10:06 AM
For the record I have never had a Facebook account.
This was not for a desire not to have one but rather because I read in its
entirety, the disclaimer for permitted use, which I vehemently disagreed with.
With that said, I am free to share my views unconditionally with respect to the
social media’s platform gormless decision to censor and deplatform Alex Jones,
Paul Joseph Watson, Louis Farrakhan and Laura Loomer among several others.
True, Facebook is a private company and they have the right to decide who can
or cannot use its services. However, it is also a publicly traded company and
for them to have a nebulous and unclear policy of who should be deplatformed
based on subjective criteria such as dangerous and offensive views will always
be unacceptable and un American.
Facebook gave the heads up on this ban to several
major mainstream news media outlets. This means that this was a coordinated
action, on behalf of the progressive left against leading conservative
activist. I say this because clearly there was a preconceived bias toward the
right or else they would have never called Louis Farrakhan right wing. They
do this in an autocratic way, for if Facebook consider what one says, or thinks
is hateful, people will not be allowed to share their views or opinions.
In basic terms, by their logic, one could ask why
should Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Louis Farrakhan and Laura Loomer be
allowed to use a computer, or paper to write down and publish their views or a
telephone for that matter? Would a contractor that builds a public square in a
town be allowed to decide who can or cannot speak on the wood stage they built?
Don’t even consider the fact that they deem hateful people as folk they simply
disagree with. As the Verge notes: “The decision took into account the group’s
behavior both on and offline” So for Facebook, appearing in a video with Gavin
McInnes (Jones & Loomer) or even praising him or Tommy Robinson (Milo
Yiannopoulos). CNN and Fox have had Gavin McInnes on TV, will they be banned? Facebook even allows a convicted pedophile (Austin Jones) to use their platform to groom underage girls into sending sex videos to him and his page is still up. How does this make sense?
According to CNN, Facebook states: "We've always
banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and
hate, regardless of ideology," If this was accurate then Antifa and
Islamic Jihadist fundamentalist would have been banned but they have not. If
these people are dangerous and get banned, then why are people like Antifa
allowed to threaten conservatives, even
their families with death and are allowed to operate openly on face book? None
of them have never threaten to kill people from what I have read. A white
democrat can call a black conservative a “nigger uncle Tom” and not be banned
(I know I responded to a twitter blue check who called me that and was banned
for life from Twitter). Yet still, some under thirty something silicon valley nerd in San Francisco, where shit and needles literally cover the streets, is allowed to make these decisions of what people are allowed or not allowed to listen to. I bet there wasn't even a black person in the room when this decision was made.
Who is Facebook to decide what people should hear or
not hear? Who is Facebook to decided what people want to read or should read?
Who is Facebook to decide what people should or should not be protected from?
Americans nowadays are soft enough as it is and to further bubble wrap them
from the real world will result in more harm than good. Facebook regardless if
the believe it or not is the public commons – the common place for public
speech. It is not good that private corporations can be unaccountable and have
the power to control our public spaces.
They may not want to admit it, but it is clear
Facebook had closed door purge conservative views meeting, or else they would
have never sent out a press release saying they were banning far-right
political voices (which are nowhere close to far right). The only reason Farrakhan
was added so that they would not seem to have a bias against the right on
behalf of the progressive liberal left. For example, Linda Sarsour remains on
twitter although she praises and supports Farrakhan and a known convicted
murder terrorist Rasmea Odeh who was convicted in Israel of killing two Hebrew
University students in a 1969 terrorist attack and for planning an attack on the
British Consulate. Is she banned? Will she be banned? I doubt it.
The flying monkeys of Facebook are the true danger. I
consider them flying monkeys because it is a phrase used that describes folk
“who act on behalf of a narcissist to a third party, usually for an abusive
purpose” or folk “who act on behalf of a psychopath for a similar purpose.” Yes
this is an apt description of the thought police of Facebook however, they are
not fictional characters the likes provided to literature by L. Frank Baum in
his novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz but they are ironically the same
representation of evil or fear Facebook censors proffer us today for to
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, dangerous means saying things they do not like – fascism
by another name is one person deciding what opinions you are allowed to have, especially if liberal leaning tech companies are the single controller in open public debate.
