Connect with us

Tech

BLP Exclusive: Faith Goldy Responds to Facebook, Instagram Bans

Goldy was deemed a “Dangerous Individual.”

Published

on

Monday, a Canadian right-wing reporter and activist was banned from the world’s largest social network, along with its smaller subsidiary.

“Facebook, without any warning to me, has informed Canada’s state journalists that they consider me to be a ‘Dangerous Individual,'” Faith Goldy told Big League Politics. 

“What a farce! I’m a 29-year-old Canadian girl who loves my country and makes videos citing statistics from my kitchen table,” she continued. “If enemies of nationalism consider little ol’ me to be a threat, it shows you how weak their arguments really are. Newsflash: Ideas took countries and whole continents by storm long before Instagram models and Facebook likes were a thing.”

Trending: Chinese Billionaire Dissident Leaking Hunter Biden Emails Says There Will Be “10,000” More Pictures After Sex Tape

Goldy was banned from Instagram, too, which is owned by Facebook.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

She also implored President Donald J. Trump to step in and regulate big tech, which has garnered a reputation for censoring conservatives.

“That said, it sure would be nice to see Donald Trump regulate these censorious companies sometime before 2020 because this sure ain’t what the free market looks like, Chief!” Goldy said.

Goldy had some thoughts on the Communications and Decency Act, specifically Section 230, which protects Facebook and other tech giants from lawsuits by users. An update to this law could help protect users from big tech tyranny. She said:

Facebook is racist. Mark. Zuckerberg discriminates. Instagram and Facebook, under Zuckerberg’s leadership, perpetuate systemic racism against whites who celebrate the merits of Western Civilization.

And CDA 230 protects Zuckerberg’s racism.

When a tech giant like Facebook bans a user, they are in effect acting as user themselves — but they are users which also curate their own content — and should therefore be able to be sued.

Currently CDA 230 protects sites like Facebook from being sued even though they are curating their own content. When they ban opinions they don’t like, and eject users who haven’t violated their TOS, they are engaging in defamatory conduct, as well as tortious interference.

Users who are substantively injured by Facebook and Instagram should be able to sue those platforms for reputational damage.

Goldy is in good company. Nearly every effective difference-maker in the conservative world has been censored in one way or another. Radio show host Alex Jones was banned from nearly every major tech platform. Right-wing commentator Gavin McInnes was banned from Twitter, along with activist and Big League Politics contributor Laura Loomer.


Follow Peter D’Abrosca on Twitter: @pdabrosca

Like Peter D’Abrosca on Facebook: facebook.com/peterdabrosca

Preorder Peter D’Abrosca’s Book: Enemies: The Press vs. The American People”

Tech

Facebook Will Create “Oversight Board” For Users to Appeal Censorship Decisions

A smidgen of accountability.

Published

on

Facebook is planning on rolling out an “oversight board” to which users of the platform can appeal the censorship of content.

Over the next few weeks, our nearly 3 billion users will have access to an independent review of difficult content decisions,” announced the company in a Thursday blog post.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Facebook is describing the oversight board as a “global body of experts separate from Facebook that will make independent and binding decisions on the cases they choose to hear.” Facebook users will presumably have the option to appeal incidences of censorship to Facebook’s oversight board when they have exhausted use of Facebook’s existing censorship appeal process. However, the existing process is only available on a seemingly arbitrary basis, and it’s probably not unlikely that those who already aren’t in Facebook’s good graces won’t be allowed the opportunity to appeal to the oversight board.

The overseers are employed and selected by Facebook itself, casting serious doubt as to whether they’re genuinely impartial arbiters of social media censorship.

It’s hard to tell if this is a step in the right direction or merely a ruse for the monopoly to counter accusations that its arbitrary censorship process is undemocratic and authoritarian. In predictable fashion, the powerful Oversight Board is staffed almost exclusively with Soros-linked neoliberal progressives, some of whom have already advocated for a European understanding of “free speech” as opposed to an American one.

With great power comes great responsibility, and Facebook seems content to accept the former without the latter. It simply isn’t their place to declare what is permissible political speech.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending