QAA Podcast - Premium Episode 115: Far-Right Disrupters & The Rise of Alt-Tech w/ Liv Agar (Sample)

Episode Date: March 12, 2021

Gab, Parler, Clouthub, Epik, Bitchute, the list goes on. It seems the market is ripe for disrupters and "alt-tech" entrepreneurs catering to those banned from mainstream social media platforms. But why are their CEOs called stuff like "Monster" and "Brain"? Some mysteries persist. ↓↓↓↓ SUBSCRIBE FOR $5 A MONTH SO YOU DON'T MISS THE SECOND WEEKLY EPISODE ↓↓↓↓ www.patreon.com/QAnonAnonymous Liv Agar Podcast: http://soundcloud.com/livagar / http://patreon.com/livagar Merch / Join the Discord Community / Find the Lost Episodes / Etc: http://qanonanonymous.com Episode music by Doom Chakra Tapes (http://doomchakratapes.bandcamp.com), Nick Sena (http://nicksenamusic.com), Pontus Berghe, Hasufel (http://hasufel.bandcamp.com), Event Cloak (http://eventcloak.bandcamp.com)

What's up QAA listeners? The fun games have begun. I found a way to connect to the internet. I'm sorry, boy. Welcome listener to Premium Chapter 115 of the Q&N anonymous podcast, the Gryftanon episode. As always, we are your host, Jake Rockatansky, Liv Egar, Julian Fields, and Travis Vue.

If you're American, you've probably at some point entered the with a non-conventional business model, like replacing the mozzarella on your pizza with craft singles. As a result, Italy went out of business and stopped asking women to smile more. This process is known as disruption, wherein a challenger unseats the previous monopoly by pretending that their employees aren't employees

or that union safety standards and child labor laws were never invented. Uber, Postmates, Amazon, Netflix, the examples go on. Epstein is famous for disrupting the dating market. The Islamic State has been a nightmare for the long-standing Egyptian goddess monopoly. goddess monopoly. Bill Clinton changed cigars forever. This week, Liv Agar will bring you on a journey into the heart of alt-tech, internet companies and platforms that have grown popular among the far-right and conspiracy theorists fleeing social

media bans on mainstream platforms. We'll find out how the concept of disruption has encouraged a new generation of red-pilled entrepreneurs and culture warriors to create their own ecosystem of grift and fraud, as opposed to the regular grift and fraud inherent to corporations and internet companies. So without further ado, to the moon! Clayton Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation has both described and inspired an important phenomena within the business world

that many, even in the Q community, have taken note of. Disruptive innovation entails that instead of creating a product that fights within already existing markets, one creates a revolutionary product that generates an entirely new market, rendering the old market obsolete. The word disruption has become incredibly common within business jargon for good reason. A company that can create an entirely new market and subsequently disrupt previously existing markets is one that is clearly worth investing in.

The best description of this phenomenon is by Henry Ford when he said, If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. Ford disrupted the market for horse-drawn carriages, not by making faster horses, but by selling an innovative product that created a new market related to transportation, which disrupted and destroyed the need for horse-drawn carriages. Put so many stallions out of business. It's a shame, yeah. So many horses had to be taken out back, you know.

So many horses had to become vloggers. One can be sure that if there is a market that is, for whatever reason, deemed inefficient or lacking in some way, someone will attempt to come and disrupt it. It should be no surprise, of course, that the radical upswing in QAnon believers and generally far-right belief within America would be an excellent site for many potential disruptors to make a few bucks.

I will go over a few interesting examples of these attempted, attempted disruptions by the far right in this episode, specifically related to the alt-tech spear of the internet, the increasingly decentralized and unregulated right-wing alternatives to moderated online social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Most of these cases we're going to talk about today might not quite meet the traditional model of disruption described by Christensen. This is for various reasons. The main one being that anyone in the Q universe will likely not be smart enough to create a technological innovation that could disrupt an already existing market.

But that does not stop them from trying, and being a part of a greater phenomena of entrepreneurs recognizing an inefficiency in the business model of the traditional larger social media site and working to disrupt this business model. The greater phenomena of disruption, as it's generally used in business jargon, simply relates to creating products that generate new markets,

threaten old markets, and make money. So none of this technology stuff. Many may refer to Amazon's brutal attempts at gaining market dominance as disruption, even if the quote-unquote revolutionary way they do e-commerce isn't particularly relevance to this phenomenon. An example of this being Amazon's process of dominating new markets by undercutting smaller businesses through selling similar items that they do for much lower prices,

even if it isn't profitable. Subsequently forcing these smaller firms out of business and ushering in a new era where Jeff Bezos is the god emperor of e-commerce, and any online shopping one does is informed by large-scale data surveillance of one's search, spending, and watching habits. This, for Amazon, is the disruption of particular industries, as they are removing the traditional way these products were sold through smaller independent vendors and shifting markets towards a mega vendor, Amazon, and how they go about business. What I mean to say here is that disruption of markets is not necessarily good. It is simply companies looking for ways

in which traditional market structures are inefficient and attempting to destroy those market structures so they can make more money. The main difference between the disruption being done by Amazon and by QAnon grifters, and in general, most grifters responsible for the alt-tech phenomena, is that Amazon is a lot more competent at disrupting older markets. An odd and disturbing phenomena that one might notice looking through these examples, the ones that I'm providing today, is that the disruption done by far-right grifters for the sake of making a quick buck is, in many cases, making room for far-right radicalization and the proliferation of white nationalism. All-tech sites, which are meant to run parallel to Twitter, Facebook,

YouTube and other cucked places that do not allow for Q-related content come from the perceived inefficiency created by these larger social media sites in relation to their moderation settings alienating a large base of conservatives and from this alienation there is potentially money to be made the many moronic and incompetent grifters that wish to disrupt these inefficient markets attempt to do so by for instance allowing for anti-Semitism on their sites appealing to all the anti-Semites who are not allowed on larger social media locations I want to be clear that I would not describe allowing anti-Semitism on a social media website as a revolutionary technological innovation.

Really, you know, anti-Semitic propaganda is an age-old way to juice your numbers for any new media. That's true. I mean, wasn't Henry Ford like openly publishing the protocols of the elders of Zion? Yes, yes. You published something called the International Jew, which included the protocols. You'll get one in every car in the glove box. But nevertheless, this tactic of allowing anti-Semitism on your site is an obvious attempt to render the social media sites

that do moderate this content in some ways obsolete. Alt-Tech is generally created by two primary types of people, those who genuinely are not partisan and wish to create an apolitical site whose user base, unsurprisingly, becomes primarily far-right, and those who are themselves far-right and wish to create a platform for similarly-minded people. In a certain respect, this is a meaningless distinction, because the effect is very similar, and both are driven by the desire to make money.

Regardless, I will be focusing only on the latter for the sake of this episode. But if one wants examples of the former, that is, initially non-partisan sites that simply have lacks moderation, one can think of places like D-Live and Telegram. The best example of the latter type of all tech is Parlor. A website created in 2018 to house conservative refugees who were banned from Twitter, oftentimes because of their opinions on Jewish people. There's a very important theme that you will be noticing eventually about why these people are being banned, usually. I won't go too deep into Parlor, as it may be the most well-known example of a grift of this kind made for right-wingers,

but it was essentially founded because there was a whole only social media market that was left by certain types of right-wing political speech being intolerable, even for large corporations to allow on their websites. That is essentially an inefficiency in the market, or at least that is what the founders of Parlor must have imagined. It is an inefficiency because there is money to be made off of it, and consumers to be appealed to, and business models to disrupt. Not surprisingly, Parlor's official page has a slightly different stated raise-on debt than what I previously described. Content curation exacerbates hate. Bias content curation policies enable rage mobs and bullies to influence community guidelines. Parlor's viewpoint-neutral policies foster a community of individuals who tolerate the expression of all non-violent ideas.

All Parlayers are equal. Regardless of race, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, politics, or dietary choices, well, except pineapple pizza, every user is treated equally under Parlor's community guidelines. It should not come as a surprise that the team that started Parlor does not care about providing a website that can finally treat people equally and fairly or a moderation program which can somehow not exacerbate hate, but instead simply wants a way to get money off of banned right-wing posters. One can notice that even within Parlor's about page, they attempt to describe the website and how it is different from places like Twitter along the lines of Christensen's

idea of technological innovation through disruption. Encouraging a culture of innovation. Parlor's staff come from many backgrounds and walks of life. We represent the community of those who want to be treated as valuable individuals and not as corporate property. We are innovators and lifelong learners exploring new ideas. taking principled stands, and organizing our lives around our shared mission of making social media a more social place. You have been listening to a sample of a premium episode of QAnon Anonymous. We don't run any advertising on the show, and we'd like to keep it that way. For five bucks a month, you'll get access to this episode, a new one each week, and our entire library of premium episodes.

So head on over to patreon.com slash QAnonanonymous and subscribe. Thank you. Thanks. I love you. Jake loves you.