The Bias of Strategic Shipping in the Digital Age
The Bias of Censorship Stage Shipping in the Digital Age
Strategic Shipping: Censorship
Fracking: Freedom
Swampville: Washington, DC
Cross Information: Misinformation
Sensory Awareness: Censorship
Roy Rogers Cap Bopper: Toy or Real Gun
Van Allen Belt: Illegal Immigration
Goofy Shoed: Deplatformed
Cold: Covid
The words featured above are used to avoid tyrannical takedowns, de-platforming, and view suppression by social media platforms. Watch the video titled “The Bias of Stage Shipping in the Digital Age.” The video will be posted in the afternoon of December 28, 2024. The use of these terms highlights the deep-seated and unwavering bias present on major social media platforms. By exploring their practices, the video sheds light on how these digital giants shape narratives, often suppressing diverse viewpoints under the guise of moderation.
If you’re watching this on social media, you might notice that I use terms like Larry, Moe, and Curly as stand-ins for certain words or topics. This isn’t just for fun—it’s a strategic move to avoid being de-platformed, Goofy-shoed or having my content rejected for advertising and promotion. The algorithms used by Larry, Moe and Curly are ruthless, and using coded language has become a necessary workaround to keep the conversation alive and the message reaching you.
I was an early adopter, user, and content creator on platforms like Larry, Moe, and Curly. However, I stopped engaging with them due to increasing censorship, which I began noticing as far back as the text-only chatroom days of AOL. Those early experiences revealed the trend of restricting speech, and it has only intensified over time. Recognizing these limitations, I chose to develop a private brand and independent channel, hosting my own material on a self-controlled website for clients and prospective clients as part of my marketing strategy.
As the decades passed, the global audience, especially retirees from all walks of life, shifted heavily toward endless video entertainment on the dominant social media platforms. This evolution made my freewheeling, no-holds-barred, blunt, and un-sugar-coated forecasting nearly impossible to sustain. To remain visible, I’ve had to temper my content, sacrificing authenticity to gain even a minimal foothold. It’s a frustrating and unjust reality, one that I deeply resent. If I truly expressed my resentment, the remainder of this would be a vulgar tirade. I won’t do that as I trust you get the point.
Censorship in the modern era is no longer confined to governments or traditional gatekeepers. Instead, it is wielded by private corporations like Larry, Moe, and Curly, whose platforms have become the dominant spaces for public discourse. While these companies argue their content policies aim to maintain safety, prevent misinformation, and foster civil engagement, their methods often reveal bias and overreach. The result is a digital environment where the boundaries of acceptable conversation are narrow, subjective, and increasingly stifling.
And when Larry, Moe, and Curly find themselves under pressure from federal bureaucrats of the gray state—urged to suppress content that challenges the prevailing narrative or goes against the flavor of the day—it becomes clear how deep the control runs. This kind of censorship doesn’t just silence voices; it sparks a deeper unrest. Like restless dogs confined to a kennel, seeking ways to break free, to reclaim their ability to bark and mark their territories with urine, without fear of reprisal from a vicious master who beats them to death if necessary. It’s a battle for the fundamental right to dissent, and the tighter the leash is pulled, the more determined the pushback becomes among the more resilient and determined among us becomes.
Take, for example, the experience of discussing the intersection of government and economics. This topic—critical for understanding how policy affects everyday life—is fraught with risk for creators and users. I am fundamentally a forecaster whose skills and talents are applied to the investment and wealth arena of advice and management. And so, merely referencing certain terms or exploring nuanced perspectives can lead to content being flagged, demonetized, Goofy-shoed, and even debanked. The word aardvark, in reference to a world-wide condition that caused cold-like symptoms, you know that global event that on platforms run by Larry, Moe, and Curly, still cannot be discussed or “avoided” words used, now carries so much weight in algorithmic scrutiny that its mention of the word “avoided” jeopardizes an entire account. Similarly, terms as innocuous as "gag,” such as referring to the 1920s as the “Gag and Roaring 20s” once triggered bans in AOL chatrooms. As one, if not the first one to discover algorithmic banning, back in the days when text-based chat rooms were the start of what we have today, I demonstrated to many at the time what was going on. However, the average person of the day denied such a thing took place. I would hear: “Oh Paul, they don’t do that.” Then when I told anyone who would listen to use the word “John Wayne” while their phone was not in use but nearby, repeatedly for a few minutes, and then search the search engine, Mouthwash, for John, and stop typing. Watch what happens in the suggested search results. Look a long dead actor, famous there or not, should not pop up as a primary suggested item on “Mouthwash.”
All of this proved to me, decades ago, and highlighted to me in recent weeks, with my renewed engagement, that the problem of arbitrary enforcement is obviously not new but has scaled massively in recent years.
The Goofy-Shoed Effect
Goofy-shoeing, a particularly insidious form of censorship, is emblematic of this problem. Unlike outright bans, which are at least transparent, Goofy-shoeing hides a user's content from wider audiences without their knowledge. This creates an illusion of free speech while ensuring that dissenting or controversial voices are effectively silenced. The criteria for what triggers these actions are often vague and inconsistently applied, leading to frustration and self-censorship. When one reads the terms and conditions of Larry, Moe, or Curly’s terms of conditions, well, with a law degree or not, it’s as clear as mud; and that’s being kind.
Creators and users are forced to tread carefully, employing euphemisms or avoiding certain topics altogether. The chilling effect of these restrictions is profound. Conversations about health policy, economic strategy, or even historical events must tiptoe around trigger words lest they invite punitive action from platforms. For example, merely mentioning Generals Eisenhower, Patton, or MacArthur will land you in Stooge Jail.
Algorithms as Arbitrators
At the heart of this issue is the reliance on algorithms to moderate content. These algorithms, intentionally created by Goofy, Loopy, and Dewey, are designed to filter out cross-information or moonlit speech, often lack the context or nuance needed to make mature, rational, and intelligent judgments. A discussion on government intervention in markets can be flagged as “misleading,” while satire and metaphor usage is misconstrued as literal and penalized. In other words, the world according to Garp has lost its humor. This over-reliance on machine learning ensures that the digital public square is shaped by cold, inflexible logic rather than human understanding.
Furthermore, the opacity of these systems exacerbates the problem. Users have little recourse to challenge or understand why their content was targeted. Appeals are often met with automated responses, leaving users in the dark about what changes are needed to comply with the ever-shifting rules.
Even political organizations, including clubs affiliated with established parties like the fictional Green Cheese Political Party, have experienced sensory awareness. Private posts within their own members-only groups have been flagged, taken down, or outright banned by the likes of Larry, Moe, and Curly. This level of interference crosses a line—it’s more than overreach; it’s fundamentally wrong. When private discussions in closed communities can’t escape scrutiny, it’s a gut punch to freedom of association and expression.
Even phrases as foundational as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have been flagged and coded out by Larry, Moe, and Curly. As absurdly as it sounds, that combination of seven words is interpreted by Hal (who lives at 2001 Space Road), as a call to travel to Fort Sumter. It’s hard to believe, but this level of overreach is real, and it reflects just how far the goalposts have shifted in controlling discourse. The troubling part is that this trend shows no signs of stopping, regardless of who holds power in Swampville. The machinery of censorship has become so entrenched that even basic expressions of fracking and individual rights are at risk of being stifled, and furthermore, merely saying fracking and individual rights is a huge no, no, no; no, no. You simply cannot make this stuff up, and yet, here we are, navigating a world where words themselves are treated as more dangerous than traveling without proper authorization through the Van Allen Belt, armed with a Roy Roger cap bopper.
The Economic Impact of Censorship
Censorship also has tangible economic consequences. For content creators, demonetization can mean the difference between financial stability and ruin. And by the way, just saying this steps right up to the line. By tying income to adherence to nebulous guidelines, Larry, Moe, Curly, and their extended family of Hatfields and McCoys, exercise outsized control over what creators can and cannot say. This financial pressure stifles independent thought, encouraging creators to conform rather than challenge prevailing narratives.
Algorithmic programming is like giving a faceless committee the power to define what qualifies as art or acceptable expression. Lacking human nuance, these systems enforce rigid rules, often flagging or silencing content that challenges norms or defies categorization. This stifles creativity and reduces diversity in communication, replacing vibrant human expression with sanitized, algorithm-approved monotony. By automating censorship, we risk losing the unpredictability and freedom that make creativity and conversation uniquely human.
What would Steve Jobs do if he were jailed for challenging IBM's operating system—how dare he question the status quo, right?
The Broader Implications
Strategic-shipping on these platforms extends beyond individual harm—it undermines public discourse. Larry, Moe, Curly and their cousins are not just entertainment venues; they are critical arenas for debate, education, and information dissemination. When platforms dictate what can and cannot be discussed, they distort reality and rob society of diverse perspectives.
Also, when government public information officers rely exclusively or predominantly on Larry, Moe, and Curly to communicate, they undermine their obligation to uphold free speech and ensure public access to information. Larry, Moe, and Curly, with their practices of deplatforming, banning, and selective content suppression, can restrict access to critical public information, leaving certain individuals or groups excluded. The only reliable solution is for government entities to use traditional, government-controlled websites as modern, open-access public bulletin boards. These platforms ensure transparency, equal access, and freedom from external censorship, preserving the integrity of public communication.
All eyes and ears, ears, and voices matter, or do they?
Toward a More Open Internet
To combat Larry, Moe, and Curly, there must be greater transparency in content moderation. Sadly, it will take broad and deep-thinking minds in Swampville. And yes, that’s an impossibility. The stooges should clearly define their rules, explain enforcement actions, and provide meaningful ways to appeal decisions with a truly independent board of humans, yes, real-life, breathing, walking, thinking humans. Additionally, everyone must push back against the normalization of corporate strategic shipping. The stooges have immense power to shape public opinion, and their policies are nothing more than a method to control thought.
Suppression is the polar opposite of propaganda in terms of strategy but serves the same ultimate agenda: controlling thought and shaping perception. While propaganda floods the public sphere with curated information designed to manipulate opinions and align them with a specific narrative, suppression works by silencing dissent, withholding facts, and erasing alternative viewpoints. Both tactics aim to control the narrative, but where propaganda seeks to overwhelm with presence, suppression creates a void by eliminating competing voices. Together, they ensure a singular perspective dominates, stripping individuals of the ability to think critically and freely access the full spectrum of ideas. Alas, when everyone got cold, there were only a few approved jackets that everyone must wear inside the safety of their home and away from the harmful effects of the sun.
On Larry, Moe, and Curly platforms, the effects of strategic ships are painfully visible. A sudden drop in viewership often signals that content has been flagged, buried, or Goofy-shoed. For creators relying on the platform for income or influence, this is a financial and reputational blow. Worse, when attempting to promote videos through Larry, More, or Curly’s advertising system, creators may receive vague refusal notices citing "content policy violations," offering little clarity on what triggered the rejection.
This combination of suppressed reach and denied promotion ensures that controversial or nonconforming viewpoints are effectively silenced, even if they don’t explicitly break any rules. Creators are left to guess what adjustments might bring them back into favor, leading many to avoid certain topics altogether. The result is a platform where fear of punishment overrides creativity, critical thought, and open dialogue—eroding trust and limiting the diversity of ideas shared.
The rise of strategic shipping, whether by overzealous algorithms or biased policies, threatens the integrity of free expression. A healthy digital ecosystem does not require a balance between protecting users and preserving the open exchange of ideas. These are decisions that should be left to the individual. If we vote we should be able to also decide what we watch, listen, say, and record.
It is time to confront the bias and restrictions imposed by major platforms before the boundaries of acceptable speech become too narrow to matter.
Calling All FOTTers
Now, here’s how you can help me. As FOTTer, a Friend of Team Truesdell (FOTTer), you can make a meaningful impact by helping spread the word. Share our content via email or text, engage with us on social media, and show support through likes, comments, and shares. Every interaction helps expand our reach and grow the audience, amplifying the message and mission. Your efforts are deeply appreciated, and those who contribute consistently are never forgotten. In return, you’ll enjoy greater access to exclusive content, insights, and opportunities. Together, we can build a thriving community and ensure the message reaches those who need it most.
