Facebook Just PURGED Over 800 Political Accounts for what they call spamming and inauthentic behavior. Many of those banned are crying foul saying they didn't break any rules. Some believe this is Facebook purging political content just before the mid terms to prevent "meddling."Is this a case of censorship or is Facebook actually doing the right thing?Many of the pages removed were left and some were far left but they did happen to remove many right wing pages as well. Unfortunately as many people were calling out this behavior in the past social justice activists and feminists cheered when major social media banned people, now that it is affecting pages they like they are upset. But this is exactly what we said would happen.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
A massive purge of Facebook pages, mostly left wing anti establishment outlets. Some with millions of followers, were all unpublished by Facebook. Basically, this me
they were banned. We got the mid term elections coming up, so naturally twitter
spoken. All these other social media platforms are trying to prevent election meddling from
Thus, we have seen some people on Twitter get suspended for posting mislead.
Information about the elections, most notably James Woods, who eventually to get his account back now? We're saying that a bunch of political, mostly leftwing, Facebook pages, are getting bent, and it's kind of interesting to me, because our alot of people who are far left the activists, types who laughed when Alex Jones got banned and when I posted in defence of the right to post, not in defence of the content Jones created, they said your
Funding Alex Jones. No, I was defending the principle and what happens? Some of these very same people are now complaining that the content they like has just been banned for basically the same reason: posting misleading in for
but this is actually a really interesting story that allow people Don T matter stand. People are looking at this and thinking it's just a case of Facebook. Censoring
discourse, but it actually might be. It might be the facebooks not wrong in this matter,
because I actually have some insight or knowledge of what was going out with some of these pages. So first lesson,
Look at the LOS Angeles Times to see just who got banned by faced
But before I do that police had over two patriarch dotcom ports left him cast to become a patron to help support. My work patrons are the backbone of the content. I've creates of you like video
like this and you, like the vetoes on my second check, please, God of patriotic Dotcom, forts lashed him cast to help support my facebook purged over eight hundred accounts and pages, pushing political messages for profit. Facebook said Thursday that encouraged more than eight hundred. U S, publishers and accounts for flooding users with politically ordered content that violated the company's spam policies, a move that could reignite accusations of political censorship, the accounts and pages with names like reasonable people unite and River Press were likely. Domestic actors, using click, make headlines and other spam tactics to drive users to websites where they could target them with adds the company set some at hundreds of thousands of followers and expressed a range.
Political viewpoints, including a page which build itself as the first publication to endorse president tromp? They did not appear to have ties to Russia. Company official said Facebook said it was removing the publishers and accounts not because of the type of content they posted, but because of the behaviors they engaged in, including spanning Facebook groups, with identical pieces of content and using fake profiles. Today we were moving five hundred and fifty pages and two hundred and fifty one accounts that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated
Authentic behaviour, the company said in a blog post, people will only share on Facebook if they feel safe and trust the connections they make here with the move to target American politically oriented sites. Just weeks before the congressional MID term, elections is sure to be a flashpoint for political
Groups and their allies, which are already attacking the Tec giant for political bias and for arbitrary censorship of political content. Our times highlights a couple of the pages that were removed, one nation in distress. It pitched itself as the first online publication to endorse President Donald Trump founded and twenty twelve had amassed more than three point: two million likes and over three million followers. According to a Washington Post review on Thursday in recent posts and photos, it had criticised journalist for failing to report on trumps approach to China and shared a link to a story that had called Rep Maxine Waters demented the page affiliated itself with a website called America's free.
Fighters, which appeared to post its own conduct and duplicate press releases written by others about violent crimes and gun rights, all alongside a sidebar events. Naturally, there are a lot of people claiming it's not true. They were.
Spamming and they were caught up in this this ban wave- and I would I think, it's fair to say that they're, probably a lot of innocent people who are caught up in this over eight hundred different pages or accounts were banned. Essentially, so, naturally, you can
There would be a few innocent people, but the story is actually rather interesting and it's actually a lot bigger than just some political censorship. Ford Fischer, who is a journalist, tweeted Heres, a list of pages taken
down that just one single friend of mine lost most deal with police accountability libertarianism.
Cannabis, and we can see that one of the pages was blocked out. I'm not sure why that was rejected. However, you can see police, the police police, the police, unlike cobbler cop logic, you ve got filming filming cups. You ve got policing the police again, you ve got police the police employees
the police, but you can see Rachel. Blowguns was an individual another person who was removed, gone laws, don't work Liberty principle legalizing cannabis. The interesting thing about this is that Ford says one person had all of these pages unpublished. Why was one person and admin
to all of these different pages, many of them extremely similar, like police, the police and policing the Police- and why was this person an admin to the private page of Rachel lemons? When it comes to the Facebook story? I think they're actually might be something here and Facebook might
right. A few years ago, I was told about how these pages operate, that one person will become
Edmund to all these other pages and then share their articles on a bunch of different but similar pages in an effort to make it seem, like the article, was trending
you see pages like cop lot, cop watch, police, the police police in the police police, the police on why the role extra-
We similar, then they start posting, basically the same content and the Facebook,
I'm says. Well, look at all these accounts during this continent must be good when in reality it was one person with a bunch of identical pages.
Sharing the same article, so you could argue
there's nothing wrong with that. That's fine, if you think so, but Facebook said it was against their rules to me. I don't think that Facebook is targeting people for political reasons. I think they are done defied a network and they just swept up the entire network and when looking at the screen shot
most by Ford. I noticed that Rachel Levin was listed. My assumption was all of these pages belongs to Rachel lemons, because why would someone else be an admin to Rachel, lemons and
all of these other networks, and I can say for sure whether it is but I can say that's likely why Rachel Lemons got banned not because of any thing. She did, but
because someone who is using her paid or access to it, was doing something in violation of Facebook and when they do that admin when they post to Rachel Lemons page
That pages in violation of the rules to and will also get banned. Now, look, I think the facebook thing
actually have some merit? Facebook may have actually removed some people for being bad actors, but this is
Are things actually get strange, Ford Fisher? Also tweeted? Carry
of anti media was suspended from Twitter during today's indy media anarchist social media purge the email says specifically for and that port is blank specifically for nothing specifically for lacking the approval of the mainstream media and the state, and we can see other people actually got.
On Twitter with the same email, global revolution live is clobbered along with land type bird and his wife Nicky, who are getting her
asked endlessly by U S federal authorities as well, and there is a screen
that says. Lobal rough life has been suspended.
Violating the twitter rules specifically for blank? Now? I don't,
know for sure why these people were suspended from twitter, but many of the people who had their pages unpublished on Facebook, also saw their twitter accounts. Get unpublished as well. The free thought project had there
it removed and then on Twitter. They treated about it and shortly after they were banned as well, which says to me that Facebook must have shared their list with
better and twitter, then remove them from their platform. Now keep in mind twitter says they.
Our move, you for off platform behaviour. If Facebook did share this information with twitter and then Twitter banned them, it's all
part of the same rules now in discussing this with some sources and some people involved, I've been told that these people didn't do anything wrong. Nowhere does it say,
you can't be an admin to someone else's facebook page and share this article, but just because you,
don't know what the rules are doesn't mean you get to break them and it is troublesome. Alot of people want to know the rules are
follow them if there told what they should do and if that's the case,
then many of these pages should have gotten a warning and been told you can't do this anymore if they have well, then it's their own fault, but
it seems like nobody was given any warning and a lot of people didn't realize they may be breaking the rules, and this is one of the biggest problems with censorship in social media, the arbitrary enforcement of rules- and this is why people will scream its political censorship. In my opinion, I dont think this is a case of political censorship.
I think some people just allowed a bad actor to use their pages and didn't realize they were using it to break the rules. The example that I can give is Rachel lemons. That's a really good point
why would someone who isn't Rachel lemons be admitting her page and posting things to it back in the elevator
story. There is a quote from Alex demos. It is totally reasonable for companies to say if you abuse our mechanisms, we will punish you, even if the individual content is ok. Facebook first reduce the ability to use, adds to punish
extreme content. Now they are attacking organic recommendation systems such as the likes and shares used to artificially inflate posts, and that quote explains exactly why I take issue with a lot of the censorship and banning that we see the rules are arbitrary, they're, probably other people breaking the rules who don't at band. They can't evenly enforced this its. It would be literally impossible. Facebook has hundreds of millions of pages billions of users, so they do what they can. But that means there is disproportionate enforcement and its unfortunately, its unfair. But what this means is that these pages have legitimate ideas they want to share. Maybe it
parabolic. Maybe they were spamming it too much, but they are political opinions and is the right of these people to share them. Facebook has determined the way they are showing them was wrong and remove these people. That means they are no longer participating in public and
but our sad for whatever reason, giving no reason removed all of them as well, and this means they will no longer participate in public. In my opinion, I think there's gotta be a push to get rid of the fringe extremists on both sides because we're becoming too divided, and it is really dangerous. Jack Dorsey says that he's got to make a healthy platform for discussion. It's his worldview, it's his opinion. That's going to be guiding that I've been very dangerous and it's very, very dangerous. Too few people have too much power
in how we communicate in what ideas that did shared and its frustrating. For me, when I see this happen, Alex Jones- and I say, hey everybody- this is bad. You shouldn't let massive multinational corporations term and who is and is allowed to participate in public yet,
People cheered for the demise of Alex Jones is social media platforms. Only
to now be upset that their platforms, other ones getting purged, but this is
Actually, what we are warning about, I am equally is upset with many a
these people getting removed as I am with Alex Jones. I dont like their content, not at all, but they have a right to publish it if their breaking the rules. It is what it is, but they can always point some flimsy and obscure rule to remove you Alex Jones was remover, reckon the rules, but did he really was
Effective enforcement- that's the trouble, in fact, some of the people who got removed used to pay
lies and smears about me and now they ve been banned and even though they lie
and smear me. Unfortunately, there's free speech in this country and we have
let us not forget, is defamation. Defamation is not free speech, but I still think it was wrong to ban them and I dont know why they were banned in the first place.
I will always stand up for an individual's right to participate in public because homogenous
using our ideas is a bad idea.
And allowing massive multi national billion dollar corporations. The ability to control who or who is not participating in public will lead us down a very dark and dangerous path. I hope everybody lessening understands this, but I think you do if you watch me, you understand the need for free speech even on these private social media platforms. So let us think of the commons below. Do you think this political censorship, or do you think they really broke? The rolls I'll tell you straight. I do think they are reckon the roles, but also think they should have been warned before. Being purged alot of people probably granted access to someone who they shouldn't have and didn't realize it would get them banned again. You'll amount, you think, will keep a conversation going. You can follow me on Twitter, TIM Guest, stay tuned, new.
Videos every day at four p m and new videos on my second channel Youtube com slashed him cast new stung at six p m. Thank you also to hang out, and I will see you next time.
Transcript generated on 2020-05-09.