Factchecking

One example of factchecking, by Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook censors factcheckers, is provided by Power Line.  It seems that Jon Hinderaker was impertinent enough to link to his Power Line post from his Facebook account, and that post rudely suggested that there might be voter fraud in the Wisconsin establishment.

Zuckerberg’s minions didn’t like that, so they had USA Today “fact check” the post, and based on that “news” outlet’s review, they added this to Hinderaker’s Facebook link.

Here’s Hinderaker’s rebuttal—on Power Line, since Zuckerberg brooks no argument with his priests—in pertinent part (RTWT):

The explanation given for Facebook’s “fact check” is that “Wisconsin turnout [is] in line with past elections, didn’t jump 22%.” But my Facebook post said nothing about Wisconsin turnout jumping by 22%. Neither did my Power Line post, which I doubt anyone from USA Today or Facebook actually read. According to Wisconsin officials, that state had a record turnout in 2020, not one that was “in line with past elections,” so Facebook’s “fact check” is blatantly false. Also, obviously, it doesn’t even attempt to deal with anything I wrote in my Power Line post, which, among other things, explained why some observers have made exaggerated claims relating to Wisconsin’s 2020 turnout numbers. Nor does it try to explain why there is something wrong with what I wrote on Facebook, which was that “the numbers suggest” that there was major voter fraud in Wisconsin–a claim that, as far as I know, stands unrebutted.

Hinderaker is polite and says Zuckerberg’s (Hinderaker also says “Facebook,” but Zuckerberg is the MFWIC, not only in name, but with controlling share ownership) fact check is false. I have no such compunction: Zuckerberg, through his censors, is straight up lying.

Zuckerberg no longer runs a pipeline and so that operation no longer falls within the protections of the 1996 Communications Decency Act‘s Section 230. Here’s what Section 230 does in this context:

…protects social media platforms from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

It’s that “otherwise objectionable” bit that’s the problem (and so is “harassing” in this context). That’s where political speech is getting censored by Zuckerberg. From that, he’s made his operation a publisher (of opinion and, in too many cases, lies; although the latter is neither here nor there regarding Section 230), and so either his Facebook needs to be reclassified and removed from within Section 230, or Section 230 needs to be corrected to remove “otherwise objectionable” or anything like it from the liability protection clauses and the definition of “harassing” tightened a very great deal. Afterall, newspapers don’t get those protections; neither should Zuckerberg’s publisher.

Full stop.

A Response

Recall that Twitter had censored a tweet by Customs and Border Patrol’s Mark Morgan, Senior Official Performing the Duties of Commissioner (i.e., Acting Commissioner), both deleting his tweet and suspending his—CBP official—Twitter account.

Here is the offending tweet, as quoted in a letter to Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, by Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolfe:

CBP & US Army Corps of Engineers continue to build new wall every day. Every mile helps us stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators, and drugs from entering our country. It’s a fact, walls work.

Here is Dorsey’s response, through his censors:

You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

The disconnect between Dorsey’s response and Morgan’s tweet is so obvious and blatant that Dorsey can only be committing rank censorship and his response considered deliberately dishonest.

Dorsey ultimately backed down under public pressure and restored Morgan’s access to his account. Notwithstanding, Wolfe wrote his letter to Dorsey, and he didn’t pull many punches. Here is that letter; note, too, the footnote:

October 30, 2020
Mr. Jack Dorsey
Chief Executive Officer
Twitter
1555 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
I write to you about Twitter’s recent censorship of Mark Morgan, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Not only was Twitter’s act of censorship unjustified—the tweet is supported by data—it is disturbing.  As the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other Federal agencies continue to rely on Twitter to share important information with the US public, your censorship poses a threat to our security.
Hours after you concluded testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 28, 2020, Twitter suspended Mr. Morgan for tweeting: “CBP & US Army Corps of Engineers continue to build new wall every day. Every mile helps us stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators, and drugs from entering our country. It’s a fact, walls work.” Twitter’s moderators, apparently triggered by the tweet, emailed Mr. Morgan to say, “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” The Acting Commissioner’s tweet did none of these things.  Read it. Watch the video.
The fact that the tweet was removed and the account locked is startling.  It is hard to understand how anyone believed Mr. Morgan’s tweet promoted violence, threats or harassment.  Especially considering that the facts about the border wall system support the tweet.
Whether you know it or not, CBP guards the front line of the American homeland.  CBP repels and arrests thousands of violent criminal gang members each year. CBP rescues young girls who are forced into cross-border sex trafficking.  CBP intercepts dangerous drugs and contraband, including enough of the opioid fentanyl to kill every man, woman, and child in the United States several times over.  CBP fulfills the United States’ most obvious and essential law enforcement and national security responsibility to the people of our country.  Your company may choose to be ignorant of these facts, but it is no less censorship when you choose to suppress them.
There was no reason to remove Mr. Morgan’s tweet from your platform, other than ideological disagreement with the speaker.  Such censorship is disturbing.  Twitter’s conduct censoring US government officials also endangers the national security.  It is dangerous and damaging when any publisher arbitrarily and unfoundedly decides, as it did here, that the facts and policies of a particular Presidential Administration constitute “violence”—in order to censor them. And in the case of Twitter, this can cut off an essential mode of communication between US Government officials and the public. In doing so, Twitter is sabotaging public discourse regarding important national and homeland security issues.
Further, it is clear that Twitter’s gross censorship was intentional, not accidental.  Twitter notified CBP that it had censored Mr. Morgan’s message and locked his account.  In response, CBP communicated with Twitter’s office of government affairs, and also appealed Twitter’s censorship decision.  But Twitter denied the appeal.  And Twitter’s office of government affairs ignored CBP’s communications.  Only after CBP reached out to Twitter’s office of government affairs a second time and went public with this censorship, then finally Twitter admitted its bad judgment and unlocked the account.1
I call on you to commit to never again censoring content on your platform and obstructing Americans’ unalienable right to communicate with each other and with their government and its officials, including the thousands of law enforcement officers at the DHS who work vigilantly and diligently to protect your safety every day.
Sincerely,

Chad F. Wolf

Acting Secretary

[Footnote] 1: Adding insult to injury—and insult to Americans’ intelligence—Twitter then spread disinformation by misrepresenting Twitter’s intentional censorship. Specifically, “[a] Twitter spokesperson confirmed that Morgan had been locked out of his account but said ‘the decision was reversed following an appeal by the account owner and further evaluation from our team.'”  Caitlin Oprysko, Trump’s Border Chief Slams Twitter for Locking His Account After Border Wall Tweet, POLITICO (Oct. 29, 2020, 03:05 PM), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/29/mark-morgan-twitter-border-wall-tweet-433617. It makes the false impression that Twitter’s appeal process remedied a mistake, but in fact Twitter’s appeal process failed. Twitter actually denied CBP’s appeal. Twitter only reversed itself after controversy and embarrassment escalated.

This sort of thing, by Sundar Pinchai and John Hennessey at Alphabet and Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook as well as by Dorsey, will continue, though—this response regarding Morgan’s tweet will simply be a one-off used by those three to claim purity—unless and until these social media platforms are brought under control and their censorship ended. That will take pressure from us citizens on them and on the folks we elect to represent us and our positions in government to rein them in.

The letter also can be read here.

Free Speech

During last week’s Senate Commerce Committee hearings on Facebook’s, Alphabet’s, and Twitter’s seeming censorship of speech of which those entities’ MFWICS—Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Jack Dorsey—disapprove, Senator Ed Markey (D, MA) said this:

The issue is not that these companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is that they are leaving too many dangerous posts up.

This, from the Senator who also said this about the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett:

Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.

This is the assault on freedom of speech—on our Constitution—we can expect from a Progressive-Democrat-controlled Congress and White House.

Turkey’s Erdoğan

In Turkey, this Cover Page of the Charlie Hebdo publication would be a crime because Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is afraid of ridicule (the headline caption translates as “In private, he’s very funny”). In France and much of the West, it’s a matter of free speech and free press. Here, too.

The joke is on Erdoğan. Or he is the joke. You pick ’em.

Biden Supporters

Team Save America tried to hold a rally in San Francisco last Saturday, and they were attacked, many beaten, one had a tooth knocked out by the Leftist gang of thugs known as antifa.

They planned to rally at United Nations Plaza before moving the protest to Twitter’s headquarters a few blocks away. But the event quickly devolved into a shouting match and violence as hundreds of counterprotesters stormed the scene.

As Philip Anderson, an organizer of Team Save America’s protest and the one whose tooth was knocked out, said,

This is what happens when you lose free speech. This is what happens, America. This is what our country is turning into.

This is what Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden refuses to denounce.

This is the violent Leftist group that Biden refuses to denounce.