Executive Overview (Full Special Report can be found here.)
Love it or not, social media is the communication form of the future – not just in the U.S., but globally. Just Facebook and Twitter put together reach 1.8 billion individuals. More than two-thirds of all Americans (68%) employ Facebook. YouTube is pushing out TV as the most popular place to view video. Google is the No. 1 search engine in both the U.S. and the world.
War is being declared on the conservative movement in this space and conservatives are losing – horribly. If the right is silenced, billions of individuals will be cut off from conservative concepts and conservative media.
It’s the new battleground of media bias. But it’s rather more serious. That bias is not a war of concepts. It’s a war against concepts. It’s a clear attempt to censor the conservative worldview from the public conversation.
The Media Research Center has undertaken an comprehensive study of the issue at major tech companies – Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube – and the results are far more scary than most conservatives comprehend. Here are some of the key discoveries:
Twitter Leads in Censorship: Project Veritas had caught Twitter staffers confessing on hidden camera that they had been censoring conservatives through a method referred to as shadow banning, where users assume their material is getting seen widely, but it’s not. The staffers had justified it by saying the accounts had been automated if they had words such as “America” and “God.” In 2016, Twitter had tried to manipulate election-related tweets utilizing the hashtags “#PodestaEmails” and “#DNCLeak.” The site also limits pro-life ads from Live Action and even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), but will allow Planned Parenthood advertisements.
Facebook’s Trending Feed Has Been Concealing Conservative Topics: A 2016 Gizmodo account had cautioned of Facebook’s bias. It had comprehensive claims by ex – employees that Facebook’s news curators have been commanded to conceal conservative content from the “trending” section, which purportedly only features news users find interesting. Topics that have been blacklisted included Mitt Romney, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and Rand Paul. However, the term “Black Lives Matter” had also been positioned into the trending section even though it was not truly trending. Facebook had also banned at least one far right European organization but had not produced information on any specific statements made by the group that warranted the ban.
Google Search Aids Democrats: Google and YouTube’s corporate chairman Eric Schmidt had aided Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The company’s search engine had implemented a similar bias in support of Democrats. One study had discovered 2016 campaign searches were biased in support of Hillary Clinton. Even the liberal website Slate had exposed the search engine’s results had preferred both Clinton and Democratic candidates. Google also had fired engineer James Damore for criticizing the company’s “Ideological Echo Chamber.” The company had said he had been fired for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” Damore is suing Google, telling it mistreats whites, males and conservatives.
YouTube Is Shutting Down Conservative Videos: Google’s YouTube site had produced its own issues with conservative content. YouTube moderators have to take their cues from the rest of Google – from shutting down complete conservative channels “by mistake” to eliminating videos that promote right-wing political perspectives. YouTube’s special Creators for Change section is dedicated to folks utilizing their “voices for social change” and even highlights the work of a 9/11 truther. The site’s very own YouTube page and Twitter account commemorate progressive attitudes, which includes uploading videos about “inspiring” gay and trans individuals and sharing the platform’s support for DACA.
Tech Firms Are Relying on Groups That Hate Conservatives: Top tech companies like Google, YouTube and Twitter partner with leftist groups looking to censor conservatives. These comprise of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Both organizations claim to combat “hate,” but treat standard conservative beliefs in faith and family as examples of that hatred. George Soros-funded ProPublica is utilizing information from both radical leftist organizations to assault conservative groups such as Jihad Watch and ACT for America, bullying PayPal and other services to shut down their funding sources. The SPLC’s “anti-LGBT” list had also been utilized to stop organizations from partnering with AmazonSmile to raise funds.
Liberal Twitter Advisors Outnumber Conservatives 12-to-1: Twelve of the 25 U.S. members of Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council – which helps guide its policies – are liberal, and only one is conservative. Anti-conservative groups like GLAAD and the ADL are element of the board. There is no well-known conservative group represented.
Tech Companies Rely on Anti-Conservative Fact-Checkers: Facebook and Google both had partnered with fact-checking organizations in an effort to combat “fake news.” Facebook’s short-lived disputed flagger program had permitted Snopes, PolitiFact and ABC News to ascertain what is and is not real news. Google’s fact-checkers had falsely accused conservative sources of making claims that did not show up in their articles and disproportionately “fact-checked” conservative sources. On Facebook, a satire site, the Babylon Bee, had been flagged by Snopes for its post undoubtedly mocking CNN for its bias. YouTube also had reported a partnership with Wikipedia in an effort to debunk videos considered to be conspiracy theories, even though Wikipedia has been criticized for its liberal bias.
Advice For The Tech Companies
Consumers Are Policy: Tech companies like Google and Facebook are making a nominal attempt to hire conservatives, but that does not address the core issues within those organizations. Companies ought to get rid of policies and biases that discriminate against conservatives. They also ought to protect employees’ means to disagree with the predominanent liberal groupthink that rules the industry.
Tech Companies Must Provide Transparency: People and organizations have their posts and videos often restricted or deleted on all major platforms. If those companies count on their users to trust them, they must make this system transparent. They will have to show at least when posts of organizations and public figures are deleted and when they are not. That would give users a baseline of what speech is authorized on a platform, not just whatever the companies choose to delete.
Expect Regulation At This Pace: Tech companies are confronting calls for regulation from left and right. The firms should deal with this by setting rules about how they will treat both conservative and liberal organizations and information relatively. What this means is crystal clear, published guidelines needs to be set up that support free speech online. Algorithms, content guidelines and ad policies should be fashioned that don’t target political speech. Firms must quit pretending disagreement is equivalent to hate speech. Fairness and transparency are equally important.
Avoid Partnering With Bad Actors: Twitter, YouTube and others had attempted to set up policies that prevent so-called hate speech on their platforms. But those policies are being enforced by organizations that spit hate towards the conservative movement and can’t pretend to be neutral players. Groups like the SPLC and ADL label core conservative values as “hate” or “bigotry.” Tech companies can not expect conservatives to have confidence in a system that is so brazenly one-sided.
Modify Flagging Systems: One of the most detrimental issues tech companies grapple with is the mistreatment of their flagging and reporting systems. YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, specifically, succumb to liberal activists who game their systems and consistently report conservative content. These services must determine a better way to handle notifications that should never permit coordinated campaigns towards the right.
Utilize Neutral Fact-Checkers: If social media sites are going to try to be the arbiters of what is real news, they must depend upon fact-checking sources that are neutral and fair toward stories on both sides of the aisle. Depending on sites like Snopes, which has a obvious liberal bias, raises issues over whether the tech giants are attempting to increase a liberal political narrative.
Facebook has drastically minimized the circulation of my stories in my readers’ newsfeeds and is alternatively endorsing mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, on the other hand, you tremendously help distribute my content. Please take a moment and think about sharing this post with your friends and family. Thank you.
Like Our News? Please, please, Please! help support Independent Journalism. PayPal.Me/FusionLacedIllusions
Got a tip or a rumor? Contact me here.
The Establishment continue to push forward in their attempt to shut down the alternative press that is rapidly growing and pushing out the faltering mainstream media. As the EU demands social media sites censor fake news and Reddit, Facebook and other sites begin blocking Fusion Laced Illusions and other alternative media it is now alarmingly evident that their truly is a war on free speech.
Copyright Disclaimer: Citation of articles and authors in this report does not imply ownership. Works and images presented here fall under Fair Use Section 107 and are used for commentary on globally significant newsworthy events. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this article or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Fusion Laced Illusions content!
REQUEST REPRINT OR SUBMIT CORRECTION to JWilliams7497@gmail.com
Contact Fusion Laced Illusions by email.
You can reach us at JWilliams7497@gmail.com Letters may be published