Posted on 08/17/2018 2:11:12 PM PDT by Red Badger
Conservative non-profit group PragerU appears to be facing Facebook censorship, as many recent posts from group are suffering from a 99.9999 percent drop in engagement based on Facebook’s own dashboard. The Social Media Masters of the Universe also pulled down two PragerU videos, which it labeled “hate speech.”
Echoing the apparent page limitation of conservative commentating duo Diamond and Silk, the conservative non-profit group PragerU — which produces educational videos on conservative issues — appears to have found its Facebook page’s reach drastically limited. The group’s Facebook page boasts three million followers, but its most recent posts have been seen by almost none of its followers, according to the Facebook dashboard.
PragerU social media influencer Will Witt posted a screenshot of the Facebook page’s dashboard which shows a number of statistics relating to posts from the page, including the reach posts have and how many users have clicked on links in the posts. According to the photos posted by Witt, PragerU’s last nine posts have reached between one and three of their followers. Previous posts have reached between 50,000 and 95,000 of PragerU’s followers.
Witt also posted a number of screenshots of PragerU videos that have been removed by Facebook for “hate speech.” The videos that were removed include one titled “Make Men Masculine Again,” and “Where are the Moderate Muslims?”
Witt said in his Facebook post: “Our last 9 posts have been completely censored reaching 0 of our 3 million followers. At least two of our video posts were deleted last night for “hate speech” including a post of our recent video with The Conservative Millennial, Make Men Masculine Again.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The good news is the 1st Amendment provides pretty good protection for publishers.
Or the dev himself, whichever crashes first.
FB is a hipster circle-jerk -- if you're not putting in evenings from home and constant appearances at the gym rat scrums at 5am you're gonna sink fast.
Agreed 100%. Any attempt to compare Dennis Prager with Alex Jones is like comparing the MD Anderson Cancer Center with a 19th century snake oil salesman. I can’t boycott Facebook since I have never been on it, but conservatives need to get off it.
Why do you primarily criticize the right and defend the left? Fascinating.
They're wrong. In fact, when they try to send a message across their fan base, FB has an algorithm whereby only a fraction of those who "liked" their page get the message...unless they boost it for $25.
The same generally holds true for other commercial enterprises...they don't "own" their likes. This is why many entities maintain their own website where they "own" their fans' email addresses etc.
This is not some mystery...LOTS of web pages are devoted to this situation. Now, if you are arguing the Feds should get involved via the Commerce Clause, we have a YUGE problem.
My guess is if enterprises leave FB, they'll quickly find that it's smarter move to build their own presence and website. I suspect Alex Jones is now reaping the benefit of him being cut off, and we can only hope it hastens a greater exodus.
It’s feeling more and more like 1984.
Maybe that might get Facebook's attention?
I have a page over at MeWe. It’s not FaceBook, yet, mostly because it doesn’t have nearly the traffic. But if a lot of people create pages there,it will grow and FaceBook will become like the old MySpace.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are “per se” violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are “per se” violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.
Would Anti-Trust laws apply here? They busted up Bell South for much less than this.
Facebook is a website. FreeRepublic is a website. The former is for fags. I come here to enjoy the absence of faggotry. FR is the anti-FB.
I dont like Prager. I think a lot of his info isn’t correct. But I dont think he should be censored.
They are a free service and can do what they please, IMO. Everyone is free to cancel their non-existent subscription and try doing something else.
It’s a shame these jerks at fb, twitter, etc., are so simple-minded. Congress will get involved soon, I think.
I’ve noticed that happens to several posts.
They can do what they please.
You’re wrong. Fact.
Absolutely right.
I’d find it fascinating that you confuse supporting property rights with defending the left if it wasn’t so common on these threads.
I generally agree.
FB, however, has reached a critical mass in which “Their, user generated content” owned by FB, is being allocated to other users as Facebook sees fit.
They are either a “Platform” or a “Publisher”, they can’t be both.
If/as FB makes editorial decisions they become a publisher, and there are laws regarding that.
I found this FR post very entertaining.
HUD Hits Facebook With Administrative Complaint, Alleging Housing Discrimination
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3680134/posts
Filed on Aug. 14, HUD’s administrative complaint alleges that both the social media company’s ad targeting tools and user classification enable the limitation of ad audiences on characteristics “outright prohibited” by the Federal Housing Administration, said the government’s formal statement of interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.