A recent report states that half of President Donald Trump’s posts since election day have been flagged as misinformation by Facebook and Twitter and censored on each platform.
Forbes reports that half of President Trump’s social media posts on Facebook and Twitter since election day have been labeled as false or questionable by the social media giants.
Of President Trump’s 22 posts on Facebook and Twitter, 11 have been labeled by the Silicon Valley tech firms. The posts include the President’s claims to victory and assertions of election fraud taking place. Twitter hid some posts on the President’s timeline and warned users that “some or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process,” and restricted users’ ability to like or retweet the tweets.
Underneath some of President Trump’s Facebook posts, the social media company warned users that “final votes may different from the initial vote counts” or “elections officials follow strict rules when it comes to ballot counting, handling and reporting,” but users were still able to reply to and share the posts.
As of this writing, it appears that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election.
As reporters and commentators went to bed early Tuesday morning, all three states were too close to call, but President Trump led former Vice President Joe Biden by comfortable margins—far beyond what had been predicted in the polls. None of the networks called these states because enough mail-in ballots remained uncounted that it could swing either way, but Trump’s position looked good.
Then, something strange happened in the dead of the night. In both Michigan and Wisconsin, vote dumps early Wednesday morning showed 100 percent of the votes going for Biden and zero percent—that’s zero, so not even one vote—for Trump.
In Michigan, Biden somehow got 138,339 votes and Trump got none, zero, in an overnight vote-dump.
When my Federalist colleague Sean Davis noted this, Twitter was quick to censor his tweet, even though all he had done was compare two sets of vote totals on the New York Times website. And he wasn’t the only one who noticed—although on Wednesday it appeared that anyone who noted the Biden vote dump in Michigan was getting censored by Twitter.
Twitter has once again censored the Republican candidate for Delaware’s U.S. Senate seat, Lauren Witzke, over a tweet drawing attention to the consequences of mass immigration for Europe.
As Breitbart News previously reported, Witzke has already been locked out of her Twitter once this month.
The far-left platform, whose CEO, Jack Dorsey, will likely be subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee next week over its censorship of the New York Post’s bombshell Biden-Ukraine story, said the tweet constituted “hateful conduct.”
The tweets are running the asylum.
Twitter’s senior executives have a long history of anti-Trump hatred, a Post review of dozens of accounts of top employees found.
The venom, vitriol and, in some cases, vows to help Joe Biden across the finish line in next month’s presidential election continue to live online as the company earlier this week decided to censor The New York Post’s revelations about Hunter Biden’s emails to a consultant for the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
“GET HIM OUT,” posted a senior site reliability engineer on Aug. 18. “What a f–king baboon.”
One manager with almost nine years on the job said he was quite keen to watch Biden “crush [Trump] in the election” and that he hoped the president would “be utterly humiliated while also suffering greatly from #COVID19.” In another post he fantasized about the president being put on a ventilator.
He calls Trump “a f–king idiot” and the voters who elected him — “hysterically f–king stupid people.”
At the same time the employee has been a consistent cheerleader of his company’s efforts to rein in the president on the platform and curb the spread of “misinformation.”
“I’m really proud of how quickly we’ve worked to make this possible for the US elections,” he wrote.
Others publicly wish the president harm.
One Twitter engineering manager said Trump should “die in a fire” in a January 2017 tweet. A year later, he rang in the new year by saying “Happy 2018! Donald Trump is dead!”
Social media company Twitter finished its week of apparently politically motivated censorship on its platform by banning tweets regarding the efficacy of masks from Scott Atlas, a member of the White House scientific team battling the coronavirus.
Atlas, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, not only had his tweets removed, he was banned from tweeting until he deleted the tweets that Twitter for unclear reasons objects to.
The New York Post’s Twitter account remains locked as the social media giant demands the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid delete six tweets linking to its stories on Hunter Biden’s emails.
As of Saturday morning, the Post’s Twitter feed shows that it has not posted a story since Wednesday.
A Twitter representative told the newspaper that while the site has lifted restrictions that banned users from circulating the link to the Biden story, the Post is still required to remove the tweets so that it could use its account.
‘While we’ve updated the policy, we don’t change enforcement retroactively,’ a Twitter rep told the Post on Friday in an email.
The only thing that should matter, when it comes to stories like this, is whether or not the material is true and in the public interest. This disturbing new confederation of media outlets and tech firms is rewriting that standard.
The optics of a former Democratic Party spokesman suddenly donning a Facebook official’s hat to announce a ban of a story damaging to Democrats couldn’t be worse. Moreover, the Orwellian construct described in papers like the Times suggests that for tech executives, pundits, and Democratic Party officials alike, the lines between fake news and bad news, between actual misinformation and information that is merely politically adverse, have been blurred. It’s no longer clear that some of these people see a meaningful distinction between the two ideas.
The public can’t help but see this. While papers like the Times denounce the true Podesta emails as “misinformation,” and Facebook says the New York Post story must be kept out of sight until verified, the standard for, say, the Steele dossier was and is opposite. In that case, we were told “raw intelligence” should be published so that “Americans can make up their own minds” about information that, while “salacious and unverified,” may still be freely read on Twitter and Facebook, reported on in the New York Times and Washington Post, and talked about on NBC, so long as it has not been completely “disproven.”
As Erik Wemple of the Washington Post points out, even that last point is no longer true, but the Steele dossier and plenty of other products of what Axios calls “hack and leak” journalism continue to be embraced and freely distributed. The obvious double-standard guarantees that the tech platforms will henceforth be viewed by a huge portion of the population as political censors instead of standards enforcers, and moreover that mainstream press pronouncements about such controversies will be deemed automatically untrustworthy by that same population.