Facebook’s Actions Don’t Support Their Leaders’ Words

Meta's soon-to-be CTO: "If your democracy can’t tolerate the speech of people, I’m not sure what kind of democracy it is." (reclaimthenet.org)

I totally agree. I guess these words don’t apply to Facebook itself, though.

He contradicted the anti-free speech stance of his company by saying: “I don’t feel comfortable at all saying they don’t have a voice because I don’t like what they said.”

Bosworth added: “If your democracy can’t tolerate the speech of people, I’m not sure what kind of democracy it is. [Facebook is] a fundamentally democratic technology.”

The statement is particularly jarring considering the constant censorship of thought the platform engages in, under the guise of censoring “misinformation.”

It will be wonderful to see his company take actions that go along with these words. I won’t hold my breath, though.

More Censorship From Big Tech

I’m going to keep calling these when I see them. You need to understand how much Twitter and Facebook hate you.

Facebook bans former professor Dolores Cahill over Covid stance (reclaimthenet.org)

Want some irony here?

Cahill retired from her position at UCD amid, but seemingly not because of, backlash from her comments about the virus and its vaccines.

The school dismissed calls to fire her because of the principles of academic freedom.

Her employer wouldn’t muzzle her, but Facebook has no problems doing so.

I Have Two Problems With This

Facebook says it's not liable for false "fact checks" used to censor, because they're “protected opinion" (reclaimthenet.org)

Wait, what?

Back up. Let’s start at the beginning.

John Stossel, a libertarian journalist and author, filed a lawsuit against Facebook, claiming the platform defamed him through a “fact check” label. Facebook added a “misleading” label on a video he posted.

Stossel was censored on Facebook and his work was undermined by the “fact check” that he alleged was defaming his character by falsely accusing him of lying.

Hmm. Okay. And how did Facebook respond? Ah, here’s the part I have trouble with.

In recent court filings, Facebook’s attorneys argued that the “fact check” on the video was an “opinion” and not an actual fact.

Libel law protects opinions from defamatory liability.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion,” Facebook’s lawyers wrote in the court filings.

So, if they’re “protected opinion” doesn’t that mean they’re not actually fact checks?

And if they’re saying that “protected opinion” is free speech, doesn’t that kind of hurt their argument for censoring Stossel in the first place? If their fact check is “protected opinion”, how in the world does that tag not apply to Stossel’s post?

Just a thought.

Facebook wants the ability to allow fact checkers to accuse their users of lying and censor and ban users based on those “fact checks,” but not to have any liability for accusing those users of lying.

Well, I don’t know if that’s legal, but it’s certainly not just.

Well, That Kind of Stretches the Definition of ”Fact Check” Doesn’t It?

BOMBSHELL: In court filing, Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion – Watts Up With That?

In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document (download it below) that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.
Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,

“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”

Read the whole thing. I don’t see how they can continue to call them “fact checks”. I also thinks this puts their ability to censor posts based on “misinformation” in jeopardy.

Gee, Maybe the Should Have Never Censored It From the Beginning, Do You Think?

Facebook ends censorship of searches for "Kyle Rittenhouse" (reclaimthenet.org)

Facebook has reversed a policy implemented in August 2020, which banned searches of Kyle Rittenhouse. The company did not say why it reversed the policy.

That’s funny. They wouldn’t say why. Because saying why would have led to even more uncomfortable questions, like “why did you censor in the first place, before he’d even been tried?”

Facebook’s Director of Dangerous Organizations and Individuals team Brian Fishman said that the company had deemed the incident a mass murder so it removed the accounts of Rittenhouse on Facebook and Instagram.

The company also “blocked searches of his name” and “per standard practice in these situations,” removed “praise and support of the shooter.”

They decided this knowledge might be harmful to you, without you having to figure that out for yourself. Then that turned out to be the wrong decision, so they just quietly reversed it when forced.

Big Tech Is a Protection Racket for Their Benefactors

Facebook censorship hinders Cuban journalists reporting on corruption (reclaimthenet.org)

José Manuel Moreno Borrego, a journalist who works for an independent online news outlet, who has also been in house arrest since the huge demonstrations in July, said he has been censored on Facebook without explanation.

“I cannot share messages on Facebook with people at times. I get a message saying that I was not permitted to do this, but there is no explanation. This is happening every two months or so,” he told VOA by telephone from Havana. “I am talking to you by WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook but it is autonomous. I think the government may have put pressure on Facebook to block us.”

Facebook said they blocked him for sharing the same content multiple times.

That’s just BS. Back when I was on that horrible platform, I would see many places post the same things day after day. They never got blocked as spam.

“Even though frequently the platform, in this case Facebook, may eventually restore their access after appeals, this is not always an option for many people since the appeal mechanism requires a level of access and comfort with technology and bureaucracy which can be out of reach for many people.”

Díaz Hernández added, “In Cuba, even though access to the internet has opened up a bit in the past couple of years, it is still very expensive and not at all something which is available for everyone — which means that decisions like this take a larger toll for them than they would for other people in countries where access is more widely available.”

Facebook is protecting the Communist government. Period.

Facebook Decided He Was Guilty Before the Trial

so, saying otherwise was “misinformation”.

Facebook Reportedly Censored Pro-Kyle Rittenhouse Posts Throughout Saga | The Daily Wire

The New York Post’s editorial board wrote on Thursday that “barely a week” after Rittenhouse shot three people during Black Lives Matter riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Facebook announced that it had “designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support of the shooter.”

“Just for starters: Killing two people is mass murder now? Sure looks like the social-media giant’s staff just reached for the nearest excuse to suppress posts that conflicted with their personal prejudices — and no higher-up bothered to correct the call,” the Post wrote. “The blackout went far and wide: Facebook actively policed its users for pro-Kyle Rittenhouse posts and removed the content. It even targeted posts from legal scholars arguing the merits of his self-defense case.”

They were wrong. They were legally wrong.

But they are in control, so it doesn’t matter. This is a perfect example of why we need more freedom of speech on social media, not less. We need less censorship, not more.

You Can’t ”Support” Journalism With Censorship

Facebook partners with New Zealand media for funding, will help outlets censor "false comments" (reclaimthenet.org)

Garlick denied that the New Zealand journalism program is not a way to keep media organizations from demanding deals such as those afforded to Australian media houses and she also made a commitment to helping news outlets censor “potentially litigious” comments.

There were several strategies to prevent “false comments” being posted, Garlick said, according to RNZ.

The other aspect mentioned by the announcement was that Facebook was committed to help all page administrators to “better moderate” their comments.

Every day we descend further into a world where no one is allowed to say anything or express any opinion not approved by the government.

The 4th Couldn’t Get Off of Facebook Long Enough to Respond

CNN Poll: 3 Of 4 Adults Think Facebook Is Making Society Worse | The Daily Wire

“Americans say, 76% to 11%, that Facebook makes society worse, not better, according to the survey. Another 13% say it has no effect either way,” CNN reported. “That broadly negative appraisal holds across gender, age and racial lines. Even frequent Facebook users — those who report using the site at least several times a week — say 70% to 14% that the social network harms, rather than helps, US society. Although majorities across parties say Facebook is doing more harm than good, that feeling spikes among Republicans (82%).”

I’d agree with all of that. It’s why I’m no longer on it.

Reminder: Social Media v. Rittenhouse

Rittenhouse Takes the Stand | Power Line (powerlineblog.com)

All of this reminds us that over a year ago, Facebook banned any expression of support for Rittenhouse, apparently deeming him a “mass murderer.” Twitter also locked the account of Rittenhouse’s lawyer, and a police officer was fired for donating to his defense. This incident illustrates, like so many others, the danger of social media behemoths shutting down discussion of matters that should be very much up for debate.

You weren’t allowed to support someone who hasn’t done anything wrong.

The narrative is far more important than the truth.

Must Protect Democrats, Even Disgraced Ones

Or maybe that’s especially disgraced ones.

Facebook blocks former Cuomo aide from advertising book on sexual harassment (reclaimthenet.org)

Facebook has banned the ads for a book about sexual harassment by a former aide to Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio.

Hinton claims it’s because the title contains the word “penis.” The writer highlighted the social media platform’s double standards, noting the existence of multiple Facebook Pages about the book Vagina Monologues, suggesting the censorship may be for another reason.

Yeah, with what I used to see regularly on Facebook back when I had an account, I have a hard time believing that the word “penis” is a problem.

A Major U.S. Newspaper Is Calling for Censorship. Thomas Paine Is Spinning in His Grave.

Democracy Dies in Darkness, and the WaPo Wants to Kill It – PJ Media

While the Washington Post piously reminds us that “democracy dies in darkness,” it’s busy shooting out the lights: On Tuesday it published a lengthy call to Facebook to shut down dissident media, including PJ Media, because, you see, the non-Leftist publications are daring to spread “climate change denial” on the platform. Not just democracy, but also the freedom of speech will die in darkness if the Post gets its way.

Amazingly, Facebook so far is not playing ball.

Facebook, however, is not being cooperative, and not exercising enough censorship: “Earlier this year, Facebook promised to start adding informational labels to some climate posts, much like it does with election or coronavirus posts. But CCDH researchers found that of the posts they surveyed containing climate misinformation, just 8% carried Facebook’s informational label.” Nor does it look as if this is going to change anytime soon.

I’m sure they’ll roll over soon. They’re all on the same side and Facebook will remember that (or be reminded of it).

I Think They’re Just Drunk

Facebook employee said censorship colleagues were "drunk on power" (reclaimthenet.org)

In Facebook internal discussions, obtained by the New York Post, most employees agreed with the censorship of pro-Rittenhouse posts. However, one employee, a data scientist, disagreed.

“The rioting has been going on for over three months and it’s only an issue now because people inside the company saw violence they didn’t like,” the employee said.

“Employees are drunk on absolute power of being in control of civics in America, without ever having to visit a voting booth (if voting is even an option.”

The employee said the company should differentiate between support (which is not allowed) and discussion of the unjust treatment of Rittenhouse (which is allowed).

It doesn’t matter whether the posts really violated their policies or not. The posts violated the narrative. Therefore, whatever reason can be trumped up to censor them will be used. We see this time and time again on a variety of subjects, the two worst being Hunter Biden and natural immunity to the China virus. Both of these topics were verboten on Social Media and are 100% and unequivocally to be proven true.

The power of these companies to control the narrative must be stopped, or there will be no free speech in America, only approved speech.

Facebook’s Leftism at Work

Facebook’s Political Maelstrom Exposed | Power Line (powerlineblog.com)

Here’s the key bit:

Many Republicans, from Mr. Trump down, say Facebook discriminates against conservatives. The documents reviewed by the Journal didn’t render a verdict on whether bias influences its decisions overall. They do show that employees and their bosses have hotly debated whether and how to restrain right-wing publishers, with more-senior employees often providing a check on agitation from the rank and file. The documents viewed by the Journal, which don’t capture all of the employee messaging, didn’t mention equivalent debates over left-wing publications.

I think that is a key point. The New York Times and Washington Post are just as partisan as Breitbart, a major focus of the WSJ story, and they are no more accurate. Yet Facebook pays them for, and features prominently, their content. Apparently no one at Facebook has ever questioned whether false and hateful reporting by the Post and the Times, such as the Russia collusion hoax to name just one example, should cause their content to be suppressed or downgraded.

No arguments on suppressing stories from the left. Lots of arguments about stories on the right. And we know who usually wins. The suppressors.

Yeah, this doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know, but nice to get confirmation from inside.

Clearly Facebook Needs More Censorship

Facebook announces new censorship for Groups (reclaimthenet.org)

This time they concern groups, whose members’ posts will be demoted if Facebook determines that they had violated its guidelines in other places on the giant network – meaning that their group-posted content can still be in line with Facebook’s rules, without having broken any. The downranking will apply to all content posted by these users in a group.

Using this platform is an exercise in sado-masochism. Just do yourself a favor and stop.

Once Again, the ”Mistake” Goes in the Same Direction

Alabama governor Kay Ivey blasts Facebook for censoring her page (reclaimthenet.org)

A Facebook representative later told Fox that the page was “mistakenly restricted for less than an hour for reasons unrelated to any posted content.”

Uh huh. I’ll let you be the judge of the truth of that.

Ivey had made a statement to her campaign’s Facebook page on September 10, expressing her opposition to President Joe Biden’s day-before announcement of broad employer vaccine mandates, in response to Biden’s comments about responding to governors who did not comply with the mandates.

[…]

“I believe in the vaccine. I just don’t believe in mandating any level of government. That’s just not the role of government,” the governor stated.

“You bet I’m standing in the way. And if he thinks he’s going to move me out of the way, he’s got another thing coming,” she added.

And then what happened? You guessed it.

But Facebook says it was an accident
And Facebook is an honorable company
So are they all, all honorable companies.

With apologies to William Shakespeare.

For Once I’m on CNN’s Side

CNN to stop posting on Facebook in Australia after outlets are forced to be liable for reader comments (reclaimthenet.org)

Normally, anything that’s bad for Facebook is fine by me. But people and businesses should be free to say what they wish without being held liable for what some other idiot thinks about what they said.

After Australia’s top court ruled earlier this month that publishers were legally responsible for comments made below stories, CNN is becoming the first major news organization to stop posting on Facebook.

If more local and foreign news organizations follow suit, the decision could have significant repercussions for Australians’ access to news information on their social media feeds.

Defamation attorneys accuse Australia of failing to keep up with technological advancements and point to the United States and the United Kingdom, where the law primarily protects publications from being sued for the remarks of their users. The decision has drawn widespread condemnation.

If enough companies follow suit, that might exert enough pressure on the Australian courts to revisit this decision.

One can only hope.

Thank God, this isn’t Biden’s America. Yet.

The Problem Is That Facebook and I Don’t Agree on Which News Sources Are ”Untrusted”

Facebook Releases ‘Content Distribution Guidelines,’ Will Target ‘Untrusted’ News | The Daily Wire

The second category, “Incentivizing Publishers to Invest in High-Quality Content,” claims to encourage publishers to produce “interesting, new material.” This category includes efforts to demote “domains with limited original content,” articles “debunked” as “False, Altered or Partly False” by “non-partisan, third party fact-checking organizations,” and posts from “untrusted” news publishers or publishers without “transparent authorship.

Perhaps the most controversial item in this category involves the demotion of “Links to Domains and Pages with High ‘Click-Gap,’” in which posts to websites that receive a “particularly disproportionate amount of their traffic directly from Facebook compared to the amount of traffic the websites receive from the rest of the Internet” are demoted.

Well, that’s great. It’s nice that Facebook now has published rules for shutting down dissenting voices.

Big Tech.

Biden’s America.

Facebook Vs. German Protestors

Facebook deletes groups from German anti-lockdown supporters (reclaimthenet.org)

Facebook has announced that it has deleted about 150 accounts, groups, and pages linked to the Querdenken (Lateral Thinking) movement. Querdenken has made a reputation online and offline for being a group of everyday citizens protesting strict COVID-19 restrictions.

Well, we can’t have that, can we? People might stop being scared and resume their normal lives.

That’s Great, but What Are You Going to Do About It?

FTC says Facebook has been a monopoly ‘since at least 2011’ in amended antitrust complaint - The Verge

The Federal Trade Commission has filed an amended antitrust complaint against Facebook, alleging that the company violated federal antitrust laws with its acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp. The new complaint is a more detailed version of a charge dismissed by the court in June for insufficient evidence.

“Facebook has today, and has maintained since 2011, a dominant share of the relevant market for US personal social networking services,” the complaint alleges, citing time spent and active-user metrics on the daily and monthly scale. “Individually and collectively, these metrics provide significant evidence of Facebook’s durable monopoly power in social networking services.”

Harsh words. Unless they’re followed by harsh actions, I don’t care. I’m so glad I left that piece of crap platform.