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 ...
All of their content is readily available, to anyone who wants it.
Any time they want it.
Very well stated.
But I wonder if your position — the principled position — is correct.
Ours is an imperfect world. Does being consistently principled win in the long run? Or do we need to occasionally forsake our principles in order to save ourselves and our principles?
For instance, what happens if we stand by while the left silences conservative speech in the private domain? What if they use that advantage to then silence conservative speech using the power of government?
No one likes the idea of using the state to protect private speech. But the question is WHERE DOES THIS LEAD. What is the end game?
If standing on principle now leads to permanent destruction of principle later, then standing on principle now is unwise.
AWESOME!
MUST-READ
BUMP
Let's say such a site exists, but the web site server decides they don't like their content or perhaps they are getting more traffic than Facebook. All they have to do is pull the plug on that website and voila, more censorship! And that's exactly what's happening with Alex Jones' actual website now!
So no matter what conservatives do, liberal / socialist / communist / anti-God / deep State thinkers are devising more and more ways of suppressing the good people like you and me, trying to suppress the vote, and thereby doing exactly what they are accusing you and me of doing!
If it’s so easy to set up a competitor, go do it.
That’s the problem. By the time we get a competitor up and running, assuming it can even be done, it’s probably too late.
mewe.com
Come join the freedom. PragerU should do the same.
Free Republic Group on MeWe:
https://mewe.com/group/5ae200940f99140aa43187fa
See RealVideo.com
It seems to me that this MAY possibly be a Rule 10b-5 violation.
Liability arises under Rule 10b-5 when the party, here the corporation, acts with scienter, “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” (Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 197, 201 (1975))
Scienter has been held to include reckless conduct. (Sundstrand Corp. v. Sun Chemical Corp., 553 F.2d 1033, 1045 (7th Cir. 1977)) If it can be successfully argued that Facebook’s biased censorship practices are “reckless” in light of their broader business model as a publicly-held, publicly-accessible social media platform, the Facebook is exposed to Class Action under Rule 10b-5.
Also, Rule 10b-5(b) prohibits material misrepresentations and half-truths. An omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding whether to buy or sell the company’s stock. (Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 231-32 (1988)) If Facebook’s biased censorship practices are not fully disclosed in — if they are omitted from — the company’s prospectus, and a reasonable shareholder would decline to purchase Facebook stock if those biased censorship practices were known, then the omission is material, and that omission — contrasted with now-known actual practice — may provide basis for securities fraud litigation under Rule 10b-5.
That’s deflection. I didn’t share my position. I actually largely agree with your stated position. Doesn’t change the fact that you primarily criticize the right and defend the left. That’s fascinating. I wonder why.
As is your right, even though it is an opinion forum.
That also may be why I said nothing about your stance other than you’re conflating defense of private property rights with defense of the left.
Doesn’t change the fact that you primarily criticize the right and defend the left.
A charge which would have more weight if you had an example of me defending the left.
Your accusation about me conflating issue was just you flinging feces. You had nothing too go on.
Here’s a compliment for you. You’re good at what you do. (Just not good enough to evade detection by those who notice patterns.$
Understand and agree - some (most) of my comment was aimed at those who think the Constitution has a “Noble Cause” clause...they complain about valid issues then complain that they can’t do things they want because of the constitutional constraints that are in place....kind of like the NIMBY folks who insist we have wind farms but they don’t want their own view tainted.
Just like people have found a way to deal with Westboro Baptists without resorting to the govt, we will need to be smart in dealing with FB et al.
The left is in control of most online posting, and is going crazy with their new power. They hate the fact that you and I think thoughts that they dislike. They are drunk with power.
They deliberately and intentionally favor jihadis and other America haters and suppress normal peoples’ thoughts.
Find Praeger U online, and watch Praeger’s chats. Anyone who would suppress him deserves to spend the rest of their lives in a gulag.
Exactly. It they censor or promote content, then they are responsible for the postings and the actions they provoke. They OWN the postings. When a jihadi posts that he is going to blow up humans, and it’s posted at FB, then FB MUST be prosecuted.
No exceptions.
“Hate speech” is “speech that liberals dislike”.
The Left will then go after the ISP’s......................
IOW, SATAN..............................
* - Apply the antitrust laws against Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. The last President from New York City, Theodore Roosevelt, was a trust buster against Big Rail, Big Steel, and Big Oil. Trump should do the same against Big Tech.
* - Impose common carrier rules on Big Tech. If the telephone company or the electric company could not shut down, say, the John Birch Society or the George Wallace campaign 50 years ago for any reason other than nonpayment of bills for service, neither should Big Tech be able to shut down Infowars, Prager U, etc., for any reason other than nonpayment for services rendered.
* - Have the Federal Election Commission prosecute Big Tech for in-kind contributions to the Democrats through their practices of shadow banning Republicans and conservatives, thereby giving advantage to Democrat competitors.
BINGO!
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.