"You got something of value in exchange for your work."
That isn't how these matters are arranged. I do provide work and materials for free out of goodwill as often as I can, and I accept the goodwill and kindness of others, not at all reciprocally, which is the necessary test of a transaction. Helping a friend in need isn't transactional, and having a friend to dinner isn't either.
" If I barter that work..."
That isn't what I do, and a mischaracterization of what happens. No barter process is undertaken. I help people when I can. When I am in need I ask for help I need from people I expect can help and are kind enough to me to provide it. There is never a quid pro quo, negotiation of tit for tat, or any transactional process.
"...like they are a reliable source of news when it's all one sided."
A biased source can be 100% reliable when they only report news that is factually correct and serves their bias. Bias is only problematic when it supersedes factual reporting, which you don't even allege.
"...tell the mods I wasn't being a team player and have me banned."
Well, of course. They're biased. You're a contrarian and anathema to them. What do you expect? They don't have an obligation to listen to reason - only to report facts they prefer to present. That in no way compromises your right to speak freely somewhere besides their platform, which they don't owe you. Neither does their bias in any way compromise their integrity just because it's not the bias you have.
"So they run the narratives fed to them."
No. They run the narratives they prefer, on their site. They aren't funded by any part of the US government, which is the only entity precluded by the Constitution from censoring you, and that because you are the sovereign it serves, and not the other way round, which is not the case regarding private parties the Constitution is no regulation or restriction of whatsoever.
"What a lot of this "deleting" funding by Musk concerning ESG, DEI, and other assorted woke-nest, is actually the billionaires who got the funding through the government to run this scam up against people, now they've won, they are pulling out the funding."
I don't even disagree. I've long pointed out that the consequence of rank degeneracy prescribed to society is blowback, and this cannot be unknown to fiendishly intelligent oligarchs, so is certainly their goal. That blowback is being directed into a global technocratic totalitarian tyranny, which is a phrase I have specifically used dozens of times over the years I've been predicting this particular backlash.
However, I will point something else out.
"...they've done beaten you..."
Is false. They have succeeded at their plan, and many people will not have seen it coming, and will not bet on the right horse, but I am not many people. I am not surprised nor discomfited by this, as I have long predicted it. I also predict that the laws of physics, being immune to being blackmailed, bribed, or browbeaten into submission, will mandate what technological advance will occur, and nothing billionaires, or even trillionaires, can do can prevent it. Decentralization of the means of production is the cutting edge of tech advance in every field of industry today without exception. From agriculture to transport, from power production to manufacturing, table top, garage, and backyard means of production that individuals are able to own and operate are where increases in productivity are arising today. More, AI that can and will automate these individual means of production are similarly advancing in productivity, as Deepseek being released into the wild as open source demonstrates.
What I have always said and continue to assert is that people that merit their survival and prosperity through this democidal catastrophe will adopt the decentralized means of production suitable to their circumstances, help their neighbors to do the same, and will not be relegated to eating the bugs the overlords seek to reduce us to, will not be deprived of transportation or any of the blessings of civilization they themselves make or trade amongst peers for. By this means the desperate overlords that see independent free people producing wealth for themselves that cannot be parasitized, and eliminates the flow of wealth and power to overlords, will fail to subjugate people of merit, and will ultimately fail to remain overlords solely possessing the wealth of the world, but will be relegated to that state they most despise: mere peers dependent on their own merit for their prosperity and unable to project force to conquer and control free people.
IOW, I am winning, not beaten at all.
"...I can't share that "I've told you so" enough."
Sadly, as I point out, that's but conceit, and not factually correct at all. Humility, as I regularly point out, is the basis for science, and for wisdom, and conceit is it's opposite, the source of hubris, and self-deception. You haven't told me so, but have neglected to hear me say these things over and over, which you can verify by a perusal of my back catalog.
You can say it to others, but you got me fucked up.
"Don't think this is going to come out as being the commander of your own personal little village like you think, you'll be on hunger overload unable to feed them all, eventually hunger will overcome those sexual fantasies and bragging rights you so desire, and all those women will become more worried about feeding their kids instead of if they get chosen for another night with you."
You're just deranged and projecting all over me whatever biases you labor under. Keep that drivel to yourself. It's not only actionable libel, it's pretty fucking offensive.
The government has a derived value policy, it's as simple as that. SSI recipients are surprised when they find out that someone who was helping them out to survive, that help was considered worth value, thus their benefits were cut because of the derived value. You can twist it anyway you want, but derived value is exactly what it means.
Again, wrong. If I had had thousands of dollars just laying around, I could have sued them and won. Why? Because of their open policy statement that they are a censorship free platform and that all opinions are respected as long as you follow the their policy rules of behavior. He (the guy who got me banned) didn't follow the rules of their policy. I was following the rules of their policy and I got banned. You can't advertise as being something of which you are not. They are saying you are welcome here if you follow a set of rules, and if following those rules and banning you when you haven't violated the rules, is false entrapment, or advertising. I more than likely couldn't have claimed any financial harms by what they chose to do, but there was harm to my reputation and I likely could have been compensated for that as it inhibited my ability to function on other platforms using Disqus that I wasn't a known user of as my comments went into pending approval, I in essence went from being a trusted user of the Disqus platform to one who couldn't be trusted. For larger platforms, publications, it could take a day or more to get approval, therefore restricted from engaging freely on platforms. Reputational harms is a real thing, and people can sue for it.
This environment that Trump, and his billionaire cronies, has created, is like no other I've experienced over the last ten years or more that I have been blogging. Now, in this next instance, you example would be right. People whom I've blogged alongside of for years turning on you once you no longer align with them politically. People whom you helped fight the battle with, coming up from behind as their reinforcement blindsiding the other side with known facts of truth, that was perfectly okay. Once you decide not to align with them, they stab you in the back over and over again, and ultimately take away your right to post your opinions. The fact I'd been there from the start, the very early start, like three, four people that would include myself, showing up after having watch two individuals birth the site, one who didn't like me having not aligned to his political candidate of choice, the other a staunch defender of my right not to be censored, comes out and straight out lies he has no control over the decision to remove my posting rights. So yeah, in this instance, you are right, there's nothing more left to do than to move on because you simply can't engage with being censored. I could still comment but my right to post my editorial opinion was suspended. Well, your right to decide to let me continue making comments, is now suspended. It works both ways. There's nothing that says I have posting rights to my editorial opinions, but for him to come out and say there was nothing he could do after him having my back for years, from the very essence of the birth of the site, that's just disgusting and isn't worthy of any of my opinions or comments. It wasn't even that I wasn't withstanding an onslaught of ugly, degrading comments myself as he spent defending my rights, buried in angry emails, it was watching the total disintegration of the site revolved into an ugly disrespect for how they started treating those not aligned to themselves and many people leaving as a result over the last four years, I'd had already been contemplating leaving earlier this year but decided his faith in protecting my rights had more value than anything disintegrating anybody else had to provide, that's increasingly becoming rare to find, so I stayed. But really, does it shock me he decided to stab me in the back, not at all, not in this political climate. I've been doing this long enough I can find other places to increase my time spent, and find new avenues to go down if I like.
Although I am 100% disabled, I don't take any, despite I have been awarded it. I cut my benefits 100%.
Your charade at auditing my books is as frail as your grip on sanity. Derived value is limited to quid pro quo. Invitations to dinner, to backyard BBQ's, will not meet that standard, your bloviations notwithstanding. People begging change on the street can make a lot of money at it. More than me. Pity the IRS Agent that drags one into an audit.
Sure. Been there, done that, still lost my house despite applying my mortgage payments for a mortgage I had signed to a mortgage I had never even seen is blatantly illegal. Every ambulance chaser in smelling distance will tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to plunk down a retainer, and then put their kids through college doing battle with Brobdingnagian foes that can throw paper at the courts until you die.
If you initiate a lawsuit while you're paying a mortgage, BTW, the lender can call your note due and immediately payable, because you not only might not win, but might lose a huge judgment against you. Your target can countersue.
You have to have a reputation that's worth a plugged nickel first. Anonymous comments on some Discus blog don't count. There have been all manner of dire threats and vicious abuses posted on this blockchain, and not one suit has come of any of it, to my knowledge, despite millions of dollars being in some of the accounts.
Keep a rational tongue in your cheek. Or even a floridly insane tongue in your cheek, but by Ned's hair quit taking yourself so seriously. I do appreciate you letting up on the libel. Thanks for that grace.