The Washington Post smeared Mark Zuckerberg for not censoring enough and the author of a recent article blames Zuckerberg for Donald Trump winning election. This is how the left wins and gets to silence the right. They shame people into line. It doesn’t matter that Zuckerberg is censoring using leftists funded by George Soros.
A Washington Post article, Facebook’s role in Trump’s win is clear. No matter what Mark Zuckerberg says, is meant to do exactly that.
Zuckerberg scoffed at the idea of voters making their decisions based on fake news on Facebook and the author dismissed his comments.
Media columnist for the newspaper, Margaret Sullivan wrote, “Disinformation spread on Facebook clearly was one — a big one. That was obvious in November. It was obvious in April when Facebook, to its credit, announced some moves to combat the spread of lies in the form of news stories.”
It’s definitely not clear.
“It’s even more obvious now after Wednesday’s news that Facebook sold ads during the campaign to a Russian “troll farm,” targeting American voters with “divisive social and political messages” that fit right in with Donald Trump’s campaign strategy.”
On and on she goes.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
Facebook won’t release the information about the ads and much of what we know is supposition. People who believe ads are really in the smallest minority of the population. The left, however, doesn’t give anyone credit for forming their own opinions and they want to be the ones to control them.
The evidence is clear.
An August 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign flyer quoted Hillary as saying, “Breitbart has no right to exist”. Her opinion is typical for the left.
A CNET author, Ian Sherr, explained how Facebook censors, posted a novel definition of freedom of speech: “Freedom of speech isn’t what you think it is. The beginning phrase of the First Amendment to the US Constitution says ‘Congress shall make no law…’ That means, within reason, the government doesn’t mess with what you say.”
If the definition is “within reason” under the force of government, it leaves us open to hate laws, broadcast and Internet speech regulation and it makes RICO laws for expressing unpopular opinions reasonable.
Last year, 16 attorneys general hoped to criminalize climate doubting and charge deniers under RICO laws meant for mobsters.
wpDiscuz
