Talking points have apparently run out, and it’s okay now for the mainstream press to be softly critical of the Black Lives Matter movement. Accordingly, New York Magazine issued a review Financial management of the BLM — specifically, the organization’s $6 million purchase of a 6,500-square-foot home in Southern California in 2020.
Almost exactly a year ago, the New York Post reported on BLM’s purchase of four more multi-million dollar luxury homes Co-founder Patrisse Cullors. History described the homes no differently than any other celebrity home purchase. All information contained in the article comes from public records, including the photographs. No addresses were listed.
But within days, users were banned from Facebook from sharing the story – on the platform itself, in Facebook Messenger and on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook. Despite the fact that all the information discussed was publicly available, Facebook flagged the article for violating their community standards, specifically the “Privacy and Personal Information Policy.”
A year later, Facebook (now Meta) is still classifying the story as “abusive” and preventing it from being shared on its platforms.
Now we know why.
Buried in New York Magazine’s coverage is this little nugget: “Other conversations in the BLM Security Hub’s chat show efforts to monitor social media for negative mentions of [the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation]with members using their leverage on the platforms to have such comments removed.”
In other words, BLM appears to be doing this have lobbied on Facebook that the New York Post story was banned from circulation for no other reason than that it could be used to criticize it. And because BLM is politically powerful Politically favored and revered by America’s elite, Facebook agreed. Not only that, Facebook, by continuing to ban the story from spreading, is still providing cover for a BLM movement even as it faces legal and tax investigations.
Like most of Big Tech Censorship Decisions, It goes without saying that Facebook’s reasoning for banning the distribution of the Post’s story is absurd. For example, the platform did not ban the distribution of stories that quoted liberally from secret records made by Melania Trump — actual data breaches. They also don’t censor messages that contain leaked personal tax return details.
But consistency isn’t the point. Leading Democrats have proven time and time again that they know big tech is a willing partner in their partisan efforts to silence criticism and dissent. Twitter’s new “safety mode” is already automatically blocking criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez frequently complains to Twitter when they trend critical hashtags — and calls it “misinformation” when her own tweets come back to bite her.
Former First Lady Michelle Obama revealed a similar strategy when, fed up with former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric, she didn’t write a comment or try to persuade voters — she called Big Tech to ban him permanent.
In 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that Naral Pro-Choice America complained to Google that the company’s search results turned up too many websites for crisis pregnancy centers — organizations that provide support and advice to women to sustain their pregnancy. In response, Google updated its advertising policies related to abortion.
Facebook, like other big tech platforms, readily endorses the “criticism as abuse” narrative of public figures and organizations that face public criticism because of their notoriety. This allows leftists to arm them largest language platforms in the world for their benefit. In the case of BLM, Facebook played a direct role in shielding the organization from accountability that might have come sooner had criticism been shared and disseminated.
The ability of Big tech platforms Biasing the national conversation around progressive figures and causes flows directly from their magnitude. The unprecedented accumulation of power over language and narrative control threatens not only access to the public space but also its integrity.
The concentration of market power on the big tech platforms allows them to increase the cost of expression in ways that run counter to democracy itself. And the costs are clearly visible in the how we consume information, but also how we actually use these platforms to speak.
The message is not just one of censorship from the platforms, but a clear directive for individuals to self-censor: Dare to criticize the favored and powerful and you too will be silenced.
Rachel Bovard is Senior Director of Policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/06/blm-shows-how-liberals-weaponize-social-media-censorship/ BLM shows how liberals are arming social media censorship