Ask the Gulch!

This liberal psychology professor testified to congress that Google and Facebook use hidden manipulative techniques to influence elections. Their methods work much the same way as subliminal messages spliced into movie films worked, before it became illegal. Hillary Clinton almost won the election because of this. More democrats were put into the house because of this.
https://youtu.be/rNvgl38TLvI

Gotta love these "capitalism is really statism" and "individualism is really collectivism" posts from self contradicting and confused leftists.

Only government can censor you.
Tech companies are victims of massive violations of their rights by the government and scapegoating them because conservatives don't know anything about politics is pathetic.

What bothers me about Google is that their You Tube division has demonetized most of the user platforms, from the Slingshot Channel to Sidney Watson, and Jon Mark. Also, many of the Gun Channels. Joerg Sprave of the Slingshot Channel which originates out of Germany formed the YouTubers Union to fight against YouTube. He has met with Youtube associates in Germany which failed. The Union has helped to pressure YouTube into further negotiations. Creator's originally had access to a small part of the advertising revenue stream, now that no longer exists. Many still submit videos on their own "dime". That ted Cruz video was excellent!
I don't use Google as a search engine on my home computer. I do use it occasionally on my cellphone. I did notice recently that Facebook feed has slowed considerably but at this point, it hasn't become a problem.

I'm not sure that Google and Facebook were ever private, free-market corporations rather than fascist tools. Government funding and influence was apparently involved from the beginning. This article on the government's pervasive involvement in the tech sector (with the focus primarily on Google) is long, but very informative. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligen...

Another great article from Vinay.
The article opens with a pic of a cityscape. This is a reminder of the opening pages of Atlas Shrugged.
The view of gray sky, low sun, and new-brutalist architecture (Melbourne, Australia) is clean and modern but the gloom reminds the viewer that the human construct of the city is a tool indifferent as to its use.

Note the tower in the center, it could be thrusting heavenward to achievement and knowledge, or it could be looking down to control and oppress the city streets.
The city can inspire and facilitate human life as a romantic adventure, or it can house Orwell's HQ of Truth, Peace, and Plenty, more correctly described as propaganda, war, and rationing.
Cities are becoming more of centers of corporatism- banking, government, executive management, and less of trade. Trading is done but not of goods and services but of abstractions such as licenses (permissions), amounts of money are in billions, the ownership of this money is veiled.
There are daytime crowds of tourists at the corporate sponsored galleries, but art and production are elsewhere.

With such symbolism, and (too much maybe) imagination, I question the title-
The “Corporation” Is Pro-Individualism and Pro-Capitalism.
Cities today are dominated by corporatism and are tools both for pro-individualism and the institutions of central control, de-humanized and anonymous.

The main theme of the article is Social responsibility. What is this? The current focus of interpretation is not on individuals, their rights and achievements but the needs of society as set by our (re/pro)gressive elites who control education and the communication media. Our big corporations, in banking, the media, pharma, utilities, airlines and etc. are in it, maybe only as participants going with the flow, but putting their resources at the service of the propaganda elites. The article correctly labels this as fascism, the use by the state for the ends of the state (the elites, the ruling class). The central state gets its work done not by ownership of major corporates but by subverting corporate executives so that the corporates act properly and responsibly - as defined by those elites.

On this site, recent bad behavior of the big IT corporates has been discussed and defended by the claim that the corporation is private property and management acts with their own money.
In Atlas Shrugged recall what Dagny Taggart and Hank Readon thought about the corporate-government axis controlling prices, resources, and the market. Is that what we have today, is government controlling the corporates, or are corporates controlling government? Same difference?

I'd like to add one point about Kolhatkar's article. He stated "Indeed, banks, by undertaking widespread “social-justice” home lending, sparked the global financial crisis". Bill Clinton modified the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995, to require banks to admit more loans for minorities and other underprivileged classes. The number of Hispanic homeowners doubled in the next few years. All well and good, but the banks began competing for high-risk loans, as it became evident that the government and/or media would end up making an example of any bank that failed to do so. Worse, the government made no provisions for assisting either the homeowners or the banks when this failed. As a result, there were thousands who had mortgages they had no business owning, and no way to pay them as the economy tightened. Then gas prices doubled and these people were left with a choice - drive to work or own a home, and they defaulted. So it was Clinton, not the banks, who "sparked" the collapse, and caused minorities to lose their homes, credit ratings, and whatever equity they had acquired. The Interbank Loan crisis came 13 years later. Just another example of government coercing corporations.

I think "Corporation" is the beginning of the decline of Capitalism. Even Dagney could not stand "Jim's Board" and they ended up being the downfall of TT. People incorporate to get out of individual responsibility and accountability. It brought the downfall of mom and pop businesses.

Our Government is controlled by two private Corporations. The Democrat and Republican Party.
Yes they are private corporations. . Only the shards of the Constitution keep the country from descending into a monarchy run by the Royal couple these two corporations make. Once it a while we get a President like Trump ...of the people...for the people who puts up bulwarks against the encroachment of the Marxist ideology (read 1984) and flushes some corruption out of the swamp. . .At least makes the people aware of the creatures in the swamp so they can be replaced with hopefully less carnivorous ones.

However the system is completely and fatally broken in the USA. No amount of tinkering by Congress or the Supreme court or the President can arrest the decline. The only effective way is by repeal and replacement of Constitutional amendments. And then keeping them. You have a republic if you can keep it. - Ben Franklin. He knew what would happen. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The minute Political Parties came into existence the death spiral was initiated.

See http://www.TheSocietytProject.org For a complete analysis and solution..