All errors should be reported to

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Facebook fiasco shows the wisdom of free speech

Facebook's stock price dropped 24% on Wednesday afternoon. On paper, that was a drop of more than $125 billion in the company's value.

Ah, the price of censorship is enormous.

"Facebook posted weaker-than-expected daily active users for last quarter and said revenue growth would decline sequentially in the second half of this year," CNBC said.

People are tired of Facebook. It is a hassle. While I post links to my blog and repeats of tweets on Facebook, I only go there to check to see if there are any direct messages. I stopped accepting friends.

The reason is shadow banning and other interference in people posting.

Twitter has the same problem.

So does Reddit.

All three services rely on free content from users.We post messages and comments, and the companies sell ads. That's a pretty simple business model.

But Facebook got too clever. It sold personal information to businesses and politicians. It lost trust.

And Twitter is worse as it actually censors people. Over time its shadow banning, suspensions, and expulsions have destroyed its trust. Why should conservatives give it free content?

The worst was Reddit whose CEO changed comments that mocked him for being a thin-skinned nerd.

What this censorship does is leave these companies liable for libel. You cannot say you had nothing to do with X libeling Y when you are censoring content others post.

Besides, these companies are wasting a lot of resources censoring their sites. Yes, you need to check to make sure nothing dangerous is posted, but their moderators are censoring conservatives. When posting the Declaration of Independence gets a warning, you know these dweeb moderators have too much power and too little sense.


Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at


  1. Used to be “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”.

    Now the cycle plays out over three software releases.

  2. Political correctness enforcement, yes, but the big social media companies also always seem to miss the boat as to what people are wanting at some point.

    Does the information you put out on these networks have to be available to literally anyone else in the network? Most people have target groups that they would like to share information with. Why does it also have to be available to potential enemies or people who would do harm to ourselves and our children as well? Universal policing won't stop this. It may be a flaw that no one can overcome, and these kinds of networks could go the way of the dodo bird.

    One simple thing that seems to be in the process of replacing social media is private networking offered by phone companies. Right now this is limited to people using the same phone services, but if an app was developed that could cover across company limitations at low cost, it would hurt social media even more.

    My bet is that some forms of social media will remain universal for the purpose of recruiting like-minded individuals into groups, but those people's engagement will be limited to finding some private chat that they can go to that is unhindered by the PC police.

  3. Doin't forget to add that the dweeb moderators are not familiar with the Declaration of Independence. Their liberal educations didn't include it.


  4. There was talk several months back of an internet supreme court. Let's make one. The president appoints one judge to serve at his pleasure. Said judge can be replaced by this president at any time, or the next president.
    Each governor appoints one judge, same rules apply. Then the judges form into panels. A party who was banned, blocked or demonitized can file a complaint. The panel containing the judge from his state reviews the content that led to the banning and decides if it should be blocked. Appeals go to the full court of 51. No hearings, no oral arguments, just submit the content, stand back and prepare to get handed your ass on a pitch fork.
    Court would have ability to impose 30 day prison sentences on web site owners such as Suckerboy, and impose monetary restitution, say up to $250 per banning or removal.
    Control would apply to social media type sites, not to private blogs, but if say, blowspot decided to act against a blogger, that would be actionable, but not if Don moderated a comment by some idiot redneck.
    Might be a dumb idea, but letting communists like Suckerberg freely attack conservatives is not working, although the backlash has been tasty.

    1. "Some idiot redneck" just disqualified this as anything approaching a good idea.

    2. Oh come now. (Should I have printed "This"?)

  5. Do you know how little you have to know to be a moderator at Facebook? There major accomplishment is being able to read, understanding is optional. Answering interview question in a PC or liberal way will get you employed (I know).
    I assume the same qualifications exist at Twitter and Reddit but have no experience there.

    1. And the Oval Office from January 2009 to January 2017...

  6. I used to look forward to Jay Fivekiller's comments on twitter but he was banned. Yesterday twitter looked like a direct feed from the dnc and USA communists. No conservative commentary at all. What a disappointment.

  7. How will you folks what to say without someone confirming your narrow bias? Fox & Friends only goes so far.

    1. Ah, Nonny confusing free speech with narrow thinking?

    2. How will you folks what to say without someone confirming your narrow bias

      We know enough to be able to construct a simple interrogative English sentence.

    3. Meanwhile, the rest of the media is nothing but Fake News and the propaganda arm of the Dimocrat Party. Bless Fox News!- GOC

  8. Sometimes I think that this campaign by the left to ban badthinkers from the net is a subterfuge for bringing back some kind of fairness doctrine or goad right wingers into accepting government oversight of speech on the internet and in the press. This would mean that they have confidence that somehow they would be able to control the final outcome of such an arrangement to their own advantage. If that were the case, history would be a good indication that they are correct. However, other scenarios could result.

    The interesting thing about the policing of speech in the last fifty years has been that people were basically tricked into letting the courts say that pornography was protected speech, but if some conservative said anything on TV or radio, the station had to give equal time to a liberal, meanwhile all of the content that wasn't officially called commentary could be slanted to the left in presentation. This was essentiall rule by an empire of sorts. That empire has fallen. Pornography represents the invasion of barbarian hordes allowed to cross the Rhine. The government could get away with the above as long as pornography was relegated to shadowy confines, but when social media came around it became obvious that some kind of common sense policing had to be instituted. First thing you know, the libs running social media let this policing bleed over into kinds of thought that should not be allowed, either. It has become rather arbitrary. The default reaction of people has become that whoever owns the network makes the rules and that this is something the markets can take care of.

    In some ways it is a form of speech feudalism, where the owners of the networks are the lords of the manse and those who swear to abide by their terms of service become knights with their own fief (lots of followers), or simple serfs, who go there for protection and are allowed to speak occasionally.

    The big question for many may end up being how long they will be willing to remain in such a feudal state, and if they decide that they are unhappy with it, what form of speech government will be the result of a transition?

  9. And yet the brilliant minds at these social media companies think that their problem is that they do not censor conservatives aggressively enough ...

  10. Said it before, but here goes...

    In 2 years, FB will be just another MySpace.

  11. Dropped Facebook and I don't click on anything anyone sends me about them. Pretty easy to do.

  12. Don, what is this thing you call Facebook? I am not familiar with it.

  13. I use FB less, but continue to use it.

    Why no "better than FB" copycats? Network effect bootstrapping is hard, very hard. << could be a good alternative to twitter, but conservatives in general don't need so much gab / so many tweets.

  14. I switched from twitter to and from FaceBook to

  15. 1. It's a start.
    2. Isn't it time to put Zuckerdork on the Schadenfreude list?

  16. Make shadow banning illegal. It is defrauding people of their time.