Slavery is alive and well in America. But, don’t take my word for it, open a facebook account and see for yourselves. We, the owners of facebook accounts, are slaves, and Herr Zuckerberg is our not-so-benevolent master. Facebook is a partisan liberal tool that hates conservatives and creates opportunities to unfairly punish us.
When facebook was in its infancy, there was no one in the way. The developers of the nascent social media experiment were allowed to navigate and utilize the free market at will, without interference or manipulation. Their constitutional rights were fully protected, and the social media platform thrived and prospered as a result of the wide-open free market.
One would think the powers that be at facebook would understand firsthand the importance of a neophyte internet concern being permitted uninhibited access to the free market.
Not so. Those who run facebook believe the social media giant and its billions of individual pages belong to them and they can manipulate those pages however they see fit to achieve their latest, leftist goal du jour.
“Facebook jail” is a common term used by administrators of facebook pages. It refers to the routine and regular punishment by facebook for reasons they don’t specify and are never available to discuss. I challenge you to call facebook. Go ahead, see if you can.
I will save you the trouble. From WikiHow: “Unfortunately, there is no way to directly contact Facebook–you can’t call, text, email, or otherwise speak to an employee or affiliate of Facebook. You can, however, use Facebook’s Help Center to diagnose and report a problem with your account.”
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply from Facebook’s Help Center. The odds are greater that Elvis will show up on your doorstep tonight with a $10 million check from Publisher’s Clearing House.
I have been sentenced to facebook jail many times, and please understand this…. I was in facebook jail while paying the social media Nazis to promote the page they were preventing me from using. Not kidding!
I have also had my page hijacked by a hacker who kicked me out and took complete control, posting soft porn and pro-abortion posts to my page. And, once my page was completely deleted by facebook. Thanks to much prayer and the hard work of hired hands who had connections inside facebook, I was fortunate to have my investment returned to me. Not everyone is so fortunate.
I have paid facebook thousands of dollars to promote my page. I don’t pay them anymore. To pay them while they are restricting my traffic because my site is a conservative commentary site is simply wasted money. By the way, “conservative commentary” is synonymous with “fake news” to the mysterious minions at fascistbook.
Then there are the liberal content screeners facebook is using to determine which pages may operate freely and which deserve punishment and restriction. Those which deserve punishment and restriction are known as conservative sites, like Powdered Wig.
Facebook is now on a crusade to rid the social media platform of purveyors of fake news, otherwise known as conservative publishers, like me. They have hired what they refer to as “fact checkers,” code for liberal operatives, like Snopes, a steaming pile of partisan liberal lies.
A new facebook fact checker, Media Bias/Fact Check, I noticed recently is placing uninvited posts on Powdered Wig’s facebook page and calling us a “questionable source.” I have no idea who these people are but I do know that they are liars. Following is their opinion of Powdered Wig….
“A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Some Fake News
Notes: The Powdered Wig Society is a news and opinion blog with extreme right wing bias in reporting. All articles favor the right and use strong emotional loaded words. The Powdered Wig Society does attempt to source their information, however most of the time it is to right wing or other questionable sources. Further, the Powdered Wig Society has a terrible track record with fact checkers, with numerous false claims. Overall, this source does publish some credible news, however it is always extremely right biased. Based on extreme bias, promotion of propaganda and poor fact checking we rate the Powdered Wig Society as Questionable.”
The fact that these so-called “fact checkers” are able to post on my page without my permission tells me that they are on the fascistbook payroll. So, they are using my page to tell my readers these horrendous lies about my site.
To give you an example of the types of sleazy “fact checking” these outfits conduct, we published an article a few years ago on Swedish vigilantes who had had enough of the unchecked migration of Muslims into their communities, so they began burning Muslim refugee centers to the ground. Snopes called the article “FALSE” because we used a stock photo of a generic fire in Sweden as no photos of the refugee centers actually burning could be found. This is not uncommon journalistic practice. The story was 100% true but since the photo was not of an actual refugee center on fire, Snopes labeled the entire article “FALSE.” That is how sleazy these people are.
Shortly after reading the Snopes lie, I scoured through Swedish newspapers and was able to find a photo of one of the actual refugee centers on fire. So, I updated the article with the new photo. Do you think Snopes retracted their “FALSE” claim? No! although they are now calling the article half correct. RT and Reuters reported the same story. Link to Snopes BS…. Snopes BS. Link to Powdered Wig article…. Swedes torch refugee centers
And a couple of my articles on the liberal weenies at Snopes…. Snopes is a steaming pile of lying liberal…. and Snopes founder embezzled $98K for hookers before marrying a porn actress
Now, about fascistbook’s right to lead its customers around by the nose. I have heard ad nauseam, even from attorneys, that facebook is a private company, and as such can operate their business any way they choose.
I disagree with that. My argument is that facebook is a “public” forum and marketplace, subject to constitutional protection. We, the content providers, enjoy (or not) an implied contract with facebook. Facebook grants us entrance to the forum and in return we provide content which makes money for facebook in a variety of ways, not least of which is its stock value. Would facebook have any value if we all left? No. It would be worth whatever the appraised value of its real property in Menlo Park is worth. Its stock value would be $0. We the People are facebook, not Herr Zuckerberg. I contend that our facebook pages are our intellectual property, not facebook’s.
Not only is facebook’s control freak behavior in violation of the First Amendment, but also the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in my opinion. By not restraining facebook’s tyranny, the government is complicit in denying conservative publishers “equal protection of the laws.”
Analogy #1: A bank may own the safe deposit boxes in its bank but it does not own the contents of those boxes, nor does the bank have a legal right to the property therein. Your relationship with the bank is an implied, if not written, contract. You pay rent for the box, which represents the money the bank earns for warehousing your valuables. In return, the bank grants you uninhibited access to the box and provides security for your valuables.
Imagine that you go into your bank to check your safe deposit box. You are unable to open the box and there is a note attached that says you are denied access to your safe deposit box for two weeks, with no further explanation. You look for someone to help you and there is no one in the bank – no tellers, no loan officers, no executives. No help, just you. Your only option is to come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks only to find that the contents of your safe deposit box have been removed. Again, there is no one to complain to, no one to help, only a note declaring that you have violated unspecified “community standards.”
Facebook doesn’t have to be a collection of thoughtless pissant tyrants. They are a collection of thoughtless pissant tyrants because they want to be and believe that there is nothing you can do about it. They know that what they are doing is unethical and immoral, but that doesn’t matter. They believe it is permissible by law. Hitler had laws like that.
Why can’t Zuckerberg and his troop of flying monkeys simply enjoy the bazillions of dollars they are making from our participation in their social media platform, for which we are asking no compensation, only lawful, unrestricted access? Why can’t they allow the free market to drive the direction in which facebook will go (it’s called freedom)? They will make even more money that way. But, alas, that is too easy. They find it necessary to screw with each and every one of us, from political commentators like myself who rely on facebook for marketing to those interested only in sharing cat videos and pictures of their dinner with friends and relatives. We are all facebook.
Analogy #2: A television network is hosting a presidential debate between the liberal Democrat candidate and the conservative Republican candidate. It is being streamed across the country and around the globe. Hundreds of millions are watching.
The Democrat candidate’s lighting is perfect. His makeup is perfect. His audio and video are perfect. The Republican candidate has no lighting. Only his silhouette is visible to viewers. His face is obscured. Likewise, he has no microphone. When he is asked a question, there is only silence.
Is this fair? Is it equal protection under the law? Of course not! Would there be the same apathy if the roles were reversed and it was the liberal Democrat voice being suppressed?
THIS is what we conservative publishers are facing. Our voices are being suppressed, restricted to a trickle of 2% to 3% of what they would normally be if not manipulated by facebook, which allows that 2% to 3% to get through so that they can plausibly deny their bias, blaming the restriction on routine “algorithm changes.” Uh-huh.
UPDATE: As I was finishing my latest edition to this article (4/23/18) to include “Analolgy #2,” an acquaintance who is a fellow conservative publisher instant messaged me on Facebook asking if I had ever seen the following message sent from Facebook.
Instant Article is a facebook program for publishers whereby advertising revenue is shared by facebook and the publisher for readers using mobile devices. I told a conservative friend in the publishing industry recently that since Google and YouTube have demonetized conservatives and we are relying on Instant Article to keep the lights on, facebook “has us right where they want us,” dependent. Those who get the message and obey, abandoning their conservative principles (at least vocally), will be allowed to survive. Those who do not will be demonetized for violating unspecified “eligibility standards” (facebook code for daring to engage in conservative speech).
Thanks to Western Journal and their sources for their fine work gathering and publishing the following information….
From Western Journal
Facebook’s much-publicized demotion of publishers’ content in users’ news feeds has negatively impacted conservative-leaning publishers significantly more than liberal-leaning outlets, an analysis by The Western Journal has revealed.
Liberal publishers have gained about 2 percent more web traffic from Facebook than they were getting prior to the algorithm changes implemented in early February.
On the other hand, conservative publishers have lost an average of nearly 14 percent of their traffic from Facebook.
This algorithm change, intentional or not, has in effect censored conservative viewpoints on the largest social media platform in the world. This change has ramifications that, in the short-term, are causing conservative publishers to downsize or fold up completely, and in the long-term could swing elections in the United States and around the world toward liberal politicians and policies.
Example: New York Post vs. New York Daily News
Case in point: Two rival publishers in New York City, the New York Post and the New York Daily News, are similar in many ways, except for their editorial slants. The Post is well-known as a right-leaning outlet, whereas the Daily News has an established left-leaning slant. For example, the Daily News recently ran a headline after the Parkland shooting that read, “Brave Florida survivors plan day of action for gun sanity and to call out ‘blood on hands’ of NRA puppets.”
Headlines like that garnered the Daily News a 24.18 percent increase in traffic from Facebook, while the right-leaning Post’s traffic dropped 11.44 percent in the same time period.
These results are similar to the “surprisingly profound and partisan” findings of analysis conducted by The Outlet. However, whereas The Outlet analyzed user engagement on Facebook itself, The Western Journal looked at traffic to actual traffic driven to news websites by Facebook, which directly impacts revenue for these sites.
Why did Facebook make this change?
Campbell Brown, a former anchor on NBC and CNN who now leads Facebook’s news partnerships team, told attendees at a recent technology and publishing conference that Facebook would be censoring news publishers based on its own internal biases:
“This is not us stepping back from news. This is us changing our relationship with publishers and emphasizing something that Facebook has never done before: It’s having a point of view, and it’s leaning into quality news. … We are, for the first time in the history of Facebook, taking a step to try to to define what ‘quality news’ looks like and give that a boost.” (Emphasis added.)
Based on The Western Journal’s analysis — and an overwhelming amount of insider reports from new media publishers — it is clear that Facebook’s definition of “quality news” is news with a liberal slant.
Where does this data come from?
To conduct this evaluation, The Western Journal selected 50 publishers known to receive a significant amount of online traffic from Facebook. These publishers include traditional print or television outlets such as The Washington Post, CNN and Fox News, as well as new media outlets like Salon, Vox and The Daily Caller. (The full list of publishers appears in the chart below.)
The Western Journal then assigned each publisher a number between 0 and 100 based on Media Bias / Fact Check News, a third party website that analyzes publishers for political bias and places them on a continuum between “extreme left” and “extreme right.”
Next, The Western Journal checked the monthly Facebook traffic for each of these sources using data from global digital market intelligence company SimilarWeb and compared January traffic to traffic from Feb. 4 through Mar. 3, adjusted for the slightly shorter time period. According to available internal data, Facebook began rolling out this major algorithm change on Feb. 6.
The results: Conservative publishers negatively impacted
The 25 on the liberal side of the scale averaged a 1.86 percent boost in traffic from Facebook, whereas the 25 news organizations on the conservative side averaged a 13.71 percent decrease in traffic.
Based on this analysis, it is clear that liberal news sites are being promoted in Facebook users’ news feeds more often than conservative sites.
After removing the 15 publishers with the least traffic from Facebook, the trend becomes even more clear.
Of the remaining 35 news sources, the 12 most liberal sites averaged a boost of 0.21 percent — in other words, they don’t appear to have been affected in any meaningful way.
The 11 sites in the middle — which ranged from “left-center” to “least biased” on the MBFC News scale — saw a significant increase in Facebook traffic of 12.81 percent.
The 12 most conservatives sites lost an average of 27.06 percent of their traffic from Facebook.
Of the 12 most liberal sites, six saw double-digit decreases in traffic, while four saw double-digit increases and two — The Washington Post and HuffPo — saw single-digit increases. CNN’s traffic increased 43.78 percent.
Of the 11 sites in the middle of the scale, nine saw traffic increase. Only two — CBS News and The Atlantic — saw a traffic decrease.
Among those 11, only two — USA Today and The Economist — can truly be considered centrist according to the MSFC News scale. Their traffic increased by 23.16 percent and 1.12 percent, respectively.
Of the 12 most conservative sites, only two benefited from increased Facebook traffic — the Daily Mail with 3.51 percent and Fox News with 31.67 percent.
The other 10 saw decreases ranging from 3.13 percent at Breitbart to a whopping 76.49 percent at Independent Journal Review. On Feb. 15, IJR announced significant layoffs to an “already skeletal staff,” The Daily Caller reported. Rare, a conservative leaning new media publication owned by Cox Media Group, experienced a 68.7 percent drop in traffic after the algorithm change. Rare shut down entirely last week, Axios reported.
The average impact per news site with the most desktop sessions from Facebook also varied significantly depending on the political leaning of the site.
