From: Jack Flash

Tri-Founder: Saratoga Flash News

 

RE: Your Rationalizing of Your Own Links to MSF

SUMMARY: No

 

Dan:

 

Thanks…

 

First, the Actor in question can publish whatever viewpoint he so desires, within established limits relating to libel, threats or instigation of harm, criminal participation and more. Likewise, you can publish links to whatever original source you so desire.  There’s no “government” stopping you. Not the US version, anyways.

 

While observing those same limits, consumers can then rightfully react in a number of permissible means to both of you.  This can reflect positive reactions (ex: an atta boy, a pat on the head, a $ donation) or negative reactions (ex: a big FU on the street, an advertiser boycott, media slams). That’s the way it works.

 

But YES: Links (your primary product) do have ramifications in the so-called Net Economy.  Why? Because unless framed otherwise, they DO show some level of support +/or approval of the referenced author and message. Why else is everyone so obsessed with what Musk or DJT or Gates or Fauci or Lady Gaga retweeted overnight?

 

Why? As you no doubt realize, EYEBALLS are the modern digital world’s CURRENCY.   Linking  / re-tweeting / sharing has as its primary effect an INCREASE in those eyeballs for the linked-to property and message.  So doing any of those three tasks serves to contribute that currency to destination property’s owner, which aids that beneficiary in fulfilling whatever mission was established as the end game.  This mission can be a hoped-for monetary gain (advertising!) or something else.  I think it’s fair to surmise that MSF’s mission is that of influencing the local political landscape. Eyes balls lead to voters; hence eyeball #’s are his key asset. The more, the better.

 

So Yes; you are contributing to his mission.  That’s a given. Now let’s then discuss whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

 

First, a correction should be made to a contention you are making – or at least insinuating.  As best can be ascertained, this Actor’s political outlook is not that of what we might deem as being a ‘Trump supporter,’  I believe he would confirm that statement with you; I do recall his telling me such directly. So put that in your memory for a second…

 

The argument can, however, still be made that his theoretical leanings are extreme;  or “out there” in the far fringes beyond what a Big Tent (or what I like to tag as Bell Curve) analysis by interested and educated observers would deem as being legitimate American political / economic / social orthodoxy standing in support of the American Experiment.

 

Indeed; I personally consider Trumpism to be outside that acceptable thought as well.  But the Actor’s spot on the political  map is that of a different, parallel branch on the far-right branch on that virtual tree.  His cliched fanboi cheerleading of the standard Rand’ian libertarian economic nonsense juiced with White Power protectionism should raise alarms in this modern age of  the wordwide right wing renaissance.  He would seem to be a political soul mate to Mussolini (or even Putin) – flavored Bandit Capitalism; his only objecting being he’d prefer the oligarchs arise from mafia-style competition vs their being anointed up-front.  That’s what we call a simple disagreement in tactics.

 

As the saying goes: “politics make for strange bedfellows.”  So he will certainly stoke the fears of the Trump crowd as a mean of gaining numbers on any given grievance he conjures up in support of his dreams for his (very scary) Fountainhead paradise.  All while holding his nose over these Great Unwashed allies; no doubt.

 

So back to that prior hold this thought” point: Puhleeeeeze.  Do not frame this stuff as being the true “conservative” perspective.  Don’t insult those folks (the few that actually seem to exist anymore).  Nor is it the opposition counterpoint to center-liberal constituencies like SSDC, the various prog-action groups around town or even good ole Saratoga Flash News.  Don’t insult us folks.

 

Further bullets:

 

  • The fact that Trump has a large local constituency (your neighbors) somehow supports your decision? As said, MSF isn’t exactly Trump, which may make it irrelevant.  But you are correct in observing how that local demo does rah rah MSF (as per those strange bedfellows). But why are you not exposing this disconnect? Sure: you don’t do Content. But your currency is supporting it.
    • Meanwhile: there is also a (too) large a contingency of Perverts out there.  Same thing: some of them are our neighbors!  Alcoholics?  A lot of them.  On the brighter side: a lot of happily marries folks, too.  Where’s the love for all the other “there’s a lot of them around here” constituencies; if that is your Key Test?

 

  • Your rationale that MSF occasionally DOES report something we could label as NEWS, hence that forgives all other sins?   Not when that report or video is framed with commentary in support of the False Narratives that play such a prominent role in his ultimately realizing that big vision  thing.
    • Compare: If I report of a serious flood in Greenfield, complete with wild-ass video…will you link to it?  Even if it is surrounded by text that claims this is proof of a gov’t conspiracy to unleash all local dams to kill off rural Republicans?

 

  • All Voices and POV’s are equal and legit? See the train of thought @ a couple paragraphs; up.

 

  • RE: Your planned Disclaimer Warning. Why just MSF?  All “commentary” sites get the same treatment? How about that certain other local politics site you often link to?  While his issues are best defined as revenge–minded; the articles there are also filled with half-truths, weak logic and mis-statements galore.  What to do there with him and others?

 

  1. I’m sorry to have gone on so long. This will likely decrease eyeballs here! Right? But let me summarize with the MOST IMPORTANT takeaway point offered above:

 

  • You are paying MSF in the new form of modern day business Currency: We know that is worth something –  a LOT!  Look at how companies are valued (in old-school currency): obscene amounts; all based on TRAFFIC
  • It’s not different than your writing him a Check or sending him a PayPal every week.
  • In addition, your effect of giving this radical voice a seat at the table creates a FALSE EQUIVALENCY.
  • You are MAINSTREAMING an anti-American, anti-democracy, sociopathic (in the political sense) ideology ….. and you (and your other media allies) shouldn’t be doing so.

 

So: stop it.  All of you.  That Big Tent is meant for guys like you—and me. While we differ, we’re in the same ballpark. This guy isn’t. Send him to the Minors.

 

Please see Saratoga Report Founder/Publisher Dan De Federicis reply to this commentary here.