Were the Democrats behind Facebook's phony hate-group list?
Poor Facebook. America's adjudicator of public dialogue seems unpopular with just about everyone these days. For the left, it was Frances Haugen's leak about its speech controls for Third World users apparently lacking. And for the right, it was the leak of the company's so-called "dangerous individuals and organizations" list.
According to news reports about the latter, among the 4,000+ global entries — each handpicked according to a process no one's ever seen — were "terrorists, historical villains, cartels, militia groups, as well as dissidents." As one commentator wryly noted:
Things get interesting when one gets to the 'Hate group' category, where alongside the Nazis of WWII there are ... English Defence League, Génération Identitaire and its sister organizations in the US and other European countries, a Canadian student group called Students for Western Civilisation, and ... men's rights activists from A Voice For Men.
Although the leak was widely covered by conservative outlets, none managed to catch what was perhaps the most revealing finding: that not a single U.S.-based group listed was non-white. Surely, to anyone who doesn't subscribe to Frances Cress Welsing's theory about whites being naturally violence-prone due to their low melanin content, this just doesn't seem right. Where are the black groups, for instance? Despite having committed numerous acts of overtly racist violence, groups like the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party, the Nubian Nation of Moors, and the Black Hebrew Israelites have all managed to stay in Zuckerberg's good books and keep their accounts. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center includes each of these groups on its hate list.
Facebook's "hate group"-list was ostensibly born out of its 2019 policy expressly banning "white nationalist" individuals and groups from its platform. Previously, Zuckerberg and company took a slightly more contemplative position on the issue, telling moderators that what is sometimes perceived as white nationalism "doesn't seem to be always associated with racism (at least not explicitly)."
But such level-headedness is long gone. Since the 2019 policy came into place, it's been revealed that Facebook now tells its moderators to consider it a plus factor in deeming a white user "hateful" if he is religious or lives in an "all-white town." They've also been revealed to treat "hate speech" directed toward white people with less concern compared to non-whites. Also tolerated are threats of violence against people and groups it considers "dangerous" (i.e., real and perceived white nationalists).
Although the company certainly doesn't deserve a defense, I suspect it's really Democrat pressure that's forced Facebook into its current asymmetric position on "hate groups." Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats can more or less dictate the mainstream media's agenda. In other words, they can basically create as much damage for Facebook as they'd like, including reforming its sweeping Section 230 protections.
As to why the Democrats would pressure Zuckerberg into taking a side on which groups can and can't advocate for themselves online (or spout vitriol), two reasons come to mind:
1. Facebook is able to platform amateur media personalities who can draw just as many viewers and followers as most network pundits themselves. And a challenged, dwindling mainstream media establishment is bad for Democrats' power.
2. The Democrats must keep together a loose coalition of minorities, gays, and single white women. In a sick, twisted way, demonizing and scapegoating whites, particularly white straight males, does help achieve this. This means made-up pandemics of white online terror have to be kept up in the air and made ever-present.
That the Democrats in government could be pushing Facebook to do things they can't do constitutionally would, of course, be against the law. This is what former president Trump is cleverly alleging in his case against Twitter. As he rightly claims in his suit, a state encouraging, even covertly, a private actor to violate what would otherwise be permissible under the First Amendment has long been deemed unlawful state action under Supreme Court precedent. A Trump win could see Facebook looking back at its previous, racially neutral policy with greater fondness. Considering how important it is for the mafia-like Democrats to keep up their false, or at least vastly inflated, "domestic terrorism" scourge, it's hard to see how else Facebook will change.
You can find John Kline on Twitter.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.