Here come the censors. When I decided to try again with Facebook to promote my site’s content and help spread the message of liberty, I was skeptical as to how long this dance would last. My previous account had been blocked for posting “hate speech” and “fake news,” and any attempts to create a new account were immediately thwarted by Facebook’s IP tracking algorithms. After 2 years, I tried again, without using a phone number and by creating a new email with a VPN. In the end, my relationship with Facebook only lasted 5 months and went from “complicated” to “single” in the span of 24 hours.
Today I got to see firsthand how Facebook’s censorship program works. Facebook has hired “independent fact-checkers” to label any posts they deem as “false news” with a warning from Facebook. Facebook does not tell you when they labeled these posts as “false,” instead, they wait until they have a few complaints, and immediately restrict your page from posting anything, even if it is in a private Facebook group.
Prior to my page being banned, I received several threatening messages from an obvious troll account that they had “labeled my page as fake news,” and “you’re going down.” Once I had banned this account from the page, a new account with the same name and different spelling was created, once again posting negative, threatening comments on my page. Within 1 day of this interaction, I received my first warning from Facebook.
Facebook had a problem with two specific posts. The first post was related to the Australian wildfires with an article from Summit.News by Paul Joseph Watson which reported on information that some of these fires were intentionally set. Facebook retorted that “climate change is real,” and flagged the post.
The second post was related to the potential dangers of 5G technology, from a supposed utility worker who posted his opinions on YouTube. There is plenty of information that points to 5G technology being dangerous. I will provide rebuttal sources below, with sources that could easily be sourced in a collegiate journal. Facebook’s “source” has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Regardless of whether my opinion pieces are credible or not, I have the right to post them on a public forum. Facebook claims to be the “public square.” How has the Supreme Court ruled on censorship in the public square, even if it is on private property?
In 1945, a Jehovah’s Witness was handing out religious pamphlets on a sidewalk that was privately owned by a company-owned town. Chickasaw, Alabama was owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. They warned Ms. Marsh (appellant) that she could not distribute her pamphlets anywhere in their town. She was charged with unlawful trespassing.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled in Marsh’s favor, with a 5-3 vote. The court said: “Whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses a town, the public, in either case, has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free.” You can read the full opinion here.
Although the current court has indicated that they do not believe that Facebook and Twitter are “public squares,” but “private property,” the owners of these social media giants have publicly stated otherwise:
- Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, claimed in 2019 that the company’s vision is to shift the social network’s structure from a “town square” to the “digital equivalent of your living room.” His goal is to organize users into “smaller groups.” From a data perspective, this simply an attempt to gain more information from user associations.
- Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, told Rollingstone Magazine in 2019 that he was well aware that his users saw Twitter as a “public square.” In response to censorship claims, he painted an analogy of what he saw happening in a public park as it relates to free speech: “…if someone gets up on a little soapbox, with a megaphone, and starts yelling, a crowd comes around them and listens. That person can also yell across the park and say, ‘Hey, you idiot, yeah, you, I’m talking to you, come over here.’ Then it’s really harassing behavior and people notice that, and they’re like, “Hey, man, don’t do that. Stop.” And then there’s the park police as well, who maintain the standard of decency within the park.”
Let us take Jack’s analogy further, by comparing it to his current strategy for “policing speech.” Many Conservative Twitter users have been shadowbanned simply for posting alternative opinions to the mainstream’s Marxist political narrative. So, with Jack’s example, this is the equivalent of the police removing citizens from the park for simply speaking from an alternative viewpoint.
Similar to the case of Marsh v. Alabama, it is obvious to anyone with a pulse and a keyboard that Facebook and Twitter are indeed modern “public town halls,” where citizens actively engage with government officials and other citizens and have a vested interest in the maintenance of the community. Government officials and institutions regularly use Facebook and Twitter to inform the public about current events. If Donald Trump can be told by a Federal Appeals Court that he cannot censor or block users due to his status as a government official, then the platform itself cannot act in the same way, with prejudice.
This is the issue of our time. As Dave Chappelle recently told a crowd while accepting the Mark Twain award, “the second amendment is there just in case we are not allowed to use the first.” What Dave is saying is that the 1st amendment serves as a “pressure release valve” where citizens can vent their frustrations, their concerns, their creativity–in order to channel their words into positive outcomes. We all need to vent sometimes. What Facebook and Twitter are doing is equivalent to transforming the public square of America and the world into a giant pressure cooker. Our government was founded on the idea that the government’s only purpose is to protect American citizen’s natural rights. If that government works to subvert citizens’ rights, instead of guarding them, that government should be replaced, as the Declaration of Independence dictates.
The Conservatarian Press will no longer be utilizing social media to promote content from The Last Historian.
The 2020 election hangs in the balance as Donald Trump has done absolutely nothing regarding censorship from big tech. If Donald Trump cannot defend his supporters, why should we defend him? If he does not tackle this issue prior to November, his base will lose their voice, which will undoubtedly have an impact on the election results.A psychologist claimed that google had effectively donated millions of votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 with their algorithms that skewed results for users. Without a doubt, this could happen again, on a larger scale in 2020 with Facebook and Twitter’s renewed focus on silencing conservatives, libertarians, and Trump supporters.
Correcting the Record/Editor’s Note:
I will write a separate article addressing the concerns doctors and technology experts have expressed with 5G technology. There are several credible sources that show 5G tech can have serious effects on the human body:
- Lennart Hardell PhD of University Hospital Sweden issued a letter to the EU with his concerns about 5G radio technology, namely that “harmful effects of RF-EMF exposure have already been proven” and “…5G radio technology can only be utilized at short ranges, which demands antennas in every building, residential and commercial, consequently increasing everyone’s direct exposure.”
- Over 230 scientists from 40 different countries have expressed their concerns with this technology.
- CBS reported in 2019 that upset parents at a California elementary school forced Spring to shut down a cell tower near the school after multiple children were diagnosed with cancer that is specifically related to this type of radiation. CBS was correct to report that this type of radiation is listed as a carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
Is it any wonder as to why Facebook would list an article attacking 5G internet technology as dangerous, considering their entire business platform relies on this technology to exist?
Consider my sources, and consider Facebook’s–a fake news site that pretends to be unbiased, with a bunch of “fact-checkers” from CNN:
I have shut down the CP’s Facebook page, Twitter page, GAB page, and MINDs page. I will no longer rely on these internet ghettos to promote my ideas.
Trump supporters on Facebook responded with “laugh” emojis, and eventually blocked the CP page from several groups for voicing my concerns. My analysis of this movement has changed–stay tuned for further insights. As a Conservatarian, there is no compromise when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
The Last Historian