I think the deep state controls social media, and can both grow and restrict platforms as required...in fact i think the cia has an entire division dedicated to that, and when they want the price to go up it does. At this point Blurt is of no importance to them so we can have our own little platform. But the chances of them spiking the price is very slim, and organically it is unlikely to do much... it might double i guess. The small time corruption of certain insider's doesnt help.
Yeah, but to answer my questions..?
Specifically social media...no i dont think any platform has become mainstream on it's own, all the big ones are deep state, and certainly if one got bigger than desired it would be taken down.
My question is: Do you believe something that isn't funded by deep state can't do well organically (on its own)? Or do you believe it could, but the deep state would then take actions to knock it back down?
I realize social media like FB and YT are manipulated by the deep state. Those platforms are PART of the deep state, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think Blurt is in that category. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from ("it is unlikely to ever go bigtime"), but you won't clarify your position, so.... shrug
My position
It is unlikely to ever go bigtime...if it is not a deep state platform it it will never reach the size of steemit or hivemind which are both cia
That is pretty clear isnt it?
No. My 2 part question wasn't open ended, nor was it a trick question, nor was it rhetorical. It was "yes" or "no". Very strange that you won't answer. Take care.
In theory, yes something could go up organically, but in practise, NO, it never happens, as pretty much every person and every platform that is popular in mainstream society has been put there. If you have any exceptions please name them because im researching this for a blog post and its starting to freak me out!
Sounds like you believe "it's a big club, and we aint in it" - George Carlin. I'm with you on that, I'm just not sure the maxim extends to Blurt. And I'm also not sure how it ever could. Although if you see my latest post, I'm calling out the management and insiders for corruption and cronyism, after doing some looking around at names and numbers today. I don't think this is a deep state problem, more of a "I want money and have to keep you from getting money so I can get more for myself" issue. But maybe there's a way it could morph into a deep state / elite issue, should the management/insiders get bought out. One thing that irked me when I first signed up here, I saw Megalomaniac say "we have to get all those anarchists off Blurt". I don't know if he doesn't really know what that word means, or if he's serious and against true freedom and decentralization.
I don't know Khrom well, but he's now the #1 witness here, and as far as I know, he is not an insider. He got there mainly because there's a large Polish community here that banded together and voted for him. We'll see what happens I guess.
FULLY AGREE,
GREAT POST YOU JUST DID
I think MySpace was organic no? It had its time lol
I think it is of some important tho. I think all of these are more social experiments than money. Hive was clearly a sort of 1984 style test to see how much people would tolerate in return for being given some little breadcrumbs and handouts for it. They rise some ppl up and pay them more to see if they would turn on their own people etc. I think blurt is interesting to them too tho as it’s an experiment into how a society copes with free speech and at least more freedom
Than they have on other social platforms they will be interested to watch it for sure. How we build social structures etc etc how we respect free speech. It’s still a useful observation platform.