From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

While, blocking/banning in Social Media is the equivalent of book burning, I really don't have a problem with it: if a company is transparent, defines the terms, and documents how someone violated them. My problems are when they have double standards where they attack those on the right for being more informed but occasionally resorting to the tools of the left (name calling, etc), while they ignore far worse from "their side". And that's why I'm not a fan of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others that want to arbiters of fairness, while only demonstrating hypocrisy.

Weighted scale

They start by making rules that promotion sides agenda. Bring Pro-Gun, Pro-Life, or proud of America is already one strike against you. They will ban you for promoting guns too vigorously, but being anti-gun? There's almost no standard depraved enough for stealing someone else's liberty or property. The same with abortions, or saying, "Return Mexico to Greatness" is all good, but saying "Make America Great Again" borders on hate speech.


  • 2019.05.31 Bans Erick Erickson - If you are a biased partisan that hates conservatives, then everything they say looks like hate speech.
  • 2018.03.05 Twitter defends Maxine: Queen of the Twits - Twitter blocked a guy for insulting Maxine Waters, which is fine. However, they rarely block far worse insults against conservatives. So while I don't mind them playing list-mom, I do care about the blatant hypocrisy while doing it.
  • 2018.04.19 blocked a Girl with Down Syndrome for being ‘Pro-Life’ - It seems like a down-girl deserves a voice in begging not to have her kind exterminated for the convenience of their parents, or the agendas of hyper liberals, don't you think? Twitter doesn't.
  • 2018.04.09 Threatening conservatives is OK though - Christopher Michael McGowan, was arrested for repeatedly threatening Congressional Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). Saying the last thing he will see, “will be my patriot ass behind a gun you should have long ago have prevented me owning, pulling a trigger to your head.” Despite that being clearly a personal threat, and multiple people complaining, Twitter hasn't done anything to this guys account.

Like they refused to smack Rosie O'donnel's bad behavior with the same enthusiasm they do conservatives. At least until they were shamed into behaving consistently (days later). [1]

They destroyed Julian Assange's Wikileaks account, but then restored it, and refused to answer comments as to why. (And breaking followers links and posts in the process). [2]

And they purged Richard Spencer account, not really for violation of terms, but because they really didn't like who he is, or what he stands for.[3]

They purged Milo Yiannopoulos account not for anything he did, but because of what they claim some of his followers did without any direct calls for attack by Mil (for conservatives it's not only what the person said, but what their followers say that will get them banned). While the victim (Leslia Jones) behaved worse, and got no punishment. [4]


  • Laura Loomer - De-verified
  • British anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson - De-verified
  • Baked Alaska - blocked
Facebook is 3 things: bad interface, bad management, and biased policies. I want a social network that gives me control of what I see and share -- both to my friends and to advertisers. I realize they need to make a buck, and my information is their product, but the point is you can still give users the illusions of control. But Zuckerberg seems to have falling into the egocentric pit that many young billionaires do, they think because they timed things well, and worked hard, and got lucky that they're smarter than everyone else. This makes them arrogant, less mature, and slower to grow than the average human: Dunning-Kruger, inflated by being surrounded by yes-men.



📚 References
  • Links