After promising to crack down on content deemed hateful, Facebook has taken its censorship efforts to the next level, and it appears that their latest endeavor might just be the beginning of a wider campaign to silence certain political views. This is not surprising given the company’s recent vow to remove posts and images that promote white supremacy. But the term white supremacy is not as well-defined as it used to be, with accusations of Nazism, racism and hateful attitudes flying fast and loose in today’s public discourse.
What will this trend mean for the future? If Facebook and other social media platforms decide to ramp up their censorship, what consequences will arise?
Facebook Bans Prominent Conservatives
Facebook has permanently banned controversial figures including Louis Farrakhan, Infowars host Alex Jones, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and independent journalist Laura Loomer for being “dangerous.” Jones had been removed from the platform previously, but this time, it’s different.
The social media giant hasn’t just barred these individuals; it has removed fan pages and groups connected to them. “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology,” Facebook said in a written statement. “The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.”
Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters, said: “The reality is, people are getting killed. There are mass shootings and mass murders that are clearly being connected to ideas like white genocide, which are fueling radicalization.”
Not surprisingly, the progressive left lauded Facebook’s decision. The Washington Post reported on the matter in its typical deceptive manner. Initially, the newspaper attempted to cast Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as a far-right figure. Amazingly, they appeared to believe that their readers would actually fall for that “mistake.” They later corrected the “error” and referred to him as an anti-Semite.
Facebook has enacted a virtual scorched earth policy against conservative figures, and nobody should be fooled by their inclusion of Farrakhan – who is no right-winger – in their hit list. Indeed, he is the only left-leaning person being removed from the platform. Due to his history of anti-Semitism, he makes the perfect sacrificial lamb to help keep up the appearance social media providers are not just targeting conservatives. Nice try, WaPo.
Neither Facebook nor Carusone bothered to explain how the recently-banned individuals promoted white supremacy because, of course, many of them didn’t. After all, being a progressive leftist with power means never having to explain one’s race-baiting. But the question is: If Facebook continues along this path, what kind of ramifications will there be?
Is Regulation the Answer?
When Facebook – along with several other social media platforms – removed Alex Jones in 2018, it ignited debate among conservatives, libertarians, and others who value free speech. Should the government get involved? Or will state interference just make the problem worse? Is it realistic that the free market can address this problem given the fact that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have such a dominant hold on the social media space?
Now that Facebook has taken such brazen action against the right, these questions have arisen once again. But with Congress mulling potential regulation, those who oppose Silicon Valley’s censorious practices should be careful what they wish for. If the state begins regulating social media, it may not provide the results for which many have hoped, over the long term.
After the government cracks down on social media, what happens when the Democrats regain power? Can the public trust that they will not use the state to further silence conservatives? Of course not. Right-leaning individuals wish for government involvement to ensure fairness, but the progressive left will almost certainly use it to seize more influence. Leftists have shown that they have no problem using government resources to target individuals with whom they disagree.
Conservatives must be careful about handing control of social media to the state. If not, they might live to regret their decision.
~
At Liberty Nation, we love to hear from our readers. Comment and join the conversation!
Readers: Feel free to comment below. And remember to check out the web’s best conservative news aggregator Whatfinger.com
5 Comments
EchoLimaEcho
I can personaly attest to the validity of the points made in this article. I recently got a message from Farcebook stating that one of my comments “deport them at gunpoint if they are going to belligerantly break our laws. If funding is an issue then involve the citizens in it.” (made in reference to illegal immigrants) is classified as “Hate Speech”. I requested a 2nd review, knowing full well that it isnt hate speech…like at all…not by a long shot…however farcebook is run by extremist liberals whose political agendas trump their desire to uphold the 1st amendment. So I am considering closing my account all together, in search of an alternative.
Diogenes
Why are you continuing to allow the nanny state moderation of Facebook to control you? Why are you appealing to those in authority there to allow them to continue to have power over you? Why are you continuing to play THEIR game?
I was once on Facebook, only for commercial purposes and Russians hacked into my account. I started getting lots of messages in Cyrillic, both there, and in my linked personal e-mail account. Facebook did nothing to prevent that from happening. I deleted everything and slammed the door shut on having anything further to do with Facebook.
Tell Facebook to go take a flying leap at the moon. Also realize that there are other alternatives available to express yourself. This is one of them.
John Klar
I disagree, in part. The government is, and would continue to be, bound by the relatively clear case law of the SCOTUS — liberal era cases that were very sweeping in speech protection. The problem here is that those cases are not applicable to facebook, who have concocted their own silly filter as pretense. This is an extremely important topic, and I thank you for this piece.
Diogenes
“The problem here is that those cases are not applicable to facebook, who have concocted their own silly filter as pretense.”
The reason why facebook, twitter and others are not bound by any such laws, is that they are private enterprises. They literally own their virtual playgrounds, and they set the rules. It you don’t like the rules, you can either not play there, or go make your own playground.
The more prescient question is, ***why do you want to play in those playgrounds at all?***
Diogenes
“Right-leaning individuals wish for government involvement to ensure fairness…”
Really? Oh, in one way, you may be right. I almost forgot that there are those weasels who describe themselves as being on the Right, while they are actually Left-leaning: RINOs, Republicrats, Neocons, looney-bin fringe libertarians, etc.