In May, 2016, Madison Gesiotto wrote an op-ed for The Washington Times, ‘Why Facebook is blocking your posts’.
Madison writes:
Are you a Republican, a conservative or an American who simply enjoys exploring both sides of hot-button political issues? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then Facebook may no longer be the place for you…
…Facebook also recently added a new feature that gives users the chance to unfairly suppress information that challenges their political or ideological positions, a feature that has widely been used by the liberal left.
The feature allows Facebook users to report other user’s dissenting posts as being “annoying or distasteful” or going “against my views.”
Facebook then reviews these user reports and decides to ignore the reported post, delete the reported post or demote the reported post. More often than not, conservative posts are punished while liberal posts are ignored<
It is outrageous.
Facebook is engaging in censorship in plain sight, undoubtedly allowing the agendas of political groups to motivate what posts reach its users.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
Their argument at the time was over the ‘trending’ section. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg met with Glenn Beck and other right-leaning website editors for a meeting that solved nothing. Unfortunately, Beck raved about Zuckerberg and it was over.
That’s when Barack Obama began the ‘fake news’ assault on the right with the help of the MSM who want only their media read. Tom Brokaw, Chris Cuomo, Mika Brzezinski have all said they should shape the news we hear.
It is much worse since Madison Gesiotto wrote her op-ed.
Since then: David Brock of Media Matters has bragged about having the raw data of everyone on social media; Soros is funding the censors on Facebook; the censors are all people of the left; media censors want alternative media destroyed; and the left think by eliminating dissenting opinion on the right they are saving the world from fascists and Nazis.
Yet that is exactly what they are.
For example, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants to push ideas that are fully communist including giving everyone a set wage, which means everyone who produces would provide a salary for every non-producer.
The Sentinel went from more than 30,000 readers in a day to 3,000 thanks to Facebook filtering us out.
From what I hear of other conservative and libertarian websites, they are experiencing the same thing.
It has a lot to do with Brock’s manifesto and this is what it says on page 43:
“Media Matters has already secured access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. We have also put in place the technology necessary to automatically mine white nationalist message boards and alt-right communities for our archive.
We will now develop technologies and processes to systematically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”
With the raw data, they can control every facet of social media and, as a result, the minds of readers.
On p. 43, they wrote they were building an algorithm at the time of printing that is “specifically designed to amplify negative content for Trump and deliver positive content to bolster the resistance. Further, by pulling the most widely shared progressive content from the top 1,000 social media accounts, Shareblue’s algorithm will not only aggregate, but drive news and opinion.” [Shareblue is their left-wing answer to Breitbart].
It is happening.
One example is when I try to advertise [boost] an article. I have put up articles that were well-sourced and what I got back from Facebook is they can’t be promoted because they are offensive. Really? To whom? Then when I put in a one-line defense, they approve it.
They’re filtering!
You can find the articles in contention HERE AND HERE.
One article I wrote about an Antifa terrorist was rejected and I was sent to an overview page. One of the lines that caught my eye was this: #14. Controversial Content, Ads must not contain content that exploits controversial political or social issues for commercial purposes.
They suggests they can ban any political speech they disagree with.
As far as offending someone, every article offends someone. In the USA, we are substituting some type of Sharia-law censorship instead of standing up for our First Amendment. They are a private company and can do what they want but they, like Google, are very powerful and influential and their policies go along with the ‘hate speech’ banning the leftists want.
wpDiscuz
