Facebook's Conservative PURGE Coordinated With Media Outlets, PJW, Loomer Banned
Facebook Launches Concerted PURGE Of Conservatives Personalities. Facebook issued an alert to many news organizations tipping them off to the banning of Milo, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and others. The news outlets were told the stories were embargoed until a certain time.This is the goal post moving, these personalities facing social media censorship are no where near the worst people on Facebook but here we are. These people are high profile individuals who helped get Donald Trump elected and now they are purged. Surely they will get banned from other platforms shortly.But also in the ban was Minister Farakan, seemingly to appear unbiased. But this set off Snoop Dog.Snoop Dog posted to his over 31 MILLION followers telling to flood instagram and Facebook with videos of the Minister because "they can't ban us all."The far left meanwhile has many of their more dangerous activists left untouched which still reeks of bias. Is PJW anywhere near as bad as The Minister? Of course not but it doesn't matter.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It's been just over 24 hours since Facebook banned Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, Louis Farrakhan, and a few others, and they've now got a kind of strange ally in the fight.
Snoop Dogg posted a couple of videos to Instagram complaining about the banning of Louis Farrakhan and urging his nearly 33 million followers to post as many Farrakhan videos as they can because, quote, they can't ban all of us.
But the story is strange, and it only gets stranger.
Some left-wing journalists noticed that Facebook tipped off several news organizations under embargo.
That means you can't release the news until a certain time.
They noticed this because at least one outlet developed a graphic for the story.
They knew before these users.
This does make it seem like Facebook is taking coordinated action against conservatives.
But the other strange thing about it is how Louis Farrakhan was branded far right.
This whole situation is a terrifying escalation in the culture war, and in my opinion, it's going to radicalize people and lead to violence.
Today, let's take a look at this story and go in-depth on the privatization of the commons and how many people on the left are supporting the censorship and private control from tech monopolies.
But before we get started, you need to follow me on Mines at Mines.com slash Timcast.
This is a story about overt censorship.
We are seeing them erode the cliff faster and faster.
Paul Joseph Watson is a snarky conservative, but he is nowhere near as extreme as the people they've banned in the past.
It's going to get worse.
If they ban me on these platforms, you can find me on Mines.
Again, Mines.com slash Timcast.
Seriously, follow me.
If you want to support this video, just share it on social media to help spread the news.
First, from Bloomberg, Facebook bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, other far-right figures.
According to the story, they banned these individuals for violating the policies on hate speech and promoting violence.
The company is also blocking religious leader Louis Farrakhan, who is known for sharing anti-Semitic views, Paul Nealon, a white nationalist who ran for Congress in 2018, and conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson.
All of these individuals and accounts that represent them are also banned from photo sharing app Instagram.
They include how Facebook claims they've always banned individuals that do this,
but that's just not true because all of these people have been on the platform forever.
And in the instance of Louis Farrakhan, he's been around for several decades preaching the same
thing.
So no, Facebook doesn't always do this. They're lying.
Bloomberg notes, when Facebook bans an individual or organization, it
typically also removes posts from other users who praise or support them.
In this case, a Facebook spokesperson said that people will be able to post about or praise these banned users, though they won't be allowed to share any of their views or opinions.
That Facebook considers hate speech or calls for violence.
In the story from The Verge, we actually get some insight as to why they were banned, and this is where it starts to get really weird.
The Verge says, Facebook did not disclose all of the incidents that led to the account's removal, saying that it had made the decisions following a period of review.
The decision took into account the group's behavior both on and offline, the company said.
Factors for the removal included engaging in acts of hate or violence, Calling for or carrying out acts of violence rooted in racial or ethnic prejudice, describing themselves as the follower of a hateful ideology, or using hate speech or slurs in their profiles, having pages or groups removed previously, can also lead to account removal, Facebook said.
But the company did point to some of the actions leading up to the account's removal.
First, in December and again in February, Jones appeared in videos with Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes.
Facebook has designated McInnes as a hate figure.
Yiannopoulos publicly praised McInnes and British far-right activist Tommy Robinson, who Facebook has designated a hate figure.
Loomer appeared with McInnes in December, and more recently declared her support for far-right activist Faith Goldie, who was banned after posting racist videos to her account.
Facebook pointed to videos where individuals talked with Gavin McInnes or others.
I interviewed Gavin McInnes.
Is that a violation?
Joe Rogan interviewed Gavin McInnes.
Is that a violation?
When does it stop?
In a story from The Verge on the 11th, They say Logan Paul helps Alex Jones avoid YouTube ban by hosting him on their show and podcast.
Are they going to ban Joe Rogan, Logan Paul?
Are they going to ban me?
They might ban me.
I don't know about Logan Paul or Joe Rogan.
But the point is, it's political.
They didn't ban these people for being on the show with Gavin or otherwise.
They're just claiming that's the case.
The real reason, it's political.
Milo Yiannopoulos specifically has been laying low.
Who even pays attention to what he's posting at this point?
Why was he banned?
Because of things he said years ago?
What about Paul Joseph Watson?
Sure, he's critical of ideology, but I guess, yeah, that's against the rules, so it was only a matter of time.
Not only that, he's associated with Infowars.
But this is the goalpost moving.
This is the cliff slowly eroding.
You're next.
I'm next.
They're going to come for the conservatives.
They're going to wipe them out.
And then after that, the moderate liberals and centrists will be gone.
And this keeps happening.
But the story is really, really strange.
And we'll start by pointing out they called Louis Farrakhan a far-right leader.
The Washington Post said Facebook bans far-right leaders, including Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos for being dangerous.
Why might that have happened?
Well, there have been some interesting opinions, and I think we can look to another tweet to figure out how this happened.
Jason Kobler, editor-in-chief of Motherboard, said, Atlantic, The Verge, CNN and Washington Post posted the
story within a minute of each other, and The Atlantic has a complicated Photoshop of the people
banned.
This is weird news for Facebook to release under embargo.
He adds, Just ban people who break the rules when they break the
Facebook has gone great lengths to coddle the right and show there is not some anti-right-wing conspiracy at
the company.
I can think of no better way of undermining this than banning all the high-profile far-right people on your platform at once with a coordinated media release.
Not that I think Facebook should care about what these people think, but it clearly does, so why do this in the shadiest possible way?
In a comment, journalist Taylor Lorenz clarifies that Jason is right.
This was an embargo.
As much as these journalists may not want to admit it, yes, we are seeing Facebook take a concerted effort against right-wing personalities.
Some of these people are rather bad.
Louis Farrakhan has some rather extreme opinions, so does Paul Nealon.
Milo is just kind of offensive, and Paul is just kind of offensive too.
But the question is, why was Louis Farrakhan called far-right?
Well, there are some theories.
A Twitter user by the name of Ted Frank wrote a thread.
He said, Facebook has a PR problem.
Everyone calling Farrakhan far right?
I have no inside information, but what happened is pretty obvious and easy to reverse engineer
if you've seen sausage being made in crisis communications.
Facebook has a PR problem.
Everyone is mad at it because Nazis and Alex Jones types are using the site profitably.
Employees are probably even madder about it internally than the external pressure from
politicians.
politicians.
So Facebook convenes meetings and decides to have a purge the far-right policy.
Someone comes up with a list, perhaps pulled from the SPLC, and other bad publicity, maybe internal complaints.
Media Relations notes the policy solves a PR problem they've been having, so issues an embargoed briefing to a bunch of reporters, giving them a heads up that they'll be banning a lot of far-right accounts.
Meanwhile, a token conservative at one of the Facebook meetings points out that FB is also getting grief from Republicans about bias, and that banning only one side of the aisle could create other political problems.
So Facebook finds a token to also ban who isn't affiliated with the right, picks Farrakhan, plugs him into the list, but the internal policy is still purge the far right, and that's how it's being explained to the communications staffers, who in turn explain it to the media.
The communications staffers are in their own California bubble, and don't change the thrust of the briefing even after inserting Farrakhan's name into the list, as an edit.
The media is in a hurry and takes the description at face value and parrots the press release without questioning it, because it's faster than doing real reporting.
And besides, why would you ban someone who isn't far-right, since all right-wingers are evil?
Add careless copy-editing and bingo!
Multiple media outlets simultaneously publish stories and tweets and headlines calling Farrakhan far-right.
Be happy that the echo chamber remembered to also ban Farrakhan as a SOP to pretend there wasn't bias in original decision.
To put it simply, this person's theory is that Facebook issued a press release saying we are banning Milo, Paul, etc.
Someone said, hey wait, we'll get accused of bias.
Throw Farrakhan in the list.
So they then sent another communication, but these news organizations already rushed to get their stories ready, so they had Far right, and then when the news came that they were going to add Farrakhan, they slapped his name in and clicked publish.
And there you have it.
Farrakhan became far right.
Now, Washington Post deleted their tweet, many of these stories updated, but the point stands.
It seems like this was an attempt to act like they weren't biased, but in reality, this is a concerted effort from Facebook, giving a heads up to several media organizations and letting them know the bans were coming before telling the users.
But here's the thing.
These companies tend not to care too much about what conservatives think.
But now they've got Snoop Dogg calling them out for banning Louis Farrakhan.
Over on Snoop Dogg's Instagram with 31.2 million followers, he made two posts.
unidentified
The first post says... For real, that's how y'all feel?
So Facebook and Instagram just banned and ministered Louis Farrakhan.
I wanna know for what.
All he ever do is tell the truth.
What y'all gonna ban him though?
All right.
What if we ban y'all?
What if we stop f***ing with y'all?
Facebook and Instagram?
How the f*** y'all gonna ban Minister Louis Farrakhan for putting truth out there?
Can't ban all of us and just like that the censorship fight roped in regular old people
The banning of Louis Farrakhan, who has support from high-profile celebrities and activists, including Snoop Dogg, is now going to get all of their fanbases riled up.
And I don't think that's a PR battle Facebook was expecting, but there you go.
When they ban conservatives and conservatives speak up, the left doesn't care, late night hosts don't care, and they think they can get away with it.
But are they going to get away with Snoop Dogg stepping up and saying, no, you can't ban all of us.
I don't think Farrakhan should be banned.
I'd like to see what he has to say so I can know that I don't like what he has to say.
And the same is true for everyone else.
When you take away people's ability to speak online, they will go into the real world.
They're not going to stop.
They're not going to give up.
And then we're going to see street violence.
There's already street violence happening all the time for the past several years.
The last thing we need is more.
It's better that people yell at each other on the internet than go out in the street and get into a fist fight, or worse, drive cars into crowds of people.
But this is another example of how the commons are being taken over.
And I'm rather confused by the people on the left arguing in defense of private corporations seizing the commons.
The place where we speak, the place where we trade, it's being taken over.
Facebook is a massive, multinational private corporation that does not have your best interest at heart.
They steal your data, they do horrible things, they are rife with scandal.
Don't trust them, and don't let them control speech.
But the left says, it's a private platform.
Meanwhile, Twitter basically said in a story on Motherboard that they actively ban innocent Muslims, but the public finds it acceptable so long as they're going after ISIS.
Where's the left-wing outrage?
I'm not seeing it.
In fact, they say once again it's a private platform.
Well, I disagree!
I've always been aligned with the more we should regulate the massive corporations and not let them get away with this.
But that's not what the activists are doing.
The activists are demanding more unaccountability, and it really blows my mind.
In fact, Twitter argued in court they are exempt from civil rights law, and this I can't even begin to wrap my head around.
The court asked, so is your position is absolutist?
That Twitter has an absolute First Amendment right to remove anybody from its platform, even if doing so would be discriminatory on the basis of religion, gender?
Twitter's legal said, yes, your honor.
And let me cite the Hurley case, for example.
He goes on to cite a parade sponsor who didn't want to include gay people, and it was upheld.
But the point is, the judge asked him, can Twitter ban people based on their protected characteristics?
And Twitter said, yes, we can.
And it is an interesting take, because the idea is, Twitter is publishing things.
Twitter is under no obligation to be forced to publish something they don't agree with.
The problem is, Twitter has control of our commons.
The common space for public speech is under the control of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.
We should not allow them to restrict people.
They should be protected by the First Amendment, and these companies need to decide if they're platforms or publishers.
But it's worse than that.
Amazon is banning books, Amazon is continually taking over commerce, and they're restricting the commons.
Where is the left to come out and say private, massive corporations should not be controlling our public sectors?
I don't see it.
I really don't.
Instead, they say it's good that massive, unaccountable corporations have this power.
Well, it's not.
And this is just another line being drawn.
It's the cliff eroding.
We're all standing on this mound, surrounded by water.
And the water erodes the cliff slowly and slowly.
Eventually, there will be nothing left.
Now with Snoop Dogg getting roped in and calling out his fans, this may drive Facebook to the point where they have no choice but to reinstate people.
But I don't think so.
I think it's just going to escalate things.
And it's going to rope more regular people into the culture war.
It's going to dramatically escalate this conflict.
It's going to make it go faster.
And I've been repeatedly saying for the past week, the escalation is insane.
The Guardian just published a story where they have audio of a Republican saying, get armed?
What do you think is going to happen when Snoop Dogg says they can't ban all of us, everyone do this?
Snoop Dogg getting involved?
Man, this kind of stuff worries me.
But let me know what you think in the comments below, we'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at Timcast, and seriously, you should probably follow me there because they're much less likely to censor people.
Me covering this story, talking about Farrakhan and Jones, could get me banned on Facebook too.
Like I said, I interviewed Gavin.
Are they gonna ban me next?
So whatever, comment, let me know what you think.
You can follow me again on Mines at Mines.com slash TimCast.
Stay tuned, new videos every day at 4 p.m.
Eastern and more videos on my second channel, YouTube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m.
