I'm done with Facebook. I'm done with social media that seem to exist for the sole purpose of facilitating treason, seditious conspiracy, Obama Derangement syndrome, Holocaust-denialism and homophobic and trans-phobic bigotry, among other things
This morning, I received terse little missive from the folks at Facebook’s community standards Department informing me that I had been blocked from posting on Facebook for 30 days. I chose to regard this as the permanent end of my relationship with Facebook.
I ended my relationship with Facebook because I was the subject of harassment and bullying from a purportedly liberal Democratic group and from one particular individual therein, who apparently has friends in high places at Facebook.
What I can ascertain from Facebook’s application of its so-called community standards is that the community standards Department is essentially a vehicle for the pursuit of grudges and vendettas.
The way Facebook applies its so-called community standards is not tethered to any fixed principle, nor is it in any way transparent or anchored to fixed and identifiable metrics by which someone can determine what is and is not transgressive.
I posted a comment concerning Bristol Palin’s apparent inability to avoid getting pregnant by not one, but two separate men to whom she was not married. I pointed out that her hypocrisy in doing so, while positioning herself as a “spokeswoman” for sexual abstinence and continence lent itself to slut shaming.
Now let me be perfectly clear, in ordinary cases I would condemn slut shaming in the strongest possible terms. But when someone deliberately injects herself into the vortex of public debate on the issue of sexual abstinence while having two children out of lawful wedlock by separate baby daddies, she necessarily tenders her condition exposes herself to public debate, condemnation, and ridicule. It is especially so when the sex was apparently consensual and carefully planned, as Bristol Palin herself has admitted. People who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.
This gave rise to a storm of angry responses from so-called liberals, who condemned me and called me just about every bad name in the book. Apparently unilateral disarmament and silence in the face of evil the Palins represent is the desired default posture. To borrow from The Donald, it’s the worst sort of political correctness. (Full disclosure: I despise The Donald. I think he is a crypto fascist who will do horrible damage to this country if he is elected president, but on the issue of political correctness, I find myself agreeing with some of his positions.)
One particular woman, who I shall not name and shame here, decided to wage a campaign of bullying and harassment against me, and apparently recruited a number of her friends do the same. The transgression for which I was banned from Facebook was a response to a threatening post from her. It read simply “keep it up, Tanya.” Apparently to the contemptible liberal surrender monkeys at Facebook this was enough to justify banning me for 30 days.
Yet, while being upset with me for objecting to my being bullied, Facebook routinely publishes all manner of sedition, Obama Derangement Syndrome, Holocaust-denial, anti-Semitism, and trans-phobic and homophobic bigotry. In short, Facebook gives hatred a pass, but gets is politically correct knickers in a knot over something so minor as “keep it up, Tanya.”
This is bullshit. Facebook claims have over 1 billion users around the world. It is small wonder that in a number of countries, including such Western democracies as France and United Kingdom, Facebook operates under much stricter supervision than it does in the United States. The UK and France don’t give a pass to sedition, Holocaust-denial, or the kind of Obama Derangement Syndrome that routinely slips through here.
I think it’s probably time that Congress and the California Legislature took a close look at Facebook’s practices.
When you facilitate seditious conspiracy and treason, you ought to be looked at more closely. Since Facebook has become a vehicle for the bullying of consumers, both Congress and the Legislature have authority to look into their process including the way they apply their so-called community standards. The Legislature would have authority because Facebook is domiciled in California, and even if it were not, it has sufficient nexus to warrant the assertion of California and jurisdiction and supervision by its Legislature. Additionally, Congress can exercise regulatory supervision over Facebook because Facebook is an instrumentality of interstate commerce, and Congress’s power under the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution is well-nigh plenary.
I will be bringing this matter to the attention of my representatives in the California State Assembly and in Congress. I think it’s long past time that we took Facebook down a few notches, and reminded them that, in the contemplation of the law, they are just another corporation doing business in the state of California, to whose laws they are subject. If Facebook can’t get its priorities right in who it will protect from bullying, then I have a feeling that Congress and the Legislature can do that job for them, even if it means administering a level of discomfort and supervision that Facebook might not like.
So, while Facebook might prefer to have camel in the tent pissing out, what they got was a camel outside the tent, pissing in. Today I join the ranks of Facebook’s legion of detractors and holders in contempt. They won’t see me on their site again. But perhaps, God willing, they will see me testify against them and their pretensions in the halls of the Legislature and Congress.
