Elder Patriot – The man who stood up to the European Union’s autocratic rule and engineered the Brexit, Nigel Farage, has turned his energies towards taming globalist protector Facebook.
My message to Mark Zuckerberg today:
Stop telling us Facebook is a “platform for all ideas”. The evidence shows your algorithms censor conservative opinions. pic.twitter.com/HWLabaDcP9
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) May 22, 2018
Yesterday, Farage blasted Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg during testimony before the European Parliament.
Farage began by recognizing the role that social media played in the success of populist insurgencies that swept nationalist leaders to power in the United States and Italy as well as the role these platforms played in the success of Brexit.
“Historically, of course, it’s true, that through Facebook and other forms of social media there is no way that Brexit or Trump or the Italian elections could ever possibly have happened. It was social media that allowed people to get round the back of mainstream media.”
Farage then excoriated Zuckerberg for taking matters into his own hands to limit opponents of the globalists’ takeover movement on his platform:
“Perhaps you’re horrified by this creation of yours and what it’s led to, I don’t know. But what is absolutely true is that since January of this year, you’ve changed your modus operandi, you’ve changed your algorithms, and it has led directly to a very substantial drop in views and engagements for those who have got right-of-center political opinions.”
“The facts are very clear. Just look at President Trump’s numbers, on a much smaller scale look at mine, look at thousands of other conservative commentators. On average, we’re down about 25 percent over the course of this year. That’s happening on a ‘platform for all ideas.’”
“I am not talking here, Mr. Zuckerberg, about extremism. I am not talking about encouraging violence. I am not talking about hatred of anybody. I’m talking about people who have majority, mainstream opinions … and frankly, I feel, they are being wilfully discriminated against.”
“What interests me is who decides what is acceptable? Who are these people you referred to earlier, these third-party fact checkers, who are these people? Why is there no transparency in this process at all?”
“I’m not generally somebody who calls for legislation on the international stage, but I’m beginning to wonder whether we need a social media bill of rights to basically protect free speech. I’m asking you today, very, very clearly that would you accept today that Facebook is not a platform for all ideas that is operated impartially?”
What event forced Zuckerberg to change his mind? Lame duck President Barack Obama. The Washington Post reported that “nine days after Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg dismissed as “crazy” the idea that fake news on his company’s social network played a key role in the U.S. election… Obama made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously.”
In other words, the Manchurian president instructed the person with perhaps the greatest ability to spread government propaganda for the purpose of influencing elections, by limiting or eliminating altogether contrarian dialogue, to toe the party line.
No matter what side of the aisle you come down on Nigel Farage speaks for all of us. The free and open exchange of ideas is essential to the foundation of liberty. It is also how we make ourselves better.
It’s undeniable that Zuckerberg’s repressive and exclusionary tactics results in less engagement thereby costing his shareholders lost profits. It’s hard to see why he’s allowed to get away with such censorship.
It’s also hard to understand how the courts can force a small baker who has only a sliver of market share to accommodate a customer’s religious or political views in direct conflict with his or her own views, but a company like Facebook that dominates the market in which it operates can tell their customers to go to hell.
And, to those who say that we’re not customers, we refute that with facts.
We have partnered with Facebook by paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars to help us build our pages. We now have almost 9 million fans. We have also spent significant money advertising with Facebook – all, with the obvious intention of increasing engagement on our websites.
How did Facebook deliver on our end? They diminished engagement to our sites by 95%.
If this isn’t blatant censorship then what is?