Following the death of George Floyd at the hands of an out-of-control Minneapolis police officer, and demonstrations mixed with riots across the country, many American corporations weighed in with official statements or financial support for causes – or both.
Unfortunately the involvement of some put them more on the side of divisiveness than unity, at a time when the country needs the latter the most.
Ultimately many of the companies and/or their top-ranking officers got behind (again) the dubious narrative that there is “systemic racism” in law enforcement, and that minorities are disproportionately treated as suspects – or singled out for violent police tactics – more than whites. As Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald and former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy explained earlier this week, citing very convincing statistics, the idea there is structural bias in policing is a myth.
Twitter has now tried to censor the President of the United States, dropping any pretense of neutrality. On issues of race, Twitter’s neutrality was always a myth anyway.
As the National Legal and Policy Center criticized, Twitter and its CEO Jack Dorsey embraced Black Lives Matter in 2014 at a time when its activists were cheering on, or rationalizing away, the murder of police officers.
Dorsey even unveiled a #blacklivesmatter wall painting at company headquarters. He was photographed with BLM activist DeRay McKesson, both clenching fists.
Clenched fists are not symbols of neutrality, or even of the weak confronting the strong. Instead, clenched fists are meant to threaten and intimidate.
In 2015, McKesson defended looting as a legitimate form of political protest in a talk at Yale University. McKesson ran for mayor of burned-out Baltimore and got 2.6%, but he was much more popular in Silicon Valley … Read More ➡
That’s what came out of an interview the social media CEO gave George Stephanopoulos of ABC News on Monday’s “Good Morning America,” in which Zuckerberg said he had an army of “fact-checkers” at the ready to censor what his teams deem as “harmful misinformation.”
“How do you deal with the fact that Facebook is now being used to organize a lot of these protests to defy social distancing, and defy the social distancing guidelines in the states?” Stephanopoulos asked. “If someone is trying to organize something like that, does that qualify as harmful information?”
The knock against Facebook that is getting the most attention right now is that CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said the platform will not act as arbiters of truth and falsehood for political candidates’ posts and ads.
Current and former political candidates like Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have argued that it is irresponsible for the company to not be watchdogs for truth. For his part, Zuckerberg has said essentially that Facebook users are fully capable (through comments) of policing truth vs. fiction and that free speech, not censorship, should be paramount.
As the left’s attacks on Facebook get more hysterical – thanks to President Donald Trump’s smashing success in using the platform – critics are emerging seemingly everywhere, calling for increased accountability through government regulation, because the social media company has “too much power.”
Besides the politicians, a top corporate executive has also spoken out against … Read More ➡
If there was any doubt about why the political Left has suddenly turned against Facebook, it has become clear: It is because they think the social media behemoth is helping President Donald Trump.
Revelations last week by top executive Andrew Bosworth, a vice president who was in charge of advertising during the 2016 election season, won’t disabuse liberals of that. Bosworth, however, did not give Facebook credit for the Trump campaign’s success in 2016 – rather, he attributed it to where it belonged.
“He ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period,” Bosworth wrote in a private Facebook post that he later made public after the New York Times published a story about it.
“[Digital Director Brad] Parscale and Trump just did unbelievable work,” added Bosworth, a self-proclaimed liberal who is reportedly close to CEO … Read More ➡
So has Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg suddenly become a free speech devotee?
If you observe how the political Left is reacting and obsessing over his decision last month to not police political advertisements, you’d think he might have.
His announcement was juxtaposed against the polar opposite move of social media rival Twitter, and its CEO Jack Dorsey, who in early November said his platform would completely ban political ads. The contrast between the two near-simultaneous declarations likely heightened the blowback against Facebook.
The policy means that Facebook won’t subject political ads placed by candidates or advocacy groups to the site’s fact-checking review, as it does with news articles. Nor will ads accused of being false be removed.
Specifically, Zuckerberg said, “In a democracy, I don’t think it’s right for public companies to censor policies or the news.” He downplayed the speculation that he was allowing the ads … Read More ➡
Last week’s polar opposite decisions on the handling of political advertisements by Facebook and Twitter have predictably exposed the anti-free speech tendencies of the Left.
The former announced it would allow candidate and issue ads and exempt them from the platform’s fact-checking operation that it employs for news reports.
The latter said it would ban political advertisements altogether.
Advertisers crave access to Facebook’s users far more than Twitter’s, mostly because it is easy to specify target audiences (for example, those who “Like” Donald Trump). But both social media operations are desirable for politicians and activists to get their messages out, even for Republicans who complain about Facebook’s admitted anti-conservative bias, because they are an effective tool to reach desired voters.
The rationale given by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for his decision shows a mindset that helps explain why his business was not profitable until recently.
Four Republican Senators called out the social media powerhouse earlier this month over censorship of a pro-life group’s post and videos that claimed abortion is not medically necessary. The fact-check that led to restrictions to access of the posts was written b – you guessed it – abortionists.
The “offending” posts were separate videos published on Facebook by Live Action: one featuring the group’s president, Lila Rose, and the other featured by neonatologist Dr. Kendra Kolb. The women claimed in each video that abortion is “never medically necessary.”
To fact-check the claims, Facebook enlisted Robin Schickler, an OB-GYN and fellow at the pro-abortion Physicians for Reproductive Health, and Daniel Grossman, director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health … Read More ➡
Corporate activism for progressive causes has become so common, that it is now news when social justice warrior CEOs don’t sign joint letters that demand government to address their latest outrage.
That’s the case following the recent mass shootings in the Texas cities of El Paso and Odessa, and in Dayton, Ohio. As part of the usual outcry for more gun control legislation after such incidents, several companies co-signed an open letter addressed to U.S. Senators asking them to address the “public health crisis that demands urgent action.”
The major technology companies of left-leaning Silicon Valley regularly participate in such initiatives, and some smaller ones did join this effort, including the top executives at Airbnb, Lyft, Reddit, Twitter, Uber and Yelp.
“There are steps Congress can, and must, take to prevent and reduce gun violence,” the letter stated. “We need our lawmakers to support common-sense gun laws that … Read More ➡
Here are remarks of NLPC Chairman Peter Flaherty at the Facebook annual meeting today in Menlo Park, California in support of NLPC shareholder proposal on workplace diversity:
In response to this proposal promoting ideological diversity, the Company claims that “diversity of ideas is core to our business,” but then goes on cite initiatives that make the company less diverse, not more.
Like the fact that the company publishes data on the ethnicity and gender of the its workforce. Is it not racist and sexist to attribute certain thoughts and ideas to individuals based on their gender or race? Do all African-Americans think alike? How about all women?
Facebook huffs that “we do not collect data on the political ideology of our employees,” as if this would be somehow intrusive.
I’d suggest that it is a lot less intrusive than quizzing employees on the genetic makeup of … Read More ➡