Tag Archives: Facebook

Facebook censors admit that they suppress Republican content to help Democrat Party

Facebook content moderator explains how she censors Republican content as "terrorism"
Facebook content moderator explains that Republican content is “terrorism”

Project Veritas meets with members of the secular left and get them to talk on camera about how they discriminate against conservatives in order to help Democrats win elections. In this post, we’ll look at their latest sting of Facebook, and review some of Facebook’s censorship of Christians (e.g. – Seth Gruber, Franklin Graham) and conservatives (e.g. – Live Action, PragerU).

Life News reported on the new Project Veritas video:

The Civic Harassment Queue was a list of all the posts that had been flagged for violations of the Community Guidelines. McElroy said, “So, for 75 to 80 percent of the posts to be targeting Republicans and conservatives, you can say it was a bot. But somebody had to design that algorithm. So really, somebody at Facebook.”

[…]An unnamed moderator said that it’s “common sense” to delete posts that have #MAGA in them.

One journalist asked, “If you see a conservative post you just get rid of it, right?” The unnamed moderator responded, saying, “Yes! I don’t give no f*cks, I’ll delete it.”

Another content moderator said:

 “Facebook shadowbans. Facebook is notorious for it, they say they don’t but, it’s clear that people’s content don’t come because it’s been de-filtered off the queue.”

Someone asked on camera, “How many of you are like, take your own stance and say we’re just deleting whatever, all the Trump posts?” An unnamed moderator said, “There are probably like 16 of us.”

A service delivery manager was reportedly caught on camera saying, “Gotta get the Cheeto (Trump) out of office.”

[…]He took screenshots of a memo saying that a poster which showed President Donald Trump’s head being cut off would not be flagged as hate speech. A meme that showed a cartoon of Elmer Fudd shooting at former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke was allegedly flagged as hate speech.

In another screenshot, one memo read, “CNN host Don Lemon recently said ‘white men are the biggest terror threat in this country.’ This is implying that white men are terrorists and so would typically violate (HS Tier 1-2 1:6 dehumanizing speech). As this is a newsworthy event, FB’s content policy team is allowing a exception for this content on the platform.”

The video from Project Veritas features about a dozen content moderators (censors) from Facebook, admitting that they deliberately censor Republican content. My favorite is the woman who says that anything pro-Trump is “terrorism”.

Here’s the full video released by Project Veritas, which features conversations with a dozen Facebook content moderators.

Previously, I’ve blogged about other cases of Facebook censoring Christians and conservatives.

Live Action reported:

In yet another apparent attempt to silence pro-lifers, Facebook has removed a post created by Seth Gruber of Life Training Insitute. Gruber had interviewed abortion survivor Melissa Ohden and was sharing information about the interview on his personal Facebook page when he was sent a warning message from the social media giant — and his post was removed.

Fox News reports on another case of Facebook censoring conservatives:

Four Republican senators blasted Facebook for ‘censorship’ over the tech giant’s recent fact check of pro-life organization Live Action.

In a letter today to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ted Cruz of Texas, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Mike Braun of Indiana condemn the company’s “pattern of censorship” and demand that it issue a correction, remove any restrictions placed on Live Action and its founder Lila Rose, as well as submit to a “meaningful” external audit.

The Washington Times reports:

The Rev. Franklin Graham was kicked off Facebook for defending North Carolina’s “bathroom bill,” which the social-media giant’s review team decided was hate speech.

Facebook acknowledged over the weekend it had banned the prominent evangelist over transgender issues… But Mr. Graham was having none of it Sunday, calling the move “a personal attack towards me” and an example of the censorship that Silicon Valley has in store for Christians and/or conservatives.

And this one from the Daily Caller:

Facebook is censoring PragerU videos for violating its speech codes that prohibit so-called “hate speech” and shadow banning its posts, PragerU wrote on Twitter Friday.

“We’re being heavily censored on @Facebook. Our last 9 posts are reaching 0 of our 3 million followers. At least two videos were deleted last night for ‘hate speech’ including our recent video with @ConservativeMillen,” PragerU tweeted.

And then there is the previous Project Veritas sting of Facebook, where it emerged that official company documents said that efforts to censor Republicans was important to do, especially in an election year. That makes it clear that Facebook’s intention is to get the Democrat Party elected.

The previous investigation found this:

Project Veritas has obtained and published documents and presentation materials from a former Facebook insider. This information describes how Facebook engineers plan and go about policing political speech. Screenshots from a Facebook workstation show the specific technical actions taken against political figures, as well as “[e]xisting strategies” taken to combat political speech.

[…]According to the insider, the documents revealed a routine suppression of the distribution of conservative Facebook pages. The technical action she repeatedly saw, and for which Project Veritas was provided documentation, was labeled ActionDeboostLiveDistribution.

Said the insider, “I would see [this term] appear on several different conservative pages. I first noticed it with an account that I can’t remember, but I remember once I started looking at it, I also saw it on Mike Cernovich’s page, saw it on Steven Crowder’s page, as well as the Daily Caller’s page.”

[…]The insider says that unlike many actions that Facebook content moderators can take against pages, the “deboost” action, which appears to occur algorithmically, does not notify the page’s owner.

[…]Upon further review, the insider says she did not notice the tag on any left-wing pages.

Everything that hurts the Democrats is “terrorism” and has to be “de-boosted”, especially “in an election year”.

It’s easy for Big Tech executives to go to Washington and lie about whether their companies are censoring or not, but the evidence speaks for itself. We should be investigating them right now, while we still have the Senate and time before the election. Wake up Republicans! Investigate them and hold them accountable.

Facebook censors interview with abortion survivor to help Democrats win 2020 election

Facebook censoring pro-life content, because it's an election year!
Facebook censoring pro-life content, because it’s an election year!

On Monday, Facebook decided to censor a well-known pro-lifer who had an interview with a well-known abortion survivor. I have an idea why Facebook might be interested in censoring pro-lifers in an election year. It’s because Silicon Valley / Seattle Big Tech has a preferred candidate, and he is very opposed to protecting the unborn from violence.

Here’s the story from Live Action:

In yet another apparent attempt to silence pro-lifers, Facebook has removed a post created by Seth Gruber of Life Training Insitute. Gruber had interviewed abortion survivor Melissa Ohden and was sharing information about the interview on his personal Facebook page when he was sent a warning message from the social media giant — and his post was removed.

Facebook told Gruber that his Facebook post, seen below in two screenshots, went “against our community standards on spam.”

“We have these standards to help prevent people from misleading others,” the notification stated. “We may restrict your account if you violate our standards again.”

Now, this is not a fringe pro-life person. This person has actually testified before Congress. Here is the page from House of Representatives web site.

Censorship is not unusual for Facebook, especially during an election year:

Facebook has a history of censoring pro-life groups and individuals, including Live Action and Live Action President Lila Rose. Even Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called last year’s censorship of Live Action by Facebook and its third-party abortionist fact checkersclearly biased.”

I blogged previously about how we know that Facebook steps up their censorship of Republicans during election years.

One reason why Facebook censors might be cracking down on pro-lifers is because their preferred candidate, Pete, is so strongly in favor of abortion. So let’s look at some of Pete’s views on abortion to see why his Facebook supporters might want to censor pro-lifers in order to influence the election.

LifeNews:

Over the weekend, pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg created a nationwide controversy when he refused to welcome pro-life Democrats into the party. Now he’s creating another controversy — by refusing to condemn infanticide.

[…]Last year, he failed to condemn legislation in two states, New York and Virginia, that legalized abortions up to birth, and even infanticide.

Different LifeNews:

Pete Buttigieg wants to force American taxpayers to pay for the killing of unborn babies, not only in America but all across the world.

The former South Bend, Indiana mayor and Democrat presidential candidate spoke about his plans during a private event with Planned Parenthood abortion activists Sunday in Nevada, according to the Washington Times.

Buttigieg told the abortion activists that his plan for national health care would “support, reimburse and fund” abortions and family planning.

[…]Earlier, Buttigieg also said he would end the Mexico City policy, which prohibits U.S. international aid to groups that promote and/or provide abortions. When President Donald Trump enacted the Mexico City policy, he defunded two of the largest abortion chains in the world, Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International, of nearly $200 million American tax dollars.

Pete has a lot of billionaire supporters in Silicon Valley. Instead of Pete, I would much rather have this guy in the White House:

Pro-life President Donald J. Trump and his Administration have established more pro-life policies than any other president in history.

Ever.

In recognition of President Trump’s many pro-life achievements, on July 4, 2019, on the eve of its 49th annual convention, the National Right to Life Committee, the federation of state right-to-life affiliates and local chapters, endorsed pro-life President Donald Trump for his re-election.

On that day, Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president, said

“As our nation celebrates Independence Day, we are proud to endorse the only presidential candidate who stands for the unalienable right to life. From his first day in office, President Trump and his Administration have been dedicated to advancing policies that protect the fundamental right to life for the unborn, the elderly, and the medically dependent and disabled.”

One of the President’s first acts in office was to restore the Mexico City Policy, which prevents tax funds from being given to organizations that perform abortions or lobby to change abortion laws of host countries. Later, the president expanded this policy to prevent $9 billion in foreign aid from being used to fund the global abortion industry.

The Trump Administration also cut off funding to the United Nations Population Fund because of that agency’s involvement with China’s forced abortion program.

On this day we celebrate fewer tax dollars going toward pro-abortion policies because of President Trump’s policies.

President Trump pledged “to veto any legislation that weakens current pro-life federal policies and laws, or that encourages the destruction of innocent human life at any state.”

President Trump is committed to signing pro-life legislation, including

  • The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act;
  • The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act; and
  • The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

On this day we celebrate the lives that will be saved due to President Trump’s pro-life policies.

See the difference between the parties?

Facebook uses pro-abortion “fact checkers” to label pro-life pages “fake news”

Facebook banned Franklin Graham for "hate speech"
Facebook banned evangelist Franklin Graham for “hate speech”

Recently, this blog’s Facebook page reached 5000 likes. We were immediately hit with a fact-check by a secular leftist, who labeled an  satirical meme image as “fake news”. Facebook informed me that they would be lowering our distribution for not being secular leftists. In fact, Facebook is censoring anyone who disagrees with the Democrat party, because the 2020 election is almost here.

Here’s the story from the Daily Caller:

Live Action founder and President Lila Rose said Facebook allowed abortionists to fact check Live Action content and label it as misinformation.

Facebook cited a fact check from two third-party fact checkers, telling Rose and Live Action that their statement “abortion is never medically necessary” was both inaccurate and misleading.

The Aug. 30 fact check, published in Health Feedback, targeted an August 9 video that included the statement “abortion is never medically necessary.” Another video shared by Live Action featuring Dr. Kendra Kolb explaining why abortion is never medically necessary was also fact checked.

Live Action’s page was punished for posting “fake news”, according to Facebook’s pro-abortion “fact-checkers”. There is no way to appeal a fact-check.

Live Action decided to make their case known to the Republican party, and they have responded.

Fox News reports:

Four Republican senators blasted Facebook for ‘censorship’ over the tech giant’s recent fact check of pro-life organization Live Action.

In a letter today to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ted Cruz of Texas, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Mike Braun of Indiana condemn the company’s “pattern of censorship” and demand that it issue a correction, remove any restrictions placed on Live Action and its founder Lila Rose, as well as submit to a “meaningful” external audit.

Let’s look at two Facebook “fact checkers”, and an example of their “fact-checking” and see how objective and non-partisan they are.

Let’s look at the first far-left Facebook partner: Politifact. Politifact is just a group of journalists from the Tampa Bay Times newspaper.

Avik Roy, health care policy expert at Forbes magazine, writes about Politifact’s assessment of Obama’s promise to Americans about keeping their health plans after Obamacare.

2008 PolitiFact before the election: ‘We rate his statement True’

Roy writes: (links removed)

On October 9, 2008, Angie Drobnic Holan of PolitiFact published an article using the site’s “Truth-O-Meter” to evaluate this claim: “Under Barack Obama’s health care proposal, ‘if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it.’” The article assures us in its headline that “Obama’s plan expands [the] existing system,” and continues that “Obama is accurately describing his health care plan here…It remains to be seen whether Obama’s plan will actually be able to achieve the cost savings it promises for the health care system. But people who want to keep their current insurance should be able to do that under Obama’s plan. His description of his plan is accurate, and we rate his statement True.”

[…]As per PolitiFact’s usual M.O., Holan didn’t seek out any skeptical health-policy experts to suss out the veracity of Senator Obama’s signature claim. Instead, its sources included Jonathan Cohn, a passionate Obamacare supporter at The New Republic, and various interviews and statements of Mr. Obama. Holan simply took the “keep your plan” promise at face value, dismissing as dishonest anyone who dared suggest that Obama’s claim would be impossible to keep. “His opponents have attacked his plan as ‘government-run’ health care,” she wrote, the scare-quotes around “government-run” being visible to all.

PolitiFact’s pronouncements about Obamacare were widely repeated by pro-Obama reporters and pundits, and had a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election. Indeed, in 2009, PolitiFact won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 campaign.

Here’s the screen capture from 2008:

Politifact caught with its pants on fire
Politifact caught with its pants on fire

Before the election, it’s true! And Obama got re-elected, because people believed that. But what happened after the election?

2013 PolitiFact after the election: ‘We rate his statement Pants On Fire’

Roy writes: (links removed)

On December 12, [2013] the self-appointed guardians of truth and justice at PolitiFact named President Obama’s infamous promise—that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”—its 2013 “Lie of the Year.”

[…]On November 4, Jacobson rated as “Pants on Fire” the President’s new claim that “what we said was, you can keep [your plan] if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.” Both pieces were edited by Angie Drobnic Holan, who had initially granted PolitiFact’s seal of approval to Senator Obama’s 2008 promise. Holan delivered the coup de grâce, declaring as PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” the “keep your plan” promise.

“The promise was impossible to keep,” says Holan in her December piece. Now she tells us! But none of the key facts that made that promise “impossible” in 2008 had changed by 2013. The President’s plan had always required major disruption of the health insurance market; the Obamacare bill contained the key elements of that plan; the Obamacare law did as well. The only thing that had changed was the actual first-hand accounts of millions of Americans who were losing their plans now that Obamacare was live.

And the screen capture from 2013:

Politifact says: we were just kidding! Kidding!
Politifact says: we were just kidding! Kidding!

So when Politifact rates a statement by a Democrat as true, what they really mean is that it’s pants-on-fire-false, except when Politifact wants to collude with the Democrat party to influence elections.

What about Snopes?

The Daily Caller explains:

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

[…]She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”

[…]Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.

It’s groups like far-left groups like Politifact and Snopes who are spotting “fake news” for Facebook.

Facebook bans Christian apologist David Wood for posting the death threats he received

Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter purging conservative speech (Source: The Stream)
Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter purging conservative speech (Source: The Stream)

I got banned from Facebook for 3 days this past week, for a post that I shared on my personal account to my 45 friends. I’ll tell you what I posted below, but more important than me is famous Christian apologist David Wood. He received several suspensions from Facebook for posting threats he received, and for being critical of N*zism. Finally, he just quit entirely.

Here is his video on YouTube, which he explains what got him banned four times in a row:

He shows the five things in particular:

  • he posted a threat from someone who wanted to r*pe his mother in front of him
  • he posted a historical photo showing Hitl*r with his ideological allies
  • he posted another threat from someone who wanted to r*pe his wife in front of him
  • he posted another threat from someone who wanted to “chop chop chop” his head off
  • he posted another historical photo of someone dissenting from N*zism

So what can we infer from this? Well, if Facebook was angry at the people who posted the r*pe threats and the death threats, then they would have taken on those people. But Facebook censored David, the victim of those threats, instead. And similarly with the shaming of N*zis. If they disagreed with the N*zis, they could have let David’s posts stay. They decided to censor David instead. I think it’s pretty clear what that means.

By the way, if you would like to learn more about the people who Facebook favors over David Wood, this excellent article from The Daily Caller will prove helpful.

My 3-day suspension from Facebook

I also got a 3-day suspension from Facebook last week, for posting a video of several men rescuing a dog who was stuck in some flowing water and in danger of drowning. I originally posted it on Twitter, and I made two points above the video. First, I explained why I thought that it was wrong for everyone to shame all men for t*xic masculinity, when clearly some men were using their masculinity for good. Second, I said that the women who found men to be t*xic should remember that they often choose those men. I then took a screenshot of the tweet, and posted it on my personal account on Facebook, where ONLY my 45 close friends who know me in real life could see it. This was not posted to the blog’s public page, but to my personal page, to an audience of 45 people.

Here’s the video:

You can see why Facebook would ban this, it makes masculinity look good. And that’s against Facebook’s Communisty Standards. And you can’t tell women who complain about men to just avoid the ones who are dangerous, because that would imply that women have some responsibility to make wise choices. I think they do, but Facebook disagrees with me, and thinks I should be banned.

Well, I asked around, and I found that no one had complained about the post. But apparently, Facebook found that it opposed their “Communisty Standards”, so I got banned anyway.

Going forward

So what did I learn from this? Well, I learned to keep voting Republican, because they’re the only ones who seem to be concerned with censorship by the big social media companies. And that’s probably because the censorship by fascist companies like Facebook always seems to go in one direction – against Christians, against conservatives.

I think anyone who wants to make a difference on this misandry issue should consider sharing news stories, videos, etc. that put good men in a positive light. It’s important to intentionally counteract the cesspool of the secular left by promoting good content. Anything that shows a happy marriage, good use of legal firearms for self-defense, a family with a lot of children, homeschooling children, long-lasting marriage, chastity, etc. is bad for the secular left, and therefore bad for Facebook. Post all the good stuff you can.

By the way, you can find me here on MeWe and Minds, if you want to connect with me there. Those platforms don’t censor Christians or conservatives.

Facebook censors criticism of Democrat Party, especially before “important elections”

Big social media companies like Google, YouTube and Twitter are very open about censoring and shadow-banning conservative voices. These companies do not support free speech or ideological diversity. They are careful to hire only those who share their secular leftism and fascism. But sometimes, one accidentally hires a non-fascist, and we get a glimpse at the internal workings of company.

Here’s Project Veritas, doing the journalism that the mainstream media won’t do:

Project Veritas has obtained and published documents and presentation materials from a former Facebook insider. This information describes how Facebook engineers plan and go about policing political speech. Screenshots from a Facebook workstation show the specific technical actions taken against political figures, as well as “[e]xisting strategies” taken to combat political speech.

[…]According to the insider, the documents revealed a routine suppression of the distribution of conservative Facebook pages. The technical action she repeatedly saw, and for which Project Veritas was provided documentation, was labeled ActionDeboostLiveDistribution. Said the insider, “I would see [this term] appear on several different conservative pages. I first noticed it with an account that I can’t remember, but I remember once I started looking at it, I also saw it on Mike Cernovich’s page, saw it on Steven Crowder’s page, as well as the Daily Caller’s page.”

Conservative commentator Steven Crowder’s page had been suppressed before in April 2016, and Crowder told Project Veritas they settled a dispute related to the issue with Facebook out of court. Asked for comment on this story, Steven Crowder’s attorney Bill Richmond said:

“Louder With Crowder is investigating the allegations of concealed stream throttling by Facebook. The accusations are deeply troubling given the previously settled dispute with Facebook uncovered by Gizmodo.com, which found the show was targeted by Facebook workers with secret audience restrictions on political grounds alongside other prominent conservative voices.”

A screenshot of an action log on Mike Cernovich’s Facebook page provided by the insider, shows the tag. The insider believes that the “deboost” code suppresses the distribution of livestream videos on Facebook. Project Veritas spoke to a current Facebook employee off the record who said that the code could limit a video’s visibility in news feeds, remove sharing features, and disable interactive notifications.

When approached for comment, author and filmmaker Mike Cernovich said the troubling issue is that Facebook could just “make stuff up” about people through these systems. “Facebook, or an individual at Facebook, has the unilateral power to create false allegations against someone he or she doesn’t like. The person accused not only can’t do anything about the allegation, they don’t even have an idea the allegation was made,” said Cernovich.

The insider says that unlike many actions that Facebook content moderators can take against pages, the “deboost” action, which appears to occur algorithmically, does not notify the page’s owner.

[…]Upon further review, the insider says she did not notice the tag on any left-wing pages.

Here’s a screencap of one the documents that was leaked:

Facebook doesn't want people to see conservative videos
Facebook doesn’t want people to see conservative videos

So, the question is, what is that “example video”, which Facebook says is “troll behavior” that must be censored? Well, it’s a video produced by a mainstream conservative journalist who works for The Blaze, a mainstream conservative news site:

The video linked in the presentation was made by Lauren Chen, a conservative commentator who now hosts a program on BlazeTV. “If you actually watch the video you can see that it clearly isn’t abusive or promoting harassment, the video was a criticism of social justice,” said Chen when asked for comment on this story. She added that “the video actually promotes equality and individualism.”

What’s the purpose of all of this censorship? Why, to suppress conservative voices before important elections, of course:

Yamamoto and de la Rubia’s presentation says that “troll accounts,” can have their internet bandwidth limited and experience forced glitches like frequent “auto-logout[s]” and the failed upload of comments. These “special features” would be triggered “leading up to important elections.”

This isn’t the first time that Facebook has been caught censoring conservatives in order to help their allies in the Democrat Party.

Remember this story about Franklin Graham?

Facebook banned Franklin Graham for "hate speech"
Facebook banned Franklin Graham for “hate speech”

The Washington Times reports:

The Rev. Franklin Graham was kicked off Facebook for defending North Carolina’s “bathroom bill,” which the social-media giant’s review team decided was hate speech.

Facebook acknowledged over the weekend it had banned the prominent evangelist over transgender issues and called the 24-hour ban a mistake that it had already undone. But Mr. Graham was having none of it Sunday, calling the move “a personal attack towards me” and an example of the censorship that Silicon Valley has in store for Christians and/or conservatives.

A spokesman for Facebook told the Charlotte Observer on condition of anonymity that the review team had decided a 2016 post violated rules against “dehumanizing language” and exclusion of people based on, among other things, sexual orientation and gender self-identification. The post was deleted and Mr. Graham prevented from using the service for 24 hours.

I guess Facebook thinks that anyone who is serious about Christianity needs to be “de-boosted”, i.e. – have their free speech censored by fascists on the secular left.

And what about this article from the Daily Caller:

Facebook is censoring PragerU videos for violating its speech codes that prohibit so-called “hate speech” and shadow banning its posts, PragerU wrote on Twitter Friday.

“We’re being heavily censored on @Facebook. Our last 9 posts are reaching 0 of our 3 million followers. At least two videos were deleted last night for ‘hate speech’ including our recent video with @ConservativeMillen,” PragerU tweeted.

The official PragerU Facebook page is still up on Facebook at the time of publication. Its Facebook page reposts the same videos consistently and others can still be found on the page.

However, it appears that one specific PragerU social media administrator — the one who posted the videos that Facebook considered violated its “hate speech” policies — is unable to post on behalf of PragerU, resulting only other PragerU administrators being able to see the post. No one else can see the posts.

What kind of people work at Facebook? They are not moral people. They do not understand basic human rights. They do not respect free speech and they don’t value diversity of opinion. They are ignorant, intolerant, close-minded, bigoted fascists.