Facebook to Ban all Conservative and pro-Trump content

by Jim Hoft

The Gateway Pundit

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com

May 1st, 2018

.

Since the 2016 election Facebook has been cracking down on conservative and pro-Trump content.

Top conservative websites have seen a stunning drop in their Facebook traffic.
This was no accident. This was the plan.

In January 2017, Facebook began making algorithm changes to make sure conservative news was no longer so influential. The Gateway Pundit Facebook traffic has consistently decreased with each algorithm change.

A March 2018 study by The Outline organization found conservative publishers were hit the hardest by Facebook algorithm changes. The study also showed that The Gateway Pundit was hit the hardest.

Read More HERE

Published on May 1, 2018 at 7:29 pm by Voice Over

Comments

May 1, 2018 - 8:40 pm

VancouverTVGuy

What Fakebook is doing, in addition to being in violation of the First Amendment in the US and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here, is downright unethical and immoral and will, in due time, prove to be its undoing as more people abandon it in droves and turn to alternatives.

Enjoy the ill-gotten fortune you have, Mark Zuckerberg, because the company you founded isn’t going to be much longer for this world.


May 2, 2018 - 10:04 am

Les H.

Then Facebook deserves to fail and go broke. Imagine if Facebook was doing the following things.

———————————————–
(cut from the article above and changed editorially to make a point.)

In January 2017, Facebook began making algorithm changes to make sure black American news was no longer so influential. The NAACP Facebook traffic has consistently decreased with each algorithm change.

A March 2018 study by The Outline organization found black American publishers were hit the hardest by Facebook algorithm changes. The study also showed that The NAACP was hit the hardest.

——————————————–

In January 2017, Facebook began making algorithm changes to make sure Women’s/Feminist news was no longer so influential. The League of Women Voters of the United States Facebook traffic has consistently decreased with each algorithm change.

A March 2018 study by The Outline organization found womens’/Feminist publishers were hit the hardest by Facebook algorithm changes. The study also showed that The League of Women Voters of the United States was hit the hardest.

—————————————————–

In January 2017, Facebook began making algorithm changes to make sure LGBT news was no longer so influential. The GLAD organization traffic has consistently decreased with each algorithm change.

A March 2018 study by The Outline organization found LGBT publishers were hit the hardest by Facebook algorithm changes. The study also showed that GLAD was hit the hardest.

——————————

Facebook and all social media tell governments that they are mere conduits of information being posted on the WWW and cannot be held accountable for any content on their sites BUT! they then want to be censors (censors of political and/or wrong speech ) UM HEY A$$HOLES you can’t have it both ways.

Any persons who believe in the free exchange and debate of ideas, thoughts and the sharing speech online or anywhere in life should all be wise enough to get off Facebook and any other social media sites who in their wrank hypocrisy do this crap as posted in this story.


May 2, 2018 - 10:24 am

Zebb

Please explain in detail how the First Amendment applies and how it is being violated. Thank you.


May 2, 2018 - 10:41 am

Glenn

The League for the Protection of Howling Dogs has done a study showing that Facebook is stifling fur bearing animal content ( except cute kittens ).


May 2, 2018 - 10:49 am

Les H.

Zebb in theory the 1st Amendment is not being violated as these sites are private businesses. But in modern life the ability to post POV’s, and other editorial/news type content online is as much akin to standing on a milk crate at the city park and speaking your mind once was and still is. The simple fact is these social media/tech sites all have argued and get reprieve from most governments of being held accountable under law for content posted on their websites as they state they are mere conduits of other people’s thoughts, ideas and ideals, yet they want to censor and for mostly political reasons peoples’ POV’s and other opinions on their sites.

THE HYPOCRISY ABOUNDS!!!

This is mostly a liberal/leftist, SJW type ideal and action as they will not want their own POV’s and ideals held to the same account of censor. These activist people /groups ‘unwittingly’ show their own hypocrisy by example getting in a tizzy in real life when they hear about the baker who does not want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple but these people are 100% fine for a coffee shop to kick out of its business pro life and/or other conservative groups. In fact they often giddily cheer at such stuff.

It’s all pathetic and quite sickening. These types of people should all be careful because they will likely get what they ask for AND THEY WILL NOT LIKE IT IN THE END!


May 2, 2018 - 12:10 pm

Zebb

Les, it is not being violated in theory?

It is not being violated in fact. Period.


May 2, 2018 - 12:26 pm

Les H.

Zebb,

The fact is in modern days access to the receiving and sharing of info, opinions and facts online via social media is a norm to the exchange of said freedom of speech, but yes as private businesses these social media outlets are within the current law in most nations to censor speech they don’t like or have bias against. But zebb if such is the case then they should not be allowed to stand on the concept of don’t harm or hold us responsible as we are just conduits for the free exchange of thoughts, speech and ideas. THEY CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS ZEBB!

If Facebag, and all other social media can and do censor speech based on their own bias, they then MUST be allowed to be sued and/or criminally held to account for NOT censoring some forms of speech or exchange of ideas they appear not to be biased against.


May 2, 2018 - 8:23 pm

Bagoverheadguy

Zebb…apppears as if you’re content to listen to one point of view, as long as that view aligns with yours.
I’m thrilled to have recently dumped Facebook, as have a nbr of family/friends for a variety of reasons. Life has become simpler & more enjoyable.
Aggressive debate is thousands of years old and a significant part of the Democratic process, and now some rich clown is shutting out a part of the debate that does not aligns with his view of democracy.


May 3, 2018 - 10:42 am

Zebb

I’m not on Facebook, I think it’s moronic. Never been. I’m not a closet millennial who needs weird social validation.

Why would you make that assumption when I am clearly engaging in debate here?

I respect freedom of speech and I respect free will.

You guys seem to be advocating for expansion of government powers. Classic left wing hurt feelings response – run to the nanny state.


May 3, 2018 - 11:35 pm

VancouverTVGuy

@ Zebb:

Does it look to you like anyone here is advocating for expanding governmental powers (which is a liberal thing)? That’s not how it looks to me and I’m pretty sure others would say the same. They’re simply objecting to what Fakebook is doing in violation of free speech, something which you, on the other hand, seem to have no problem with (based on your own comments, “Please explain in detail how the First Amendment applies and how it is being violated” and “It is not being violated in fact”, which in effect ignores what is actually happening) because it’s conservative speech that’s being censored and suppressed simply because liberals (who like to pretend that free speech is for them alone to control) don’t like what they hear or read.


May 4, 2018 - 7:38 am

Zebb

Explain, in detail, how the First Amendment applies. You didn’t even try. Why aren’t people challenging this apparently clear violation of their rights in court? Would you fund a challenge with your own money?

It does not violate free speech. If you want the Constutution to govern private speech on Facebook, you are clearly asking for more government involvement.

I’ve had posts on here not published, perhaps we all have. None of my rights were violated. I didn’t whine like some entitled millennial who thinks everything must be “fair”.

A true conservative wants less government. A fake conservative wants the government to control Facebook to salve their hurt feelings.

I am ignoring what is happening, because I don’t care. Facebook is free to do as it pleases. As a true conservative I’ll just let it play out. I hate Facebook, but as a private business no reasonable person will sustain an argument that they are unconstitutional in their conduct.

If you don’t like it, patronize a different site, or start a different site.

Free speech does not guarantee you a forum to get your message out.


May 4, 2018 - 8:40 am

VancouverTVGuy

@ Zebb:

All you’re doing in your reply is proving the points I and everyone else here have made while you ignore what we’ve said (as well as ignoring that free speech IS being violated) and put your own spin on the story and on what the rest of us have pointed out (and while claiming to be a “true conservative”, you’re actually defending what the liberal Fakebook – which has become a tool of corrupt liberal politicians and the liberal media – is doing in its censorship of conservative free speech).

At day’s end though, claiming that Fakebook “does not violate free speech” just because you say so, despite evidence to the contrary, does not make it so. And another thing – your claim of being a “true conservative” while attacking conservatives and their values here and defending liberals and the wrongdoing they commit (a pattern I’ve noticed committed by some liberals at other sites in a transparent attempt at hiding their true political leanings) does not make you a conservative.


May 4, 2018 - 8:58 am

Zebb

You still don’t understand the First Amendment.

Nobody’s rights are being violated.

Again, answer my specific questions above.

Are you actually claiming that what Facebook is doing is unconstitutional?

Where are the court challenges?

Where are the precedents upon which you rely?

I am a true conservative, leaning towards libertarian.

You are actually claiming that a private company is violating constitutional freedoms.

Anyone else is free to answer these questions, and not in the evasive and non-specific manner above.

I’m actually stunned that someone who claims to be in media has such a failing grasp of free speech. Classic fake news conservative who wants his feelings protected and the private sector regulated and controlled by the nanny state.


May 4, 2018 - 9:20 am

VancouverTVGuy

@ Zebb:

You’re still only proving the points I’ve made with each successive post you make (including your being in denial of what has been said in the article as well as of the points the other posters have made). You’re also continuing to defend liberals who want their feelings protected against conservative free speech and the private sector regulated and controlled by liberal politicians as well as calling news from conservative sites “fake news”, all while continuing to claim to be a “true conservative”. No, that doesn’t pass muster with me or anyone else here.


May 4, 2018 - 9:40 am

Zebb

You haven’t answered one question.

The 1A protects you from government interference in exercising free speech . It does not guarantee you a private forum to distribute your message.

At no point have I defended liberals. As a libertarian and true conservative, I have defended the rights of Facebook to do as they see fit. The marketplace will judge them.

You are the one calling for regulation of Facebook. You want government stormtroopers to govern their content. You probably want government newspapers as well.

I’m not sure you can even distinguish between the private and public at this point. Classic snowflake hurt feelings FAKE NEWS conservative.

I loathe Facebook. I don’t like it’s founder. I loathe government. I love free speech. My position on this is entirely consistent. Facebook does not owe you protected speech or free speech. It owes you nothing. It can dictate content as it pleases. A conservative respects their freedoms, even if they don’t like their politics. You are upset because it goes against your personal politics, so you abandon conservative principles.

Again, you refuse to explain how a court challenge would come down on your side.

This is not a First Amendment issue. This is not a violation of constitutional right to free speech.


May 4, 2018 - 10:12 am

VancouverTVGuy

@ Zebb:

Every time you post in reply, you’re STILL proving what I said about you and the opinions you hold regarding your claims about censorship, as well as your denials of defending liberals and their actions while attacking conservatives and while claiming to be a “true conservative” (among other things you’ve gone off about), to be right, and you’re not doing yourself or your argument any favors in the process – in fact, what you’re doing even falls in line with a description in Conservapedia of liberals who try to hide their true beliefs:

“Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a “true conservative”, while spouting liberal and Democrat talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles” – which is exactly what you’ve been doing all the time you’ve been posting on this thread, along with accusing conservatives of what liberals are really guilty of themselves (including your claim to “love free speech” while supporting Fakebook’s suppression of free speech to benefit liberals who oppose free speech by conservatives). In the end, your words and double-talk betray what you really support.


May 4, 2018 - 10:27 am

Zebb

Private entities are not required to,protect free speech. I don’t go around telling companies how to run their business. I vote with my dollars. I’ve never been a user onFacebook.

Our posts here are moderated. Does that violate our constitutional rights? Of course not. Facebook is no different.

Again, you are the one asking for Facebook to be regulated. I’m asking for Facebook to be judged in the free market. I have never actually said that I support their decision, but I respect their right to do so. A libertarian doesn’t ask that people be protected from their own bad decisions.

Do you honestly think Facebook content is subject to the 1A as you initially claimed?

Facebook controlling content is no different than McDonalds controlling their menu.


May 4, 2018 - 10:47 am

VancouverTVGuy

@ Zebb:

So in your roundabout way, while denying that Fakebook is censoring and suppressing free speech at the behest of liberals (despite the article and the experiences of conservatives speaking out against such censorship proving otherwise), you continue to implicitly support it and its actions. You’re also making assumptions with your posts and putting words in my mouth that I and other posters never said, but in supporting what Fakebook is doing, you’re actually asking – no, demanding – that liberals and their feelings be protected from the truth.

And if you think that Fakebook content is not subject to the 1st Amendment, then you don’t know the Constitution or how it operates as well as you think you do.


May 4, 2018 - 12:26 pm

Zebb

Do you see this as a First Amendment issue? Of course not, so why did you cite that in your opening paragraph?

A private entity is free to act as it wants in running its business. It does not have an obligation to protect free speech. Comments here are moderated. Facebook has suppressed content for years for many reasons.

If you are expecting a private company to protect your constitutional rights you are misguided. If this violates the First Amendment, why isn’t Trump stepping in? He is the aggrieved party and also sworn to uphold the constitution.

Facebook can not suppress free speech because they don’t owe it to you and have never promised it to you. They are making a business decision and libertarians and Reagan conservatives should respect that.

You are still free to make any political comment you want without persecution. Hose are the extent of your free speech rights.

Only a poseur millennial FAKE NEWS conservative would look to the government to run Facebook to protect his feelings.

You either respect the private sector or you don’t. The market will judge Facebook. I don’t own their stock, I couldn’t care less if they survive or not. Same goes for every company. Let the market decide.

We are all free to spread our political beliefs and truths without persecution. . Nobody owes us a platform.


May 4, 2018 - 12:40 pm

George in Richmond

“Private entities are not required to,protect free speech” …. yet, they are required to Bake the Cake.

Doesn’t really matter, Facebook is going by the way of Myspace.


May 4, 2018 - 8:41 pm

VancouverTVGuy

@ Zebb:

“Do you see this as a First Amendment issue? Of course not, so why did you cite that in your opening paragraph?” – You make that claim, but by your support of what Fakebook is doing, it’s clear you’re the one who doesn’t care about the 1st Amendment, not the rest of us.

“A private entity is free to act as it wants in running its business. It does not have an obligation to protect free speech. Comments here are moderated. Facebook has suppressed content for years for many reasons.” – In other words, you support – by your own words – what Fakebook is doing in suppressing conservative speech to smooth over the feelings of liberals.

“If you are expecting a private company to protect your constitutional rights you are misguided.” – If you expect a private company – acting on the behalf of liberal politicians – to NOT protect the Constitution except when convenient to liberals, then you’re the one who’s misguided.

“Facebook can not suppress free speech because they don’t owe it to you and have never promised it to you.” – Except they ARE suppressing free speech (in spite of your denials), and by your speaking out in support of it, you’re also defending the censorship and suppression of free speech.

“You are still free to make any political comment you want without persecution. Hose are the extent of your free speech rights.” – Except that liberals in public office and their supporters are seeing to it that conservatives get denied the right to free speech – and you’re supporting that suppression by supporting what Fakebook is doing.

“Only a poseur millennial FAKE NEWS conservative would look to the government to run Facebook to protect his feelings.” – Now between making that comment and your other previous comments (including accusing conservative news sites of being “fake news”), you’re revealing that you’re not the “true conservative” you pretend to be, but in reality a liberal who only “supports” free speech when convenient to liberals but seeks to deny it to conservatives when not convenient and to protect liberal feelings. You’re also projecting your own attitudes in accusing conservatives of what you yourself are guilty of.

“You either respect the private sector or you don’t.” – And you’re showing, by supporting Fakebook’s support of liberal politicians illegally clamping down on free speech, that it’s YOU who doesn’t respect the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or anything similar unless it suits liberals and ONLY liberals.

“We are all free to spread our political beliefs and truths without persecution. . Nobody owes us a platform.” – Except that liberals don’t feel that way except when it suits them and they feel that THEY are owed a platform but don’t want to give that same platform to conservatives because conservatives tell and support the truth and facts, both of which liberals fear and hate and want to censor and silence for that reason. By supporting Fakebook’s actions, you’re supporting exactly what liberals want.


Leave a Reply

Text Groove for Radio