How social media companies painted themselves to the corner

Not-really-politics-but post warning.

Social media companies went all-in political on the side of the liberals. They started censoring any kind of right-wing speech. I left because I didn’t want my blog to disappear over “hate speech”. Google execs literally cried when Hillary lost. The Facebook last-boss-before-the-endboss Sheryl Sandberg wrote an adoring e-mail to John Podesta, which of course found its way to wikileaks.

Such partisanship, such open support of a political agenda gained the favors and unconditional support of the politicians on the left.

Not. Democrat politicians grilled them for helping “the Russians” in Trump’s election. The leftist media openly claims that they helped Donald Trump (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

Their stocks are crumbling as investors see how not just the right, but also the left hates them.

How could die-hard lefties who worked day and night to censor the right became targets of the left?! To understand that, you must accept the obvious, that leftist ideas are coming top-down from liberal academia, think tanks and media. It’s not like “fat acceptance” came after long marches of fat people (if they had marched, they would have lost weight), mostly thin lefty academics made this nonsense up. Similarly most of the hateful statements about white people come from white liberal lunatics and not from people of color who were wronged by white people.

This is the opposite of what we see among conservatives, where the base is more right-wing and the elites are moderate. Why is it important? Because it means that left-wing voters appear as “hateful racist, sexist xenophobes” compared to the left-wing talking heads. And it’s voters who speak on social media. Ergo, it doesn’t matter how many right-wingers Facebook bans, the content on Facebook will stay “hate speech”. Even if Facebook bans everyone but card-holding leftist party members, the discussion will be less lefty than in the leftist media.

The social media companies painted themselves into the corner. They gained the hate of the right for censoring them, and they gained the hate of the far-left for not censoring the centrists and the center-leftists. Besides banning everyone but journalists inside Slate, Vox, Vanity Fair, Huffington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and so on, they will always be viewed as a hive of fascism by the mentioned journalists and other lefty talking heads.

The zealot can never be satisfied by anything but complete purity. The Google exec who literally cried when Trump won is a heretic: a white supremacist, menspreading Nazi according to those who babble about intersectional feminism. The only chance the social media companies had (I doubt if they still have it) is going all-in free speech and hope that the right wing will protect them from the lefty zealots.

Fun fact. When social media companies deleted and demonetized hundreds of thousands of right wing accounts in their futile attempt to stop the conservatives, which one of the victims did the cliche redneck thing and grabbed his gun to shot up their offices? Yep, a vegan immigrant woman of color did it who somehow got flagged and demonetized. You can’t make this up.


PS: to avoid being demonetized and banned, I hereby prove that I’m anti-gun:

Author: Gevlon

My blog:

8 thoughts on “How social media companies painted themselves to the corner”

  1. does good work and shows how deep into the rabbit hole these companies have gone.

    what is with “live and let live” a simple and humble concept, that can run deep and hold a mirror towards oneself. the new wave of smartphone-social-media-fags since ~2010 really are hooked to this nagging and can’t hear different viewpoints at all. if you ban speech people sooner or later will inevitably turn to physical violence … meaning war over nonsense … doesn’t help anyone only culls the poor and the weak.


  2. It still puzzles me as to what exactly compelled these companies to go against their vested business interests.
    Or rather, what other business interests they got that makes limiting the social interactions that are supposedly their bread and butter a profitable proposition.


  3. @Maxim: the same thing that compelled CCP to side with Goon criminals who vandalized CCP property.

    Absolutely nothing. Not “CCP” decided that they do so, it’s not like the CCP board convened and voted in a new manifesto “We shall help Goons” but a single (or few) corrupted employees (Falcon + accessories) decided to follow their own corrupted goals.

    Please note that Marc Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg aren’t main owners of Facebook, they are just employees (no matter how well payed they are). The owners are the stockholders as it’s an openly traded company. These guys simply decided that they harm the company (= the stockholders) to further their own political agendas.


  4. You are making some unsupported claims. You claim that right-wing voters are generally to the right of the candidates. I am not so sure this is right. Here in texas, for example, there is evidence that republicans are tiring of the extreme rhetoric:

    As to Facebook, it appears that still, conservative contributors are very popular and omnipresent, so if Facebook is censoring, they cannot be censoring very hard. I think what happened is they got slammed over the fake news articles in the last election, and most of these tended to be pro-trump anti-hillary type stories, so they censored harder on that basis, resulting in some false positives.


  5. @eatenbyagrue:

    The most important issue to Republican voters is illegal immigration. Can you name a single Rep politician outside of Trump and Steve King who even mentions it? Most Reps aren’t conservatives, but libertarians (most notably Paul Ryan). They are welcomed on Facebook and so are you if you wish to babble about tax cuts and deficit. You can even praise Israel (another weird thing about these Republicans). But dare you mention the single biggest issue for conservative voters and you are banned for hate speech.

    @Maxim: shareholders are powerless to act. Most of them aren’t even aware that they are shareholders. Most people buy investment bonds and the investment companies buy shares in companies. Since their investments are diversified, they have like 5% of their money in Facebook papers, so if those lose 10%, they lose 0.5% and they barely notice it.


  6. You consider Paul Ryan to be libertarian?!?!?! Thats thw most ridiculous thing Ive read for quite some time. Out of curiosity, whats your justification of that?

    Also whats the basis of you saying immigration is the most important issue for reps voters?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s