When people think of censorship in the context of cyberbullying they usually think about getting negative posts taken down, blocking an annoying user, or stopping people from making hurtful statements in the first place, but what about the censorship of political ideologies for the purpose of manipulating public opinion? We consider that cyberbullying too. This past week we have seen Facebook announce an update to their Terms of Service (TOS) that serves only to silence speech and they have attacked right wing users with a ferocity never seen before.
This past week, Facebook users received a notification saying that the following TOS update will take effect on October 1, 2020:
"We also can remove or restrict access to your content, services or information if we determine that doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook." - Facebook
That language clearly puts users on notice that Facebook will remove or restrict access to their content if necessary to avoid legal or regulatory consequences. Consequences such as having to defend frivolous lawsuits or having to defend the actions of users from Congress appear to fall within this language. It is basically a decision by Facebook to suppress speech rather than defend it. Facebook is not liable for content posted by end users due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), so why would they bother to restrict lawful speech? One reason would be to avoid bad brand affiliations that might discourage some advertisers, but we have not seen any numbers to suggest that Facebook would make more off ads with less content. Facebook has a near monopoly on the social media market and advertisers would be foolish to let some content discourage them from advertising on Facebook, especially with the custom audience features that allow them to limit what people see their ads to their ideal customer base. The Facebook mission statement reads:
"Founded in 2004, Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them." - Facebook
How does the censorship of lawful content help Facebook accomplish its mission? It prevents some people from forming communities and coming together. It disconnects them from friends and family, keeps them from discovering what is really going on in the world, and stops them from sharing or expressing what matters to them.
Facebook's most recent effort to sabotage its own mission has been at the expense of conservative and/or right wing users. Facebook has banned topics, opinions, and popular groups/pages for supporting the conservative narrative of current events.
Last week Facebook banned all searches for "Kyle Rittenhouse" after the 17 year old killed two people in Kenosha, Wisconsin. As a result, people could not use Facebook to discover what was going on with that (https://copblaster.com/blast/25937/facebook-blocks-searches-for-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse). They then issued a ban on statements in support of Kyle Rittenhouse saying "W'eve designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support of the shooter" (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/2/facebook-removing-posts-support-kyle-rittenhouse/).
The biggest problem with Facebook's position on the Rittenhouse case is that any objective person that really looks at the footage from that night in the right order would conclude that Rittenhouse acted in self defense (https://copblaster.com/blast/25933/criminal-complaint-against-kyle-rittenhouse-describes-self-defense). Facebook's conduct is clearly a response to negative publicity from people that wish Facebook were responsible for the conduct of their users. People that hear the false narrative on the news are furious that any platform would let anyone support him. People are now no longer free to go on Facebook and say "I saw a convicted sex offender chasing Rittenhouse as he ran for his life before the first shot was fired" without getting their statement removed and possibly having their account restricted or banned for supposedly supporting a murderer.
Popular groups and/or pages are being shut down just for supporting Donald Trump's narrative of recent events. The Kenosha Guard Facebook Group was taken down because it "violated our new policy addressing militia organizations and have been removed on that basis" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/08/28/zuckerberg-admits-facebook-mistake-in-leaving-up-kenosha-guard-call-to-arms/). What business does Facebook have obstructing the right of its users to bear arms and form a militia? Sure, it is their platform and they can legally doe what they want, but why do they continually sabotage their own mission statement? They do it to avoid negative publicity from those that don't support the First Amendment or the CDA. They do it to appease those that threaten to destroy free speech. They do it because they are cowards, seemingly incapable of simply stating that free speech is free speech and leave it at that. Today Facebook took down the Patriot Prayer groups and pages citing their policy against "Dangerous Individuals and Organizations" (https://www.columbian.com/news/2020/sep/04/patriot-prayers-facebook-instagram-accounts-removed/). The only new developments with that group include organizing a pro-Trump rally that included a lot of people in pickup trucks shooting paint balls, bear mace, and other stuff at Antifa protesters.
All of the above might look like a company regulating its customers in good faith, but if you consider all the groups they do not censor, a different picture emerges. The far left seems to have total immunity from Facebook censors even though one of their people killed someone last weekend. The fake news media such as CNN and MSNBC have done such a good job pushing their false narrative that Facebook has jumped on the bandwagon by deciding that right wing speech is wrong and left wing speech is right. They have gone from being a neutral service provider where both sides can be heard to an Orwellian overseer that picks and chooses what potential voters can see before the election.