The 'censorship' discussion

[edina]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Where i come from that would be considered extremely rude.

Probably as rude as inviting pro-Q posters into an anti-Q thread to answer an "innocent" question.

So, the first scoop of 22 posts was to remove the pro-Q "explanations" (AKA proselytizing) from an anti-Q thread since they were off-topic in that thread.

The second scoop of 26 posts was because these pro-Q posts were OFF-TOPIC for the "Censorship" thread and happily turning it into another pro-Q thread.

That's that!

Herve', just to clarify the hateful comments that shocked me were written by anti-Q people.
I am shocked that members of Avalon actually talked like that.
Just to provide a little bit of balance to your explanation.

[Hervé]

Posted by edina (here)
[...]
Just to provide a little bit of balance to your explanation.

It still doesn't make it "On-topic," does it?

[edina]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by edina (here)
[...]
Just to provide a little bit of balance to your explanation.

It still doesn't make it "On-topic," does it?

The context in which it was originally shared did, "censorship"
But you corrected JM.
However, the fact that he didn't know where that post went also speaks to the point that Praxis and Gracy May raised.
And that is ON TOPIC, ie, censorship, and what is perceived to be censorship.

And please understand, I am HAPPY to see those hateful comments removed out of sight.

Still shocked they were said to begin with.

You were doing a lot of scrambling, moving of a lot of posts in a heated situation.
You did the best you could and I appreciate your efforts.

Also appreciate very much Running Deer's solution.

And AutumnW's input, as well.

[Praxis]

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)

Posted by Praxis (here)
This is a great time to discuss the fact that the mods need to tell the person whose post they moved to where they moved it to. From my POV my post are being deleted. All the people complaining about being censored when some of us are actually being muted and censored.

Maybe I can help Praxis.. Did you have posts removed from the site or moved within it? There were posts here on this thread about Trump, Q, and American rights and politics, was it one of those? In this case, putting those posts in the appropriate thread is not censorship, but clarification for preservation.

If your material is lodged in the middle of another thread, those looking for that subject matter will never find it.. It just makes good sense to move them. For the sake of making sure the whole conversation stays together.

Not only that, those looking for the conversation no longer have to filter through Trump material when wanting to discuss censorship. From what I gathered, it was a clerical correction. Oh, and good news... I can see your post just fine , so you have not been muted.

I wasnt muted in this thread but was in another for pointing out something. Honestly, the way I did it was very mild but I got muted because some people got offended.

So now on Avalon, you get muted for having an opinion if that opinion upset people.

[RunningDeer]

Hi Gracy May,

I missed what happen to you because I don't frequent those threads. I’m not covering for Hervé. And I’m right there with you, high on the frustration scale with this ugly brouhaha. It was my attempt at a fix of a dysfunctional mess.

Kudos to Hervé. If I were a mod, I’d be reluctant to step into the hornets nest. Unfortunately, it gives the appearance that they don’t care. It can’t be easy for them to stand together while this all plays out; especially the mods that’ve come see members as extended family.

How many of us are trained in conflict resolution? Or willing to dust off those skills in a public thread? So we’ve got a hodgepodge of anger, pent up resentment, run for the hills to wait it out and the fixers, the controllers, the empathy challenged, the unpredictable, the jokesters, the ragers, the pokers, the numb ones, the fearful, the trolls, those that disrespect boundaries, and the unseen tricksters that are having a BIG ol’ party.

Avalon represents opportunity for change, healing and growth. We’re all trying in our own way to be a part of the upliftment in knowledge, spirit and love. Love that most are incapable of experiencing until we move through this era of humanity.

My suggestion to All: please don't feed the beast. Whatever that beast is for you.

♡

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Hi Paula. The first time Herve swooped in to scoop up and move a bunch of posts with zero explanation when asked, was not even in this thread it was from the Q LARP thread, so i'm now rather numb to yours, or anyone elses excuses for him. In my book thats a pretty heavy handed tactic when you can't even be bothered with a simple explanation to the prols when asked.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...38#post1300838

Which, in knowing my place in the pecking order is all i ask for, but now i dont even care any more...

Where i come from that would be considered extremely rude. And this person would hopefuly not be entrusted with a badge and a gun to "SERVE" his community. My mama always warned me there may well be consequences for speaking out like this to power, so i stand ready to take them if they come.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Bubu (here)
...
You made it look like as if there is a conflict of intent.

Well then this must be a conflict of no intent -- to which I agree.


-------------------


[soapbox]
Why don't all you people go exercise, clean you house, or find some other more healthy way to clear your pent up energies ... clearly there is no intent and this is dragging out because people can't just stop repeating themselves over and over and asking the same questions when answers have already been given.

It seems that some people would prefer this go on forever like this. Why? Why the addiction to the drama? There's little to no intent here as Bubu clarified so it must be an addiction. the same type of addiction to drama that the Q material provides perhaps ... ?

Move along people, these dead horses can't be beaten any more without making a bigger mess.[/soapbox]

[PurpleLama]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...tizing-tyranny

A lot of alarming information in this article via ZH. Did anyone realize how many (D) operators had moved into the policy departments of the social media companies responsible for the stifling of speech, especially from conservative voices?

[DaveToo]

I don't know if these definitions are yours or not, but I do not subscribe to either one.

Posted by T Smith (here)
I believe there is a discernible difference between censorship and membership.

Censorship is the deliberate manipulation, witholding, or control of information in the public domaine, usually coupled with an aim to manufacture a desired perception of reality in accordance with the wishes, objectives, and agenda of the censors.

One can be part of an exclusive membership and still be censored!

Membership is the manipulation, withholding, or control of information in a private domaine, whereby access is granted in accordance with the wishes, objectives, and agenda of the censors, i.e., those who maintain legal rights to control the information.

One can be a member of a group and not have one's information manipulated, withheld, or controlled!


Sorry for being so naive, but I didn't know what the reason behind this thread was.
My criticism of the above definitions still stand however.

I now understand that this thread was generated as a result of some type of censorship that was going on behind the scenes in a Q anon thread.

[Gracy]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...tizing-tyranny

A lot of alarming information in this article via ZH. Did anyone realize how many (D) operators had moved into the policy departments of the social media companies responsible for the stifling of speech, especially from conservative voices?

Independant media in general is being targeted, especially by you tube now, to sideline both left & right "fringe" voices. On youtube anyway the algorythms are more and more favoring msm for suggestions after initial viewing.

Have you, or anyone else noticed this alrming bi partisan trend?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by RunningDeer (here)
Hi Gracy May,

I missed what happen to you because I don't frequent those threads. I’m not covering for Hervé. And I’m right there with you, high on the frustration scale with this ugly brouhaha. It was my attempt at a fix of a dysfunctional mess.

Kudos to Hervé. If I were a mod, I’d be reluctant to step into the hornets nest. Unfortunately, it gives the appearance that they don’t care. It can’t be easy for them to stand together while this all plays out; especially the mods that’ve come see members as extended family.

How many of us are trained in conflict resolution? Or willing to dust off those skills in a public thread? So we’ve got a hodgepodge of anger, pent up resentment, run for the hills to wait it out and the fixers, the controllers, the empathy challenged, the unpredictable, the jokesters, the ragers, the pokers, numb ones, the fearful, the trolls, those that disrespect boundaries, and the unseen tricksters that are having a BIG ol’ party.

Avalon represents opportunity for change, healing and growth. We’re all trying in our own way to be a part of the upliftment in knowledge, spirit and love. Love that most are incapable of experiencing until we move through this era of humanity.

My suggestion to All: please don't feed the beast. Whatever that beast is for you.

♡

Paula, that's a heck of a post. Thank you.

[DaveToo]

I have been censored in various public fora, including the national www.cbc.ca/news website.
Complaints to their authorities got me absolutely nowhere.
I boycott their comments section now.

[edina]

Posted by Jayke (here)
Whitehouse definition of shadow-banning from the recent social media summit.

“The subjective hiding or demotion of a social media users visibility.”

How is shadow banning not what’s happened with the Q thread here on Avalon? Certainly feels like a demotion to the sandbox for me, based on the mod teams subjective opinions. No one’s been able to successfully debate away the Q threads viability at least. A lot of personal opinions thrown around, lots of aspersions cast, but when it comes to actual evidence-based discourse, not one person has been able to prove anything one way or the other.

This is a very important conversation.

I also agree with Gracy May's observation, this isn't just happening to conservative voices, alternative health is highly censored as are many of the Anti-perpetual war voices.

To bring the conversation about censorship beyond the "politics" of this forum into the context of the broader social issue.

It's helpful to understand the issue in terms of the broader context.

Is there a connection among these censored groups that perhaps those doing the censoring don't want us to see?

Welcome To 'Social Government' - Privatizing Tyranny (Zero Hedge)

Via SpinQuark.com,

Joe Rogan Experience #1292
Joe Rogan: "...I think they [Twitter] definitely are biased against conservative people... it's really clear that someone in the company, whether it's up for manual review whether it's at the discretion of the people that are employees... without doubt you're dealing with people that are leaning left."

Ben Shapiro Show #793 - The Enemy of the People
"Why is Facebook answering that question from The Daily Beast? If The Daily Beast goes to Facebook and says 'I want the identity of whomever published this [Nancy Pelosi] video' why is Facebook revealing that identity? The guy didn't commit a crime. The guy didn't involve himself in slander or libel. How in the world is it Facebook's job to answer questions from The Daily Beast about the source of this video?"

Good question.

How is it that Facebook, who refuses to dox any of the violent Antifa terrorists that use its platform, are happy to give up the personal details of the Facebook user who anonymously uploaded a slowed video of Nancy Pelosi, within minutes, to some rando journalist on the phone? (How do you even call Facebook?)

Well what if I told you a Policy Director at Facebook was Nancy Pelosi's Chief of Staff before taking said job directing policy at Facebook? What if I told you the head of algorithm policy at Facebook worked for Hillary at The State Department? Or that the Head of Content Policy worked for the Hillary presidential campaign? What if I told you the person in charge of privacy policy at Facebook used to work for Al Franken, before he worked for Senator Bonoff, before he worked for Congressman Oberstar? Or that the Director in charge of "countering hate and extremism" at Facebook came from the Clinton Foundation? Did you know that the person at Facebook who currently "oversees programs on countering hate speech and promoting pluralism", and "develops internal third party education and drives thought leadership on hate speech and content moderation" was one of Obama's policy advisers at The White House? Do you even know what "pluralism" is? Let me help you out:

Pluralism (political theory)

Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The central question for classical pluralism is how power and influence are distributed in a political process. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups.

EconomicPluralism.com

"The term pluralism is generally used to contrast with so called ‘mainstream’ economics teaching which generally only focusses [sic] on one school of economic thought called neo-classical economics.... that economic teaching should include other schools of thought such as complexity, institutional, post-Keynesianism and Marxist economics"

Why does Facebook have someone whose job is to show others how to use their platform as a type of privatized government and "exert influence" over the public? And what exactly does it mean for Facebook to "exert influence" over the public?

I think we've been witnessing a little more of that every day.

How about YouTube? How does Laura Southern's documentary about the border get removed from YouTube within 24 hours of posting without any reason or explanation? What if I told you a Policy Manager at YouTube, before becoming a Policy Manager at YouTube, was employed by Hillary for America and was a manager in Obama's campaign before that? What if I told you YouTube's Global Content Policy Lead previously worked at the DNC? Did you know the person responsible for "growing the next generation of stars" on YouTube worked in the Office of Digital Strategy at the White House under Obama? Or that the person in charge of developing the careers of YouTube creators was the Director of Video for Obama? Speaking of helping the careers of creators, did you know Vox, the company that got Steven Crowder demonetized, was one of the companies that YouTube doled out $20 million dollars to, for 'educational videos'?

Ten people, directly connected to the progressive Democrat political machine who are now controlling our conversations online. Sounds like an important alarm, no?

What if I told you there were nearly a hundred more?

By the way, did you know the Public Policy Manager for Global Elections at Facebook was on Obama's National Security Council (Director for Russia) before he was a Special Advisor for Joe Biden? What kind of election policy do you think he will advocate for at Facebook leading into 2020?

What about Twitter? The "primary spokesperson and communications lead for the 2016 U.S. Presidential election" at Twitter was previously Kamala Harris' Press Secretary. A Trust & Safety manager who "developed operations and policies related to privacy and free expression" previously worked at the Clinton Global Initiative and at the State Department under Hillary Clinton. A Twitter Director of Public Policy was originally a Press Secretary for John Edwards (D), and Erskine Bowles (D), and Senator Salazar (D), and Senator Barack Obama (D), he was a Policy Director for Obama's Presidential campaign, a Policy Advisor at the White House, Special Assistant to the President, and then he spent three short months on the Clinton-Kaine Presidential Transition Team before deciding to take a job directing public policy at Twitter.

A Twitter Public Policy Director who owned the 2016 election and both party conventions previously worked for Senator Wyden (D), Senator Higgins (D), Bill Foster's congressional campaign (D), and Senator Dick Durban (D), before that; NBC News Political Desk. Another Twitter Public Policy employee was Obama's Director for Syria after working in Hillary's State Department. Twitter's Public Policy Fellow is a Democrat who came to the company after losing his own run for Washington House of Representatives District 14b. Twitter's Associate General Counsel, Global Policy was formerly an Advisor to Senator Claire McCaskill after being Associate Counsel to President Obama. Twitter's Head of Site Policy was an intern at the William J. Clinton Foundation where she "wrote letters on behalf of President Clinton to heads of state". Twitter's Vice President of Global Public Policy worked for a Democrat congressman for twenty years. The Washington Post called him "one of the most influential tech policy operatives you've never heard of."

"We got the power, we're the new government. You just don't know it yet." - Bob Dylan

Progressive Democrats using social media companies to stifle our free speech online should be the most important discussion of this generation. Who has the power to silence Americans at YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook? Who are the people setting up the guardrails to our free speech? We know that it was Twitter policy employees who acted on their own to ban Alex Jones, prompting Jack Dorsey to overrule them before ultimately losing that battle.

Each day we wake up and see the latest way conservative voices are being censored, shadowbanned, silently deleted, hidden from view, buried in searches, algorithmed out of existence. Whether it’s the biased search results hiding /r/The_Donald on Google and Reddit (or their questionable subscriber numbers), whether it's banning Twitter accounts that simply track violence against Trump supporters, creating policy to allow death threats against conservatives, censoring the Declaration of Independence for hate speech, blocking a conservative Marine for literally saying the sky is blue, labeling bible verses as porn, or simply banning the top conservative voices for no reason at all, Big Tech companies absolutely are controlling our speech.

These aren't just Democratic voters, but former employees from the DNC, from the offices of Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, Feinstein, Giffords, Schumer, Reid, Planned Parenthood, even Rachel Maddow, who are migrating en masse to gate-keeping positions in social media companies. They didn't all learn to code, they aren’t designing the like button or working on Messenger. They are taking up residency in the policy departments across the web; shaping the conversation, pushing agendas, picking who gets featured, deciding who gets blocked, judging who gets banned for life, dictating the parameters of the algorithms we'll never be allowed to see, and making cases for censorship - that always seem to ratchet in one direction.

They cannot stop speech at the government level, it would never get past the Constitutional review. But private companies do not need to abide by the Constitution. As our lives become digital conduits that flow through private companies, they have congregated at the helms of these companies, silencing the right starting with the fringe and working their way in as far as they possibly can.

Joe Rogan Experience #877 - Jordan Peterson
"Things get to terrible places one tiny step at a time. If I encroach on you and I'm sophisticated about it, I'm going to encroach 2 millimeters, I'm going to encroach right to the point that you start to protest. Then I'm going to wait. Then you're going to calm down. Then I'm going to encroach again right to the point that you protest, then I'm going to stop. Then I'm going to wait. And I'm just going to do that forever. Before you know it you're going to be back three miles from where you started and you'll go 'How'd I get here?'"

Where is this going to end in the future? What impact does this have on our elections? Should demonetizing or outright removing political voices of opposition be considered an in-kind political contribution?

This much is clear; In the Social Government, you have no representation, you have no recourse.

[edina]

The crazy thing about this is that I don't consider myself a conservative.

I'm independent and have been for a couple of decades.

I used to consider myself progressive, but lately, I've moved away from that because of how I've seen it's been hi-jacked by something I cannot describe as progressive as I once understood the term.

Independent is the best description.

As such, I tend to look past the political biases, because they are everywhere, and seek out information.

I read recently

Posted by Richard S. (here)

I NEVER believe, I get informed, look at all sides to a story, then make an informed opinion...

For that matter, I don't look at the information I gather in my brain as a conspiracy.

And felt this describes what I do, too.

Thank you Richard S.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by RunningDeer (here)
Avalon represents opportunity for change, healing and growth. We’re all trying in our own way to be a part of the upliftment in knowledge, spirit and love. Love that most are incapable of experiencing until we move through this era of humanity.

Brilliantly said Paula, and I'm ready to move on.
I do not agree with this decision but I respect it. And for me this is the end of the matter.

A last point, I want Dennis to know there was certainly no bullying on my part. I was only trying to stand up for what I believed. And I think that's a good thing (even if I end up being wrong!). An important point I think. Because I totally accept I may be 100% wrong about Q and about Trump. 100%. And I do think others should be at least willing to concede the same on where they have currently planted their flag. I think it wise to never get too invested in any system of belief. Everything is fluid, particularly knowledge. As samildamach wisely said, I follow Q (the material), but I'm not a Q-Follower. This is my current position also. And there's a subtle difference here, but it's also a big one.

To the Q sceptics/haters/doubters:

Ultimately this is a fight against the controllers, the deep state - the same battle that you and everyone else here is fighting. It's just the Q movement has chosen to deploy on this part of the battlefield instead of that. We might be in the wrong place entirely, yes, we might end up fighting phantoms, and shadows, I concede that. We might slay a few dragons too. But our hearts are in the same place as yours, and wherever we fight we want the same thing. The Q people deserve a little bit of credit for that at least.

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Bill and Avalon could use your support right now. Thanks.

He has it, as always. He never didn't have it, at least from me.

[Hervé]

According to CNET:

What is shadow banning?

Shadow banning isn't a new concept; it's frequently used in forums and on other social networks as an alternative to banning someone outright.

Instead of kicking someone off, shadow bans make a person's post visible only to the user who created it. The idea is to protect others from harmful content while eventually prompting the shadow-banned user to voluntarily leave the forum due to a lack of engagement.

If you outright ban a user, the thinking goes, the person is aware of it and will likely just set up another account and continue the offending behavior.

Shadow banning was Reddit's only form of banning for years and was used by the site until November 2015.

The definition in the preceding post shouldn't be called "Shadow Banning" but "removal from the store's front window promotion of the week." which is what social media do with "de-platforming" and downgrading search results for item their puppeteers (the ones buttering their daily bread) don't want to promote anymore.

Besides, a "user" is a "poster" and in order to be a poster, one needs to be a member; not a lurker or accidental visitor.

[Pam]

oops.... information was already provided.

[Pam]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...tizing-tyranny

A lot of alarming information in this article via ZH. Did anyone realize how many (D) operators had moved into the policy departments of the social media companies responsible for the stifling of speech, especially from conservative voices?

Independant media in general is being targeted, especially by you tube now, to sideline both left & right "fringe" voices. On youtube anyway the algorythms are more and more favoring msm for suggestions after initial viewing.

Have you, or anyone else noticed this alrming bi partisan trend?

Yes, Gracy. I would also like to add that it is being done to many alternative health educators, especially anyone that challenges or even looks into vaccines in any way. Unless you specifically seek them out I don't know how you would ever access their information. I guess that is the point. Not only is this election rigging, it is bowing to Pharmaceutical corporations and Medical businesses. Of course, their are most likely other reasons to be promoting vaccines and the vaccine schedules.

[christian]

Censorship is to restrict the flow of information. So, yes, Richard Dolan putting his information behind a paywall is censorship.

The moral implications of censorship all depend on who, what, where, when and why.

Do I censor myself or do I censor others? Am I doing it in my own home, in a public space or in someone else's home? To what kind of information does it relate, what are my goals? And so on and so forth.

In the case of Richard Dolan, I'd say it's perfectly legitimate for him to censor his information—cause it's his. Others do not own him or his information, therefore they have no claim to his information. He can share it on his terms. Whether or not him putting up a paywall is the most appropriate decision for a) disseminating his information, and b) making a living, is another question. I'd suggest it's more appropriate to make it available freely and create other ways for people to donate. Then again, there's also the question of what does Richard find most convenient for himself. That's totally up to him and not for anyone to judge, as long as his actions relate to himself and don't infringe upon anyone else's personal rights.

[Kryztian]

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
My view: another dismissive post (flawed and disruptive?) that inaccurately generalizes the Q-anon research thread, process, and participants - conflating q-anon researchers with a host of non-thinker ills.

Yes, in talking about Q-anon I am generalizing. The people who follow Q-anon are all individuals, with different critical thinking skills, and different social skills, and abilities to be kind and thoughtful. However, these individuals also function as a group. And you, Q-anon followers, are the first people to talk about yourselves as a group. So you, Q-anon followers, are generalizing. You say that your group has a voice that needs to be heard. You say you have rights and entitlements.

So if Q-anon followers have rights and entitlements as a group, you also have responsibilities as a group. If you talk about the positive contributions you make as a group, the rest of us can also talk about the negative behaviors that are coming out of this group.

There are plenty of other groups in the world (church groups, civic groups, etc.) that encourage member to treat others outside their group well, which brings a better image to their group. In every type of group that has a mission, there is always the possibility that it can breed arrogance with thoughts like “Only we are God’s chosen people”, “only we know the truth that is yet to come.”. People in groups need to encourage others not to take up the bad behaviors that these thoughts can engender.

So, if you can generalize to talk about the positive aspects of the group, why shouldn’t I generalize about the negative aspects? If you, as a group, need rights and recognition, then why shouldn’t you, as a group, have responsibilities? Why is it right for you to make positive characterizations of the group, but wrong for me to make negative ones?

[edina]

Posted by Kryztian (here)

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
My view: another dismissive post (flawed and disruptive?) that inaccurately generalizes the Q-anon research thread, process, and participants - conflating q-anon researchers with a host of non-thinker ills.

Yes, in talking about Q-anon I am generalizing. The people who follow Q-anon are all individuals, with different critical thinking skills, and different social skills, and abilities to be kind and thoughtful. However, these individuals also function as a group. And you, Q-anon followers, are the first people to talk about yourselves as a group. So you, Q-anon followers, are generalizing. You say that your group has a voice that needs to be heard. You say you have rights and entitlements.

So if Q-anon followers have rights and entitlements as a group, you also have responsibilities as a group. If you talk about the positive contributions you make as a group, the rest of us can also talk about the negative behaviors that are coming out of this group.

There are plenty of other groups in the world (church groups, civic groups, etc.) that encourage member to treat others outside their group well, which brings a better image to their group. In every type of group that has a mission, there is always the possibility that it can breed arrogance with thoughts like “Only we are God’s chosen people”, “only we know the truth that is yet to come.”. People in groups need to encourage others not to take up the bad behaviors that these thoughts can engender.

So, if you can generalize to talk about the positive aspects of the group, why shouldn’t I generalize about the negative aspects? If you, as a group, need rights and recognition, then why shouldn’t you, as a group, have responsibilities? Why is it right for you to make positive characterizations of the group, but wrong for me to make negative ones?

This applies in all directions.

And if what you say here is true, I'm not sure it is. Reasonably, two wrongs don't make a right.

Paula's post speaks well to people taking responsibility for how they express themselves, regardless of any "group" they may be perceived to be in.

I'm not holding the entire group of people who have expressed their concerns and issues responsible for the very hateful comments shared earlier in this thread, and now thankfully removed.
That would be unfair in my mind. And a different form of stereotyping.

And that behavior is covered very well in the forum's existing guidelines, which everyone is asked to read, and indicate that they've read as a part of the membership application process.

The group is not responsible for that person's choice of expression.

That would undermine "independent" thinking, wouldn't it?

Would a call to peer pressure within a group, which happens naturally as it's human nature, be also a call to adhere to "group think"?