voluntary platforms. There are jobs you cannot apply to without LinkedIn. Logging into legitimate accounts needed, are often bias towards using your Google or Facebook to login. There are places that do not accept cash. And there is a thin line thus, between having 2 options (Credit/Debit and Apply/Google Pay) and having 1 – Apple/Google.

These internet platforms such as Facebook, Google, Wikipedia, Airbnb, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc have surpassed convenience and though are not totally in the necessity column, they are on the cusp, with some in one column and some in the other. And soon, they will all be in the necessity column. There likely will always some recourse to operate off grid, but we all know, that is 1,000 times more difficult to do.

Additionally, when I posited my Microsoft banning people for using blacklisted terms, like Facebook and Twitter, and got some blow back on it, that blow back missed the point.

Remember when Google Plus existed. Imagine if it was successful and you had the same situation with Facebook. But Google hosts more needed things – like email. And now you are banned from your email. Totally within their rights. There is nothing that says Microsoft cannot ban you from using words in Word on your own computer.

Sure, you can argue that you paid for it, but people already pay for Facebook and Twitter via their data, for solo private accounts, and via paying for ads as an example for business accounts. And, Parler surely paid Amazon for their services and got kicked off. So the idea of paying for a service as a way to negate them to block or ban you for violating their T&S is false.

Additionally, one can argue that you need to read the T&S. Well, WhatsApp just changed theirs. So that logic is false too, because they change ALL THE TIME. And if you are invested in that platform as a individual or business it is very difficult to uninvest. People have built entire business models off of these platforms. Shit, I have had start ups go to shit because of T&S or API changes. If I got banned from Facebook total, I would be fucked. Messenger is my primary communication tool. And that includes work stuff often.

Airbnb just blocked nearly every reservation in DC because they are trying to avoid violent protesters from coming. Only if you have a long term stay or medical need can you come. Well, shit, what about homeless brandon? Now I am fucked. And what if I got on Facebook and began to complain about that while living in my care. And Facebook is how I share a GoFundMe to pay for a hotel room for myself? Then Facebook bans me because I used colorful language in my “Friends Only” post or sub-comments and now I am truly fucked.
​
So no, “Free Market” and “private company” is absolute bullshit. These platforms have spent billions ensuring their product and services replace original ones. They are no longer only private companies. They are crossing over into public goods – and that was their choice, and perhaps, they need to regulated as such when it comes to socio-political bias, because they already are regulated in every other way.

​This was the worst coup ever.

The only shot fired was by a Capital Police Officer that killed a female protestor. One non-protester was killed, after the fact from injuries sustained during the event. Two people died from ancillary medical issues, likely due to stress and fear from the event, one person died because they accidently tased themselves during the event and thus had a heart attack.

Two pipe bombs were found – not at the Capitol Building but located at the Republican and Democrat Headquarters. Molotov cocktails were found also – again not at the capital but inside the vehicle of one protestor. Reportedly a man with a “long gun” entered the building. A long gun. Not a handgun, not an “assault rifle” and not an easily concealed MP5. Not a weapon that is easily concealed, and not a weapon that can fire rapidly at multiple politicians or security staff, nor a weapon that can easily reload, nor a weapon that is effective at close quarters combat. No, a long gun. Literally the worst weapon you can imagine to conduct a coup in this situation.

Incitement of Violence

Trump conducted a 4 hour long “Save America Rally” before the event. During the rally multiple people spoke. The closest thing to inciting violence was when Giuliani utilized the phrase “trial by combat.” Trump himself referenced marching to the Capitol Building 3 times. One of those times he added qualifiers to it, when he stated, “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Despite this, Trump was immediately accused of telling, directing, ordering and motivating his supporters to go to the Capitol Building and attack them violently. Additionally, the narrative consistently refers to the event as a terrorist attack, coup, attempted assassination. These are strong words that have strong meanings.

Screaming protesters can be extremely dangerous. Unlike smaller groups or individuals, once in a mob – the larger it is, the more dangerous they can be. I would fear for my life if I believed an angry screaming mob wanted to harm or kill me. In fact, I have. One year before this event, I was at the US Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.

This was a siege that was directed by Iran, and the thousands of “protesters” held the compound hostage for ~13 hours before a show of force arrived and the majority of the protestors departed. During this event, the attackers broke through the gates, and burnt down the gate guard buildings, while throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks at the walls, cameras and over the walls. This was a terrorist attack. It was well thought out, strategic and had a logical intent.

Strategy

The voting would have led to one of two outcomes. First, a review of votes, that may lean to towards Trump winning. Second, Trump not winning. For probability, there was a 50% chance Biden would win. And the other 50% that either Biden would win, or Trump would win. Trump’s best chance of winning was to let the vote play out, and hope that his own Vice President and his supporters in Congress would agree to a review of the votes.

Trump had already faced impeachment once and knows he is the prime target of most domestic and many international, elements in the media and most of the political establishment – it has been his mantra since day one. It stands to reason that there is no doubt, that if Trump performed anything additionally significant to his current course of action of demanding recounts, that he would be targeted further.

If the options are to 1) direct a coup and become further a pariah in the last minute, that will without question not succeed in changing the vote outcome and potentially land him in jail or impeached; or 2) let the vote review continue, where he has supporters inside and could actually win; the first option is the opposite of what he supposedly wants.

In full disclosure, there are an additional two potential options that are outside of rational logic. Option 3 - he internationally incited the event, in hopes that it would lead to a national security emergency where most of the US government leadership is murdered or incapacitated, and Trump can somehow declare a domestic war against his own people and somehow manage to stay in power a bit longer. If this is the case, then Trump’s massive conspiracy to stage a coup, with a headpiece sporting a horned helmet and face-paint, was unsuccessful either way. Moreover, this would be the most strategic, ignorant plan of all possible plans.

The fourth potential option is that he knew he was not going to see another term, and thus decided to hit back with the most absurd chaotic, if-im-going-down-then-so-will-all-of-you option. If this was the option he chose, then it stands to reason there would be no holding back in his attempts to stoke and incite potentially the most daring domestic attack since September 11th, 2001.

The idea that Trump took option one seems unlikely. Option one indicates a fairly strategic attempt to achieve the opposite of what he wants: to win the election – thus being strategic to be unstrategic. The second option would potentially lead to Trumps ideal outcome. It would also potentially lead to an entire full term (barring a later removal). It is also the option that continues in synch with Trumps entire strategy all along – claiming election fraud before the election, untrusted mail-in ballots, fraud during the election, and extreme bias after the fact and betrayal by Pence on the day of.
The third option

The second option, pressuring Congress to conduct a review was the only option of all four to achieve a second term
​
Conclusion

Nothing in this writing means Trump is innocent of being divisive, knowing his words will or have motivated people into violence. Nothing in this writing asserts that Trump should not be impeached, nor does it counter the idea that Congress should invoke the 25th amendment.