On Thursday, May 2, 2019, Facebook banned several prominent conservative figures whom they labeled as ‘Dangerous Individuals.
According to a Facebook spokesperson in a statement to CNN, “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology . The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.”
Then, why is Antifa still on Facebook? Why is BLM still on Facebook? Why is Muslim Brotherhood still on Facebook? Why is Cair still on Facebook? Why is Socialist Democrats still on Facebook? Why is The Party of Communist USA still on Facebook. Only to name a few.
Nevertheless, Facebook and Instagram removed the following individuals from their platforms: Alex Jones and InfoWars, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Paul Nehlen, and Milo Yiannopoulos
Even Louis Farrakhan, the leader of The Nation of Islam, who is not considered conservative, was also removed. The Southern Poverty Law Center labeled him as an ‘anti-Semite who consistently accuses Jews of manipulating the U.S. government and wielding global power
Numerous liberals argue that conservatives should accept Facebook’s actions, citing the company’s status as a private entity and its right to run its operations as it sees fit. Liberals suggest that conservatives are being hypocritical because, on one hand, conservatives believe that private business owners—like restaurant owners, florists, or bakers—should have the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs.
While Facebook is privately owned, comparing the refusal of service based on religious beliefs to the banning of conservatives on the platform is unreasonable. Small businesses often cater to specific clienteles, and for every business that declines service, another may step in to provide it. However, the situation is not as straightforward with Facebook.
Facebook leads as the top social media giant, followed by YouTube in second place, and Twitter at twelfth. Given their vast influence, it’s evident that Facebook and YouTube largely control the landscape of social media, creating a substantial monopoly with little to no competition. These dominant platforms tend to favor left-leaning content, leaving minimal space for conservative voices. While there are outlets like Fox News, One America Network, NewsMax, conservative websites, and numerous talk radio stations, they are overshadowed by the multitude of mainstream liberal media entities such as ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and major newspaper companies.
Once an individual gets deplatformed by one or all three of the social media giants, including Twitter, they lose the audience they once had and their influence within the internet mainstream media. This loss of reach is a critical factor in determining the success of any media platform—mass reach is paramount..
While banned individuals could potentially start their own social media platform, lacking substantial capital to compete would make it challenging to sustain an audience, let alone succeed. This situation aligns with the endgame of the social media giants
As the mainstream media is predominantly controlled by left-wing corporations, there’s an underlying motive to silence and penalize opposing views while promoting their progressive agenda. With the 2020 elections on the horizon, aiming to prevent a repeat of 2016, these social media giants are relentless in their efforts to suppress conservative voices. Consequently, Facebook has targeted the most outspoken conservative voices they label as ‘Dangerous Individuals’ as a primary action
Facebook has implemented a new and startling form of censorship: if a user shares a link expressing support for any banned individual or organization, their post will be removed. Continued sharing could result in a ban for the user. This practice, known as Link-Banning, further illustrates the platform’s aim to control dissenting perspectives. The metaphorical Iron Curtain has descended upon conservatives, tightening control over their expression
“Furthermore, according to a Facebook spokesperson speaking to CNN, there’s a possibility that individuals who praised or supported the now-banned accounts could face content restrictions.” Essentially, the approach extends beyond merely banning conservative personalities; it also encompasses restricting their supporters.
Facebook’s recent actions establish a concerning precedent, tantamount to an assault on the First Amendment. When colossal corporations like Facebook and YouTube dictate permissible ideologies and bans, it paves the way for social media tyranny. What measures could counter this? Options include government intervention through rigorous regulations and substantial taxes, fostering competition from equivalent platforms, or even a boycott. Finding a solution won’t be simple, but change is imperative before progressive social media silences all conservative voices.
