Facebook is Making it Difficult for Pennsylvania Trump Supporters to Organize
It’s *almost* like they want Trump to lose
In case there was still any question as to where Big Tech’s loyalty lies…
Not only is Silicon Valley dumping major dough into the 2020 election in the hopes of ousting Trump, but according to at least one report, social media behemoth Facebook has made it difficult for Trump supporters in Pennsylvania to organize. Coincidentally, Pennsylvania could be key in the upcoming election.
Byron York reports at the Washington Examiner:
It is hard to imagine the level of organizing that is currently going on without the social media giant.
Yet, at the same time, the very people who are using Facebook to organize pro-Trump events in Pennsylvania are also chafing under Facebook’s restrictions on their ability to discuss politics with like-minded people in their own state and around the country.
“Facebook shut me down twice in two days,” said Ed Kroupa of Penn Township, who is organizing Sunday’s turnpike rally. “They disabled my ability to share and post in other groups.” The Facebook crackdown happened after Kroupa posted articles that did not meet the approval of Facebook’s censors. And when, because of that, he was denied access to the site, that meant he was also denied the ability to organize as well. And that means there are times when he has no access to his main organizing tool. When I asked about events coming up in the next couple of days, Kroupa said, “I don’t know, I can’t get on Facebook right now.”
Mike Destro and his friend Dan Sudsina organized the September rally, which attracted about 1,200 vehicles. They created a Facebook page called the Pro-Trump NHT Rally, with NHT standing for North Huntingdon Township. “Facebook was huge in [organizing] that,” Destro told me. “We would not have been able to get that many people involved in it if we had not had a platform like Facebook.”
Now, Destro wants to keep the page going — it is a private group with 3,488 members — as a place where people can discuss the news. But he is constantly running into Facebook’s censorship. “I would love to go in there and start a discussion about the Hunter Biden emails,” Destro told me. “But Facebook is going to take those pages down.” Destro has also found that his members cannot mention the name of the man widely discussed as being the whistleblower in the complaint that led to President Trump’s impeachment. “You still can’t say it on Facebook,” Destro said.
Belle Mulhern, 18 years old, of Westmoreland County, became something of a star of the WalkAway campaign last summer, when she published (on Facebook) an account of her earlier support for Bernie Sanders and her conversion to conservatism and support for President Trump. She is also helping Kroupa organize the coming turnpike rally, which inevitably involves Facebook. But she, too, has had to deal with Facebook’s suppression of political speech. She discovered that when she started a small group, “Dissecting the Fake News,” in which she and her friends post news articles and discuss them. “Every day, I get at least one notification that this or that post was taken down because it violates community guidelines,” Mulhern told me. “It’s irritating.”
It’s more than irritating for Trump supporters engaged in a determined bid to overcome the odds against Trump’s reelection. Some of the supporters most inclined to get involved in organizing for Trump (on their own, without the assistance of the campaign or party) are also the most likely to run afoul of Facebook’s censorship. When Facebook cracks down on them, and locks them out of the site, it cracks down on their ability to organize for Trump.
Twitter and Facebook were hauled in front of Senate Committee this week, for whatever good it did. The ongoing censorship is incredibly concerning and of course, why Big Tech has a vested interest in installing Biden.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Yes! Next question
Phone to phone in Pennsylvania…..
Latest on Evil Twitter’s Treasons….
Totalitarian Twitter Deletes Tweet on Border Wall by Acting Border Protection Chief as ‘Hateful’
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/10/29/totalitarian-twitter-deletes-tweet-on-border-wall-by-acting-border-protection-chief-as-hateful-n1106347
If you insist on using their platforms, you’ll live by their rules.
Which is why I do not use Facebook or Twitter. People need to stop feeding them.
Big time. If anything made these billionaires, it was us.
Stop feeding Amazon, too.
There operating rules need to change.
Why should they when you keep pouring money into their pockets?
I ment the rules they are under from the government. Why should they want to is your answer’s question, so yes you are correct.
They’re not under any rules from the government. The first amendment protects their absolute right to do this, and there’s nothing the government can do about it.
What sensible people should do is stop relying on their services. When you know they’re effectively a branch of the Democrat Party, why put your fate in their hands? Use some other tool to organize, that they can’t take away.
They need to be broken up, really weakened. The power of user concentration is too much otherwise and this is exactly why antitrust has to be applied freely and rather mercilessly.
This appears to be 100% targeted. Because I mention Tony Bobulinski on my Facebook page and nothing happens. This includes the Sinclair Broadcasting Story that the MSM ignores.
I’d say tell the DOJ or FBI, but who can you trust not to chuckle and smile at such a complaint?
Boohoo! Fascsistbook clearly outed itself 2 years ago. Shame on any conservative still enslaved by it today. Such a fool is a lazy whiner, certainly undeserving of my sympathy, and certainly not anyone I would rely on to motivate me politically.
Keep in mind that the reach of Facebook is about 100 times the next closest site. If you leave that tool for the left and go somewhere else, the right won’t be competitive.
a question which i have thought about –
why no conservative/libertarian FB clone ?
There are- but- social media is what was called in the past a “natural monopoly”. If you want a platform where everybody can communicate with everyone else- then everyone needs to be on it. I log in to my Mewe account once a month or so. It’s interface is much clunkier than Facebook’s. And- other people are harder to find or look up, and most of the people I’m already friends with are on Facebook- where I’m Facebook friends with them. Then there’s the 12 or so groups I belong to- a mixture of public groups anyone can join, and private groups that require you request and be approved or be invited. They already exist on Facebook- migrating over would be a pain for everyone involved.
The real solution is- the government treating Facebook as a common carrier- the only thing they can do is report unlawful/illegal behavior to the government. They’re acting as a publisher- editing and censoring views- while claiming common carrier lack of liability for content. They can’t have both- it’s one of the other.
The current existing social media platforms ought be read the riot act- you are now common carriers- stop censoring.
Another problem is- users aren’t customers- they’re the product. Advertisers are the customers. (I have absolutely no idea of twitter’s revenue stream.) An alternative platform would need advertisers- who would be subject to boycotts if they supported a declare conservative outlet. So again- require existing platforms to be content neutral as a common carrier. In fact- that’s what they all declared themselves to be when they started- a place where anyone could express their views…
In the future- any social media startups need to declare- common carrier or editor. It’s like groups within Facebook. The group moderators can throw people out for violating the rules. That’s upfront. The groups within Facebook are voluntary associations, they don’t pretend to want everyone. If it’s a cat group- and you keep posting pics of your puppy dog, you’re going to be thrown out- maybe after a warning, maybe not. I’m in a few groups that permit NO political discussion- they didn’t form for that purpose- and they have thrown people out. And I belong to one private group that is politics- all on the same side on most things- pro-freedom particularly. And the rule is- what’s discussed in there stays in there. And yes- at least one person was very publicly thrown out for violating that rule.
I was on Myspace before Facebook- still have an account. I thing I looked at it last year some time. Seems to be that if you’re a musician- you should be on Myspace. Not an official policy AFAIK, but a lot of musicians and fans hang out there. Again, Facebook’s interface is easier to use.
This is just not true. They are not treated as common carriers, and never have been. But they are not acting as publishers, and the first amendment would probably prevent them from being treated as publishers, even if section 230 were to be amended or repealed.
Bullshit they’re not acting as publishers. And I agree- they’re NOT being treated as common carriers- They should be treated as common carriers. Which is what I said- read it.
They decided really quick that throwing “NJ Women for Trump” was a really bad political move and reinstated them. Both EDITORIAL decisions- that a publisher would make.
They may have read the tea leaves and realized that Trump is going to win Tuesday despite their efforts.
Gospace, repeatedly asserting a lie doesn’t make it true. They are not acting as publishers. That is a fact, and you are not entitled to your own.
Obviously Milhouse, your definition of acting as a publisher and a whole lot of other people’s definition or acting as a publisher differ.
Let’s see- covers up pictures and let’s you know that what’s underneath may be upsetting- editorial decision- one made by, well, let’s say, an editor- who works for, well, let’s say, a publisher.
Lets see- covers up pictures and let’s you know that what’s underneath may be false or misleading information. Hmmm… editorial decision- one made by, well, let’s say, an editor- who works for, well, let’s say, a publisher.
Let’s see- deleted posts on an individual’s page saying they don’t meet “community standards” defined by- Facebook. Hmmm… editorial decision- one made by, well, let’s say, an editor- who works for, well, let’s say, a publisher.
Need I go on? Or is your opinion just that, an opinion you pulled out of your ass? How else would you describe such actions?
Another thing about Facebook is- What are it’s responsibilities as a company? They run this huge censorship operation to screen posts and delete those they find are “injurious”. They cover pictures with screens that state the underlying information is false- even when it’s not, but simply doesn’t align with it’s politics. All to “protect” the users, that is, their product base.
The last 5 Facebook ads I’ve clicked on, targeted ads that I can tell were targeted by what was being advertised- were to scam sites. “llbeanoutlet.com” selling LLBean skippers and mocs for 20% of the LLBean price- is not real. 1 minute of inte3rnet research on Facebook’s part would reveal the only LLBean website is LLBean.com. And it says so right on their website. Letting these ads through hurts two groups of people:
1. The user base of Facebook, who order things and don’t get them.
2. The customer base of legitimate advertisers, who find that no one is clicking on their sites because Facebook is flooded with scam advertisements, and Facebook apparently doesn’t screen advertisers with the same scrutiny it scans it’s product.
Ebay, paying with Paypal, you’re financially protected if one of their sellers fails to deliver. Same with Amazon- it’s not just Amazon that sells on Amazon. If you don’t get what’s ordered, and the company doesn’t make good, Amazon will step in. Facebook? You click on a scam site and make an order, too bad so sad, you should have done due diligence.
I was searching google for chainsaws. Google shares info with Facebook. Suddenly, ads appear on Facebook. And the chainsaw I wanted figured prominently in one ad! I clicked on it. Looked at the price. Searched the website on google- and of course, it was a scam site. Ordered it from Amazon since no one locally carries it in stock.
I can’t really imagine a bigger douchebag than this guy. Look at him. He’s way more pathetic than some cartoon character. He should seriously consider ending his own life. He’d probably feel better and I know I would. Just simply a pathetic human being. I heard he has like 50 billion? He should kill himself. There’s no way he’s not just a flunky employee of the cia. No way is he his own man.
The gay white male version of Oprah and Michelle rolled into one?
Shouldn’t encouraging Zuckerberg to kill himself be a violation of site rules?
Facebook’s?
No, LI’s.
If you think a comment may be against the rules here you can email [email protected] and report it, and see whether the moderators remove it.
I don’t make the rules here, so I can’t say whether this is in fact against them, but in my opinion, while I very strongly disagree with it and disapprove of it, it shouldn’t be against the rules.
In related news, per Fox, Twitter has unlocked the Post’s Twitter account.
I was on Facebook briefly, just following Sarah Palin.
My page went out of control immediately.
It turned into everybody else’s page…
What a cess-pool.
The suppression is completely out of hand.
This in an incredible problem, and it would just about require a miracle for Trump to win this election.
If he does, this is our last chance to put these guys on a leash.
If he doesn’t.. I have no idea how it’s going to go, but I think it will go fast.
“Yet, at the same time, the very people who are using Facebook to organize pro-Trump events in Pennsylvania are also chafing under Facebook’s restrictions on their ability to discuss politics with like-minded people in their own state and around the country.”
Election meddling, de facto. What is the holdup?
Learn how to code, Pennsylvanians!
Or at least how to post a website with a forum, or pay a couple hundred and have someone set it up.
Who appointed these fools any authority over our lives? Open accounts on Gab, MeWe & Parler then tell Facebook & Twitter to go forth and multiply with themselves.
One flaw in this strategy is that the people who avoided FB and Twitter from day one, now have no strong desire to engage in any alternate activity similar to FB or Twitter.
too bad Pinchas HaKohen isn’t around to impalethe traitor Zimri Zuckerberg and his wife Cozbi
For fine-grained coordination, Signal is a good enough first choice. There are others.
For pushing your message into the public square, well, FaceTwitGoogZon is that public square, so you have to be there. *Publishing* content on their platform enriches them, makes you a target, and invites broader suppression. Publish the wrong wrongthink n they’ll shut down your ability to coordinate with other folks.
You need to talk to the brainy delinquints: the smart kids who hung out in the back of class acting up along with the other misfits.
Find the folks who got away with the under-age beer parties, played too many viedo games, and so on. The ones who think Ferris Beuller was an amateur.
Alternative networks. The hall monitors want to control the visible networks. Networks they can’t control they’d rather pretend don’t exist. That gives you lots of leeway.
A friend of mine was all concerned about possible goblin hordes coming her way. She lives in a cul-de-sack in a small development. They come in the one main road, n she’s trapped.
No, no, you’re not. Take a walk around the neighborhood with your eyes open. There’s foot trails off the sidewalk, cutting past that fence, over the culvert to the through-road then the mall. There’s game trails and people trails from here to there. There’s non-road paths where vehicles drive for access n maintenance when the weather’s good. Those all go *somewhere*, and most have more than one connection to the road network.
The smart delinquents knew the way from here to there, the paths to places from before they could drive, the dead ends that aren’t, access roads and odd connections once they could.
The official, parks-maintained bike n walkng path along the Erie Canal has sections that go through sketchy surroundings. In one town, the first 1/2 mile headed west from the river, going past the airport is one such. There it’s *connected* to feral foot paths, backs into alleys and access roads, hosts folks in alternative industries with known locations and declared turf.
There are similar alternative networks in every other kind of terrain, including e-space. Also alterative tools — simply being foot mobile off of pavement, for some distance n despite weather opens up whole networks of movement n access.
If you’re not otherwise plugged in, play anthropologist n go look around. Then follow the likely ones to find out what they really are. Bring a friend, move brisquely, in the light. But, now you know.
“We would not have been able to get that many people involved in it if we had not had a platform like Facebook.”
Well, the inability of anybody to remember how this shit was done in 2006 is certainly reason to throw out the First and Fifth Amendments.
Clearly.
« “We would not have been able to get that many people involved in it if we had not had a platform like Facebook.”
Well, the inability of anybody to remember how this shit was done in 2006 is certainly reason to throw out the First and Fifth Amendments. »
What do you want to say? Your invocation of “the First and Fifth Amendments” does not make any sense.
Clearly Facebook is not Government and its behaviour is consequently not subject to those Amdendments (however, the Free Speech god-given right protected by the First Amendment against government is to be protected by government against non-government actors’ attacks).
So, likely, you want to imply that holding Facebook to their declarations somehow violates their First Amendment rights? Having Facebook follow through with their promises of providing a platform for free speech is not violating their free speech. As far as I can tell, no fraudster has evaded liability by claiming courts cannot hold them to what they represented because that would limit their capacity to lie that is protected by the First Amendment. But you might have better insight?
As for Facebook suppressing speech of others, that in and of itself isn’t speech at all and certainly not protected by the First Amendment.
And the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit changing laws last I checked.
Puffery is legal, directly making material misrepresentation is not legal. That is fraud.
Facebook and other tech companies are operating utilizing govt frequency spectrum so there is a nexus though, IMO, too feint and too distant to invoke.
Bottom line on FB, Twitter etc changing behavior: until the political will exists to treat them as monopolies and apply either regulation or break up their behavior will not get better.
In the meantime, as.you very correctly point out; FB may be convenient but we did have election organizing prior to it’s existence.
Even now one can use FB to organize. Just send out the word of an event time and place. Where folks get blocked is making commentary. If one can restrain themselves from making statements that Zuck or Jack object to and simply communicate the 5 W of an event then those communication should pass muster.
No, they are not.
Milhouse,
Every time someone uses a cell phone that accesses a portion of the frequency spectrum. Don’t forget Satellite. Not every thing is fiber optic or coax.
Certainly the federal government could eliminate FB and google and Twitter access on govt devices and prohibit use of FB and Twitter as information conduits.
CommoChief, neither Facebook, nor Twitter, nor Instagram use cell phones. That is not how they work. You may use your cell phone to access them; they don’t use it at all.
Facebook’s first amendment rights include the right not to carry on its platform material that it doesn’t want to.
Facebook has never promised political neutrality.
Further, even if it had made such a promise it could not be held to it, because it is not taking any money from users. It’s allowing them to use its servers, subject to its whims, so they have no claim against it.
Don’t Section 230 protections require political neutrality? So if they are not politically neutral, we don’t have to go through a big process of asking them to do better. Just revoke their Section 230 protections and let them do the begging, which should preferably be ignored with enjoyment at the spectacle.
NO, THEY DON’T. NO, THEY DON’T. And once more for good measure, NO THEY DON’T. They never have, and they were never intended to. Where are people getting this bizarre idea from?
Your “private group” on FB probably gets extra intense scrutiny. The opposite of privacy.