Facebook Conservative Suppression is Part of Why Trump Got This Far

[Fathoms77]

For the record, I ally nowhere. I'm an independent and always will be.

But if there's one thing that bothers me, it's blatant hypocrisy. It's listening to a group of people expound and lecture and condemn while simultaneously doing precisely what they supposedly hate. In one breath, you say you're the biggest supporter of freedom of speech on the planet and in the next, you want someone lynched for saying something you don't like (or something you deem offensive). Giving someone a job because of their ethnicity or life situation is a bias. Letting someone into school for the same reason(s) is a bias.

One of these days, the liberals will figure this out.

However, it should come as no surprise to learn that Facebook has been suppressing conservative news for years. The media has had a leftist bent for a very long time; it's difficult to listen to NPR while keeping a straight face these days. When I was writing for the newspapers, I was once told I needed to find a minority individual to interview at a country-western concert, and if I couldn't find one, I should invent a quote and an "ethnic-sounding name." Anybody who thinks this doesn't happen in journalism is naive, trust me. Later, when I was covering a hip-hop concert and I asked if I should get a quote from a white person (or invent one), all I got was dirty looks.

It's called racism. It's bias. It's a slant. There's no two ways about it. If you're actively suppressing one side, regardless of your reasons or intentions, it's wrong. Isn't that common sense? Isn't that what the liberals are all screaming about? Equality of voice? How can we aspire to that when the very group that brings us our news - the media - has absolutely no desire to adhere to "voice equality?"

What's even more concerning is that a lot of people seem to have no problem with this Facebook issue. They just shrug their shoulders and say something idiotic, like "well, they shouldn't be promoting conservative crap, anyway." ...we're not talking about "promotion." We're talking about not allowing those with certain viewpoints to speak, to be noticed. It doesn't matter which side is being ignored, spoken over, or flat-out oppressed; bias is bias. You can't claim to be an open-minded, educated individual and then say Trump shouldn't be allowed to talk. It's the first few lines in the Constitution, people. Yeah, he's an obnoxious blowhard. Of course he is; he always has been. So was Morton Downey, Jr. (but some really loved that jackass, right)?

Let me make this plain: This suppression of conservative views is common. Facebook is huge and they got caught, so they'll dominate the news but there's no chance it's only Facebook that has been doing this. And if the opposing side, the left-wingers, had any brains at all, they'd realize that the reason Trump gets the attention he does is because he's taking advantage of this suppression. I can't stand listening to him talk, either, sometimes, but he's seeing this bias and he's exploiting it, and the press is making it worse by being blatantly biased. If they weren't, Trump wouldn't have half the footing he has.

Don't we all get that?

[NearlyNapping]

You can also look at it from another POV. There is no such thing as freedom of speech on Facebook. Just like there is no such thing as freedom of speech on GaG. Nobody has a "right" to post anything at all on FB or GaG. They do so only with permission of the owners.

The TOU at GaG is FULL of limits to free speech, and GaG has the right to make those limits.

"GirlsAskGuys reserves the right to remove offending, harmful, defamatory, threatening, unlawful, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable content from the site and terminate the Membership of such violators."

Only a few of those are for strictly legal reason. All of them are limits to freedom of speech. The rules themselves, and even more so, the way they are interpreted and applied, lean to the left.

Both limits to freedom of speech, and political / social bias are built into the GaG TOU. Pretty much the same as most other web sites out there. But GaG has the right to do that if they choose.

People have the right to get on their soapbox and preach. But nobody is under any obligation to provide that soapbox for them. Not providing the soapbox does not violate their freedom of speech in any way.

[Aetumn]

Keep an eye on your articles, because the part you might not have heard is that Conservatives aren't the only ones getting censored.

Don't you think Mark Zuckerberg has way more to lose by promoting the side he likes at the risk of alienating himself an entire US party? Not just the voters, but anyone that might think Facebook is censoring?

Multiple journalists have also pointed out that Liberals also get censored; I don't remember the exact figures, but the concensus was that it's easy to complain on what's being censored on your side without looking at what's going on on the other.
Isn't it?

[Fathoms77]

I've been in the journalism game for a long time, my friend, as evidenced in the article. There is zero chance in hell that liberal news gets suppressed as much as conservative news, and while one absolutely gets subtly promoted (and not so subtly), the other is subtly (and not so subtly) bashed.

[Aetumn]

"Zero chance is hell" sounds way too biased for me to take this as your educated journalistic opinion.
Before you cast me away with a modern version of "Demon, begone" ( something along the lines of "you're just another liberal", whatever that means), isn't the whole point of journalism to fact-check both sides? The journal I'm reading from (Le Monde, best-known newspaper in France) reports that Facebook has had an internal inqiuiry and maintains there has been no discrimination. They are, however, changing their policy, which does signify the previous one wasn't entirely ideal.
I'm not saying Facebook is innocent in the accusations it faces. I'm simply saying I'd like to see the exact numbers of censorship on both sides before making an actual judgment on this whole deal. As should any proper journalist.

[ObscuredBeyond]

I must be able to get past the radar somehow. The only time my account was ever in Facebook Jail, was when I defended Jeanette Runyon from a slew of Twitter trolls, all of whom were taking cheap shots at her and saying things that were totally absurd.

When I explained how the Baker Act actually works, and how one of those trolls clearly had absolutely no clue about its jurisdictions and applications to be threatening her with it, I was told that I was the one who was "out of line."

He threatens a woman he never met with a law that doesn't apply to her home state, but I'm the one who is "out of line" for explaining how the law actually works? How does that work?

I spent the next 14 hours frustrated by the flabbergasting inanity of it all. And have had... zero problems since.

Moral of the story: don't correct a lunatic on Facebook, and he won't put you in the cell that he himself belong in.

[hellionthesage]

The simple explanation is that the ones in power want censorship, those who are not want freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is inherint to the ones without power because they are the ones who oppose the people in control. This is why its a right because it was a way to balance power between those in control and those who where not. By limiting the information you can paint any picture you want, hide data etc and tell the narrative that best benefits those who are in control. You see it in all media. If you ever watch the news when they present a clip from a political speech go watch the full speech and you will see two very different points of view. They take everything they can out of context in order to spin it in a way that benefits them whether it be selling more papers/getting more viewers or pushing a political agenda. Sadly I don't know how it can be prevented since most of the population doesn't seem to really care.

[Luci92]

I love what you've said. That's the problem with social media and the media in general, they provide a distorted perspective/reality, but because they're all guilty of doing the same thing, you have nothing to compare to and that's why many people get trapped into thinking that the way they present things are the way they are. If any of that makes sense XD

[Nelson_MP]

The worst part is that Facebook does this worldwide. Here in Brazil, I know conservative vloggers and philosophers that always have their accounts blocked, mostly for no real reasons.

And I noticed something insteresting - how politics work almost the same way everywhere. The same conservative suppression plus almost 16 years of leftist government (that led us to a recent crisis) is causing the rise of Bolsonaro, a Trump-like brazilian right-winger.

[ObscuredBeyond]

It's Nimrod's Revenge. Babel is beckoning to be rebuilt. The Whore seducing the Nations. Globalists are obsessed with their goal of world domination. Right-wingers are simply "in the way" for Babel being rebuilt. So they crush us like bugs every chance they get. They won't accept that Babel was destroyed for a reason.

[Anonymous]

I live in the UK so conservative means a slightly different thing however its a similar situation. there's a general feeling which is as follows: if you're a supporter lf Labour, Green and maybe lib dems (centre left-left parties). you're a good person. However if you support the Tories, or UKIP (centre right-right) parties, you're an evil bastard. One way to lose friends is to come out as a Tory.

Come 2015 general election, however, the Tories win a majority and UKIP get 3 million votes. So despite these being highly successful and popular parties they only ever get press.

Peopleshould be allowed to express conservative views without be ousted an evil *anker. The left need to get off their high horses and engage the majority in equal discussion.

[John_Doesnt]

This isn't exactly new. If you pay attention to the pattern of history our society gets more and more liberal as time goes on. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find a period where we went from being liberal and tolerant of cultures, to being hateful and bigoted.

[Curmudgeon]

Well said. And the suppression is why more thoughtful Republican candidates, like Ted Cruz, did not gain any traction.

Facebook thought it could silence opposition, but along came a loudmouth they just COULD NOT silence!

[Anonymous]

Trump is using that bias alright. He brazenly states things that the pseudo-liberals find triggering which the media jumps on. He doesn't say anything full on racist but it's very edgy, so the media will take it and go omg look how racist Trump is, build a wall? So racist! Grr, he's so bad. In the process people found out oh he wants to build a wall and doesn't dance around these sensitive issues. He's using their leftist outrage to carry his message further.

[QuestionMan]

Great take. I've noticed Facebook has been very liberal especially in their coverage of HB2 you'd think on an issue like this they'd show both sides.

[front2back]

I'm pissed how they purposely left out Rand. He could have been a much bigger player if ALL media, not just FB, didn't try to silence him.

[ObscuredBeyond]

That's adorable. I'm a Darrell Castle supporter.

[anonman32]

so facebook is cencoring political agendas? is this serious. mark fuckerberg, what an idiot, im glad i stopped having facebook a long time ago.