If Big Tech Can Censor Me, Think What It Can Do to You
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Anti-conservative censorship online has gone from bad to worse. As major social media platforms start to target me for censorship, I shudder to think what it means for millions of other Americans, especially as we approach the 2020 presidential campaign.
As Jussie Smollett’s preposterous story about being beaten in a racist, homophobic attack was falling apart, I posted about it on Facebook-owned Instagram, pointing out how unbelievable his allegation was in the first place.
After I let my followers know my thoughts on the Smollett hoax, I received a notification that Instagram deleted my post. When I complained about this blatant censorship, Instagram claimed it was a mistake. My post had just been removed “in error,” the company said. Rather than get better, though, the situation just got worse. Conservatives soon let me know by direct message that Instagram was preventing them from following my account, or even sharing or liking any of my posts.
I’m sure Instagram will claim that this, too, was all just a terrible mistake. It’s funny how these “mistakes” never seem to happen to liberals at the critical moment of a news cycle. More to the point, if this is really a “mistake,” then why does it keep happening?
Just as the Smollett hoax is merely the latest of dozens of nonexistent hate crimes blamed on Trump supporters, my experience isn’t nearly the first time that conservatives have been censored by social media platforms.
Instagram also deleted a post from former Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany when she tried to highlight Elizabeth Warren’s lies about her ancestry. As soon as censorship of McEnany became a headline, Instagram once again claimed it was all a “mistake.” If not for conservative media, the social media giant may never be held accountable.
Facebook offered the same lame excuse after banning several videos posted by conservative nonprofit PragerU for alleged “hate speech.” It was an “employee error,” the tech giant proclaimed after PragerU publicly complained about the censorship. Likewise, when Facebook encountered pushback for banning an ad for a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in the middle of last year’s midterm election campaign, it quickly restored the video and offered a weak apology for its “mistake.”
Even worse than the censorship itself is the fact that it takes public outrage just to get Big Tech to treat conservative voices fairly. When social media censorship comes after someone like me, a prominent businessman and the son the president of the United States, it’s a story. The same is not true for the millions of conservative Americans who have no recourse whatsoever when Twitter or Facebook bans their accounts, limits their reach, and otherwise silences their voices because of their political opinions. It is they who are hurt the most by Big Tech’s manipulative partisan agenda.
Worryingly, there seems to be no limit to that manipulation. The tech giants are now tinkering with their terms of service to mandate that users adhere to liberal orthodoxy in their posts. It is now, for example, a banishment offense to “misgender” or “deadname” transgender people on Twitter, as even a radical feminist discovered when she tweeted that “men are not women.”
The stakes in all this could not be higher. The social media revolution upended people’s relationship with the overwhelmingly liberal media. As the Smollett hoax illustrates, the political left and establishment journalists want nothing more than to return to a world in which their narrative is the only one that matters -- and the truth is whatever they decree it to be.
Unfortunately, Silicon Valley is showing us that tech companies, too, can manipulate information for partisan ends. Their censorship is increasing at an alarming rate, just in time for them to try to spoil my father’s re-election bid, but we won’t let them get away with it.
Those of us with a big enough public profile to hold the tech giants accountable for their partisan speech-policing have a duty to do so. Ordinary conservatives can’t force multibillion-dollar companies to guarantee their right to free speech, which is exactly what the liberals are counting on.
They’ve gone too far, though. They’ve poked the hornet’s nest of conservative activists, and we will continue to vigilantly shame them for their censorship, because so much is at stake.
Donald Trump Jr. is the Executive Vice President at The Trump Organization.
“Just as the Smollett hoax is merely the latest of dozens of nonexistent hate crimes blamed on Trump supporters, my experience isn’t nearly the first time that conservatives have been censored by social media platforms.
Instagram also deleted a post from former Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany when she tried to highlight Elizabeth Warren’s lies about her ancestry. As soon as censorship of McEnany became a headline, Instagram once again claimed it was all a “mistake.” If not for conservative media, the social media giant may never be held accountable.
Facebook offered the same lame excuse after banning several videos posted by conservative nonprofit PragerU for alleged “hate speech.” It was an “employee error,” the tech giant proclaimed after PragerU publicly complained about the censorship. Likewise, when Facebook encountered pushback for banning an ad for a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in the middle of last year’s midterm election campaign, it quickly restored the video and offered a weak apology for its “mistake.”
Even worse than the censorship itself is the fact that it takes public outrage just to get Big Tech to treat conservative voices fairly.”
And as it refers to Facebook, it is interesting to note that it’s competition,USA.Life has arrived.
Excellent! Then the conservatives have an outlet. No more reason to cry censorship and nor more concern for Facebook/Instagram about the subject.
Between USA life and the New and Improved Fox Nation that will keep the MAGA's busy.
Next up will be 1776Freedom which will be a search engine to compete with google.
Great! A propaganda site you can personalize.
This is great for the MAGAs. They can ban everybody else and frolic willy-nilly in their bubble.
On the msm and social media it is MAGA supporters and their sources who are being banned, censored, and content controlled.
First of all, it's not anti conservative censorship. IT'S ANTI FAKE NEWS CENSORSHIP.
Oh c'mon...conservative are pure as the driven snow...whatever they utter is God's own truth and always smells of roses when spoken.
You are correct that it is censorship. It is viewpoint content control and censorship against conservatives. Donald Trump Jr. was right about what he said in the article on every count.
wait.. you are against privately run companies having their own rules and running their companies as they see fit ? you want them regulated by government now ?
No. I opposed Net Neutrality that the big social media wanted. They wanted to be locked in as a government regulated monopoly. They didn’t get their way. It’s only a matter of time before alternatives rise up now that they won’t have a protected monopoly and are subject to anti trust laws. Just like when the msm wouldn’t be fair and talk radio and Fox News opened the way for the alternative media the same will happen on line and America will continue its information and communication divergence and segregation on ideological grounds. Google and Facebook don’t have eternal life as virtual monopolies and their and other internet services treatment of conservatives is a stupid business model. I’m sure the msm and it’s fact checkers will target these new services as they did the alternative media for their competitive advantage. I can just see it now. USA.Life as a “questionable” source.
yet now you want your way as government regulating them because you feel they are being "unfair" to the conservative minded (who, it seems, are violating their rules that these private companies set into place to run as they see fit)
good, then the whining can stop, right ?
good, then the whining can stop, right ? why is the whining continuing ?
more whining.. it's your opinion that it's a "stupid business model" because you think it's aimed at the conservative minded, yet you definitely seed articles that advocate for censoring and demonizing the liberal minded - the exact same treatment you state you are against... i guess you are only against it when it comes to the conservative minded, huh ?
i guess USA.Life and those other sources shouldn't use "alternative" facts, huh ?
Alternative according to who?
ah, i get it. you think Creationism is just another fact and not an " alternative fact ", right ?
It is a fact. [deleted]
There are no facts to prove Gods existence...it is only theory and not a scientific one at that.
People don't believe in your god don't hate it. We can't hate something that doesn't exist.
We look for truth and facts - you're just upset because the facts don't lead to anything that suggest your god, or any gods, exist. You want to twist science and facts to support your myths, and that's not how it works. If there were any actual evidence for any gods, we'd accept it.
That's nice. Prove it!
What makes you thihnk god is needed or an explanation for life? Perhaps because you can't think of or don't know/understand any other?
it is just your opinion, not a fact and it's not supported by facts either.
It was my opinion which isn’t allowed here because when conservatives speak our minds it’s either a sweeping generalization or of no value and then deleted.
Or a lie!
That's a given!
And that's all it is and nothing more! Certainly not fact in any sense!
Pretending one has all the facts on an op ed section article or issue is not wise. [Deleted]
And yet, you're the one who explicitly declared a fact. Especially when it was anything but. Too funny.
Nice transparent ad hom attack.
wait... your opinion is that it's a fact and you are claiming your opinion wasn't allowed ? can you tell me how i responded to that opinion if it wasn't allowed ? (hint: i'm not a mod)
Simply ridiculous. That a reference to Animal Farm could be considered an ad hominem is not in any way shape or form either rational or reasonable.
What's ridiculous is your reference and apparent paranoia about censorship.
What’s really ridiculous is intolerance for a diversity of opinion and attempts to content control or censor divergent opinions from ones own.
Except you're not being censored and you're still free to post your usual BS!
Who said I was only talking of myself or only of that which occurs here?
That doesn't change a thing I said.
And you know that exactly how?
Because it doesn't refute anything I said in the least.
You said something? I missed the point that you think you were attempting to make. Internet censorship and content control is real as Donald Trump Jr. wrote in the seeded article.
Why am I not surprised you missed it and continue to spew the same nonsense, like a btoken record. Oh well, you can reread all the comments again if you missed the point. Maybe it'll come to you.
Donald Trump is exactly right about the points he made all across the board. It was great that he wrote this article for Real Clear Politics. Sadly what he refered to doesn’t only happen at the most giant of big techs social media. It is close to an across the board phenomenon. Hopefully he can use his influence to create positive change in the entire industry.
Little tech censors tea party conservative Christian opinion about as much as big tech does.
Well the President agrees with me about censorship in general and is going to do something about it on one front.
Trump tells CPAC he will sign executive order on campus free speech
President Donald Trump says he’ll be signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech.
“If they want our dollars and we give them by the billions,” Trump said, “they’ve got to allow people to speak.”
The President brought a young man named Hayden Williams on stage to join him at CPAC when he made the announcement. Williams, a conservative activist, was punched on the campus of the University of California Berkeley last month .
“Ladies and gentlemen, he took a hard punch in the face for all of us,” the President said.
He didn’t offer any more details on the order.
From CNN's Nikki Carvajal