Connect with us

Tech

EXCLUSIVE: Infowars’ Facebook Link Ban Tied to ‘Hate Figure’ Designation of Gavin McInnes

The new information speaks volumes of how Facebook makes its decisions internally.

Published

on

Facebook Gavin McInnes Infowars

In statements provided to Big League Politics, Facebook revealed that their decision to designate Alex Jones a “hate figure” was made, in part, because Jones interviewed Gavin McInnes on his broadcast and allegedly posted the interviews to Facebook.

When explaining their decision to name Jones a “hate figure”, Facebook told Big League Politics the decision was partially inspired by Jones interviewing McInnes, who founded the Proud Boys and co-founded VICE News.

According to Facebook, Jones interviewed McInnes twice and expressed positive sentiments of support toward him, which Facebook says is against the rules. Facebook says users are allowed to refer to McInnes, but may not express support for him or depict him positively. This is the reason many mainstream media sources are allowed to show video featuring McInnes and post articles with his statements and Infowars was not.

Trending: Dr. Anthony Fauci Plotted ‘Global Vaccine Action Plan’ with Bill Gates Before Pushing COVID Panic and Doubts About Hydroxychloroquine Treatments

It is not clear from Facebook’s statement how Jones could have posted his interviews to Facebook, considering all official Infowars pages and Jones’s public figure page were already banned at the time. As Facebook will now ban any user who posts links or videos featuring Alex Jones or his broadcasts, they could have been referring to individual users posting links to the McInnes interviews.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • 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.

Because of his designation as a “hate figure”, Jones has been permanently banned from Facebook and Instagram, and users who post links or videos featuring Jones may now be banned from the platforms as well.

McInnes is currently suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for designating him and the Proud Boys as hateful individuals, which he believes led to them being banned from social media and major financial systems. While Facebook says they do not map to the SPLC to determine who is a “hate figure” and who is not, they also explicitly refused to condemn the SPLC in a statement to Big League Politics, even after the SPLC took credit for Facebook’s decision to ban Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Big League Politics reported:

The SPLC claimed last week that they put Facebook “under pressure” to ban the “dangerous” individuals from Facebook and Instagram, and heralded the move as “an important step for Facebook.”

In its article, the SPLC concluded that the organization “will continue to monitor how Facebook is enforcing its policies related to extremist content.”

Facebook replied to a request for a comment from Big League Politics, with a spokesperson writing in their statement that the company chooses to “speak with numerous organizations across the political spectrum to inform our policies,” and added that they use these conversations to “write and enforce our own policies” which they say are public knowledge.

The connection of McInnes to Jones in the statement provided by Facebook seems curious considering McInnes was first targeted by the SPLC.

It should also be noted that Facebook’s refusal to disavow the SPLC may represent a de facto endorsement of the culture of misogyny and racism present at the SPLC before multiple high ranking officials were fired or resigned.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Tech

Banished Journalist Laura Loomer’s $1.5 Billion Lawsuit Against Tech Giants Will Be Heard in Court

Loomer will have her day in court.

Published

on

Banished journalist and Florida U.S. House candidate Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against Big Tech will be heard in the court of law following an order in the D.C. Circuit on Thursday.

Loomer is accusing tech giants such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter of conspiring to suppress conservative voices on their platforms. The lawsuit is challenging these monolithic corporations for allegedly violating antitrust law as well as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Her lawsuit had been previously tossed out by U.S. District Judge Trever N. McFadden, a Trump appointee to the bench, who stated that “while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor.” However, Loomer was able to use a recent court ruling to resurrect her lawsuit despite the initial setback.

Loomer’s legal team, led by the right-wing political interest group Freedom Watch, used the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina, a ruling which determined that it was unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from social media. The case essentially set the precedent that social media is a 1st Amendment right.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • 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.

“Many of the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Packingham lead to what appellants believe is the natural progression of the law to hold that social media companies are liable for First Amendment violations, given the progression of technology and its infiltration into the daily lives of nearly every single person,” Loomer’s team said in their final brief presented to the court.

Loomer points to Twitter banning her from the platform at the end of 2018 after she said that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) adheres to a religion in which “women are abused” and “forced to wear the hijab.” She was similarly banned from Instagram for her assertion that Islam is “a cancer on humanity,” and Facebook, which owns Instagram, quickly followed suit and banned her even though the offending post was not made on that platform.

Loomer still cannot get her accounts restored despite the fact that she is running for the U.S. House in Florida’s 21st Congressional District, which could be considered a form of electoral interference.

Through her legal fight against the tech giants, Loomer is forcing them to reveal that they are no longer neutral platforms:

The tech behemoth Facebook has admitted that it is a publisher while defending its arbitrary censorship of banished journalist Laura Loomer, according to court documents.

Facebook banned Loomer’s account from their platform during a purge of popular conservative voices that happened in May. Others targeted by the purge included Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. Loomer is striking back with a lawsuit that is unearthing some interesting revelations about the social media monolith.

“Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message,” Facebook’s attorneys wrote.

Facebook actually has the audacity to claim that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated by Loomer’s lawsuit, in a total contorting of reality. They have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

“She claims Facebook labeled her as a ‘dangerous’ person who promotes hate – yet, the First Amendment has long protected such statements because they are opinions that are not capable of being proven true or false,” Facebook’s attorneys claim in their dismissal motion.

Right now, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from being held liable for the content published on their platform. This special exemption worked fine when the social network engaged in relative neutrality, but those days are no more as Big Tech is at war with conservative and pro-Trump voices.

Loomer hopes to have her ability to communicate fully restored and to make Big Tech pay for infringing on her basic rights.

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


Trending