Does censorship on social media help engineer Modern Reefer Madness
Some cannabis consumers have surely had their run-in with a high dose of edibles. At the same time, others do not experience much of an effect even after eating high doses of active THC. In any case, THC overconsumption jokes are commonplace on social media. But with censorship and social engineering hanging above us all like a dark cloud that no VPN can weather, is the frequency of certain content truly innocent?
Ban hammers and shadowbans are frequently placed on cannabis content creators. Scientists who hold doctorates in biochemistry, pharmaceutical or horticultural sciences, and the rest of the fields must tread lightly on their social media accounts. And anyone marketing a product must work through many loopholes when educating on the topic of cannabis. Some content seems to flow more freely on certain feeds — but is money the only grease?
Before The Facebook there was LifeLog
Let us remember that Facebook shares a unique history with the use of personal information by at least one governing organization. That is, Thefacebook.com was born for use amongst University students one day after a proposed program was shut down due to scrutiny. That program, known as LifeLog, was pitched by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. LifeLog was supposed to track the lives of the nation’s citizens. It is, however, unknown if Facebook has any connection to that program. Or, if the website’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, simply stole his initial idea from DARPA and put an innocent spin on the concept. In any case, it was a great turnout for the US government’s intelligence department — and Zuckerberg.
And so, it becomes clear why Elon Musk, in his position, might want to buy Twitter before trying to use corporate takeover strategies to shut down Facebook and its new parent, Meta. Of course, the latter half of the plan might be nothing more than tunnel dreams for the eccentric to use as banter. A stream of engineered social media engagements was used to rile up investments and bilk his share-heavy assets — covering everything from psychedelics to space.
Engineering negative cannabis stories on social media, a digital Reefer Madness
LinkedIn still provides a safe and supportive space for cannabis consumers. While Twitter still serves as a mostly neutral body when compared to censorship-heavy services under the Meta brand. An epitome of what social engineering can hope to achieve is found in Internet Management Practices employed by Meta but also Bytedance. And while TikTok claims to have distanced itself from its parents. Bytedance is closely tied with the Communist Party of China which houses heavily anti-cannabis policies. And so, is the censorship and engineering on social media a more subliminal form of Reefer Madness?
Female nipples have to be covered with a thin, but a see-through veil of clothing on Instagram. Of course, anyone who supports the #freethenipple movement might agree with that subtle lack of censorship. Whereas, cannabis, joints, and other smoking accessories have to be entirely replaced with broccoli and pretzels on Tiktok. Oiud slang has to be engineered to work past the ban hammer’s algorithm. And, of course, there is the heavy stream of ‘excessive THC consumption’ jokes — which can be a good laugh and relatable to many consumers. But why does some content go without censorship while scientists are regularly banned?
Let us know in the comments if you think censorship on social media relates to a modern Reefer Madness. Why do you think some posts about cannabis and psychedelics are censored while other content is more openly accepted?