I found a meme recently that said, “It’s funny how people who side with the media, social media, Hollywood, and giant businesses think they’re on the side of minorities.”
It gave me a giggle, and I figured the audience here at Shield Republic would enjoy it as well.
Anyway, it proved to ring true even more recently as two of the biggest social media sites, Facebook and Twitter (follow the links to check out Shield Republic on both), wouldn’t allow the New York Post link to their own article about Hunter Biden’s Emails overseas and questionable dealings.
The two tech giants didn’t even pretend to show their bias in the upcoming election. This isn’t surprising, but the blatant hypocrisy after saying that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to get Trump in office, then to straight up block a post from a legitimate news source that has information that could hurt Joe Biden’s campaign, is absolutely appalling.
I, not as a Shield Republic employee, but as an individual, stand so strongly behind free speech that I don’t know how much longer I can use Facebook and Twitter. I’m already not the best at social media because I struggle with keeping up with posting. But now that I find out that the two biggest social media companies are being so obvious in their blocking things that they don’t like, I really struggle with wanting to find an audience on either platform now.
I’m sure a lot of people don’t fully understand the problem with this blockage, but it actually is illegal.
Social media sites, such as Facebook (who also owns Instagram) and Twitter, are known as platform sites. That means the only requirements to post anything that can be thought of on them is that the user creates a profile, types up what they want to say, then clicks ‘post.’
This is different from a publisher like the New York Post, the New York Times, or any other magazine, book publisher, or even a personal blog.
The differences are easier to define by knowing what makes a publisher. A publisher will only put things on their website that they approve. That means with something like The Patriot by Shield Republic one of our writers may pitch an idea, or a few ideas, then it has to get approved by the editor before being published.
Lucky for me, I’m the editor here, so I approve my own ideas, but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve wanted to write something only to realize it wouldn’t be a good fit for the site. One such example is that I wanted to do a review of an album that I really enjoyed, but that’s not something the Patriot covers. Instead, I wrote a top 10 southern-rock bands list. This, based on our demographic, would get a bit more traction.
But if one of our authors wanted to write an article about how great communism is, I reserve the right to reject this idea.
So, the defining characteristic of a publisher is that the site, or physical publisher in the case of a magazine, newspaper, or book publisher, is that they can choose what does and doesn’t get published.
The opposite would be a platform, such as a social media site like Facebook or Twitter. They were created on the premise of utilizing the internet to allow people to connect with one another from anywhere that there is internet connection. The idea of a platform is to allow for free speech though. Built on the same principles that the United States was established to promote, platforms give people a platform to access anyone, anywhere with any words.
Legally, these two classifications have different protections.
Big tech and the internet has created a legal issue that the framers of the United States never foresaw. They didn’t expect worldwide connection in any form other than sending letters. They had a bit different concerns than technology, namely corrupt governing.
That means that when it comes to the internet, the legal system is struggling with figuring out how to handle certain situations. The legal system found what they figured would be great in the distinguishment of being a platform instead of a publisher. The main thing with being a platform is that the tech companies would have to allow free speech in the same way the United States allows it.
Then comes 2016.
This election was unprecedented in ridiculous language and attacks back and forth between the two major parties. After the results of the election, the Democrats narrative was primarily that the only reason Donald Trump won the election was because the Russians interfered in the election and helped him win.
After the Russian interference was actually investigated, the findings have proven they didn’t truly impact the election, but they did hurt the mainstream media who so ardently defended the idea that interference is the only reason Trump won the election. This hurt the media’s reputation because the report essentially proved that Russia, among other nations, interfered in the election, but they didn’t help a single person win, but various international interest groups tried to help their own interests. This means that Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson all got boosts from foreign powers in respect for their own goals.
But because of the mainstream media’s insistence that it was specifically for Donald Trump to get elected, they hurt their own credibility.
Now, in 2020, social media platforms are attempting to hurt the credibility of the election. Whenever people post things that they don’t like or that could potentially hurt some people’s feelings, the big social media platforms are blocking it.
As Ben Shapiro says so often, “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
This where I plug the latest social media that is absolutely defined by promoting free speech: Parler.
Shield Republic doesn’t have a profile (yet) because it’s still new and they want to see if it makes sense to show up there. I would expect to see them there before too long though.
You can keep up with me on all social media platforms (mainly Instagram and now Parler) and my blog.