The Long Overdue Discussion of Facebook’s Suppression of Free Speech

ELDER PATRIOT – Facebook’s Chairman and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is an advocate of open borders and a global society.  The Zuckerberg-backed Fwd.us has spent tens of millions of dollars pushing his vision of a global society without borders. That is his prerogative.  Using Facebook to advance his ultra liberal agenda is not.

Libertarians might argue that it’s Zuckerberg’s company so he can do as he likes with it.  That is simply not in accordance with the history or the laws of this country.

Zuckerberg acknowledges as much when he denies his company is deliberately suppressing the number of views to sites that advocate for political ideals that are in conflict with his own.  Otherwise he would simply tell his detractors to pound sand.

According to Patty McMurray, “Facebook is intentionally suppressing our traffic and hiding our stories in people’s newsfeeds.”  Ms. McMurray is co-founder of the group 100% Fed Up.

Facebook censors have even gone so far as to ban stories based on official government data.  The Center for Immigration studies (CIS) is a non-partisan organization that released four reports on the impact that mass migration brought on by open border policies was having on employment and wages to native-born Americans.  The four reports were labeled “abusive” and were banned.

Dennis Michael Lynch is an anti-amnesty filmmaker who has been confronted with similar disruptions limiting the reach of his Facebook page.  He said he always gets the same reaction when he “threatens to take legal action.”  Facebook’s stock answer has consistently been, “Glitch, mistake, sorry,” according to Lynch.

These are only three of the groups whose messages Facebook has suppressed for political reasons.  There are literally tens of thousand of others whose messages have been similarly and intentionally diminished by Facebook’s political censors.

We can attest to the same censorship problems when dealing with Facebook.  When discussing certain topics that both Facebook and the Obama administration might find uncomfortable or too revealing, we have seen our reach diminished by as much as 85% even though we continue growing our “friends” during that period.  On particularly touchy subjects such as the Islamist rape epidemic occurring in Europe, we have been given thirty-day suspensions of service.  Occasionally, Facebook will resort to locking a user out of their account completely.

What puts the lie to Facebook’s excuses is their failure to take any action against their users who respond to opinions they don’t agree with in the most hateful and threatening ways, including threatening to kill the authors and/or their followers.

According to James Neighbors founder of Overpasses For America, “Someone literally threatened to shoot me in a Facebook post, and when I reported it to the Facebook, the monitors said that the post didn’t violate their terms and services.”

Facebook found nothing “abusive” there.

Contrast that with the 30-day suspension we were given for posting a video of an Islamist radical beheading an innocent person, a video that had been shown, though edited, on some cable news networks. 

Until the last decade the United States had a long history of limiting the ownership of multiple media outlets by any single group.  This was to keep diversity of opinion and discussion at healthy levels.  Unfortunately, that is no longer the case and a few large media companies hold great sway over the way debate on key issues is presented.  One only has to look at the manner in which every television news outlet objected to Donald Trump’s call to ban illegal immigration, including Fox News.

The alternative media was there with the countervailing opinions and factual reporting that the majority of Americans were looking for. 

With the advent of the Internet and the growth of Facebook, alternative news sites like the one you’re now reading began appearing en masse presenting opposing views on the important issues confronting American and Americans.  As their popularity grew so did their reach.  Collectively these sites are having a profound affect on the public discourse. 

Zuckerberg realizes this and has decided to actively do what he can to suppress our ability to engage in the debate.  If he is right on this subject why is he so fearful of letting us be heard?  Their megaphone dwarfs ours under any circumstances.

Censorship in any form will never be in harmony with the great American tradition of Free Speech and Americans’ right to self-determination.  It is time for Zuckerberg to acknowledge that Facebook’s sheer size and market share disqualify it from being operated as his personal toy.  Failing that, it becomes government’s obligation to step in.