So Facebook is liberal, or at least has a left bias. What a revelation. What high-tech type company isn’t. I mean, really – Google, Apple, Microsoft – they’re all run by libs, and most who work for them also tilt left. These companies all have this in common. How is it a surprise to anyone?
They have another thing in common. They are also private corporations and, as such, should be able to do whatever they wish regarding the content they allow or rank. This is not to say we on the right can’t complain or make a stir when we see bias.
We on the right can air our discontent. We can draw attention to obvious bias and can even boycott, as has been done rather successfully to Target. Of course, a single chain, brick-and-mortar store with plenty of competition is a lot easier to boycott than refusing to use Google or Microsoft or not purchasing an Apple product. You would practically have to boycott the Internet, which today isn’t exactly feasible.
Still, Facebook is bit different. It’s neither a search engine nor a product. It’s merely a social media platform – one that just happens to be owned by a lib and employs mostly libs. And how do we know this?
Two weeks ago Breitbart reported that, “Hillary Clinton is the largest beneficiary of donations from Facebook employees this election cycle, having received over $114,000, more than any other presidential candidate.” The report added, “The Hill found that roughly 78 employees who work on engineering, communications, public policy, strategy, marketing, human resources, and other areas have donated to Clinton.”
If we know this, you would think those in Washington must – or should. Actually, if it has anything to do with political donations, they surely know.
One who does is Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. He told CNSNews: “I think liberal media bias is a huge problem among TV, cable, newspapers and social media. It’s all-pervasive. So the charges by the former [Facebook] employees that there was a liberal bias at Facebook did not surprise me. And to my knowledge, it has not been adequately addressed.”
OK – that’s a bit scary – when a representative of the federal government, who has a Conservative Review Liberty Score of “D,” says this matter “has not been adequately addressed.”
To his credit (kind of), Smith explained: “I don’t think the government has any role. The First Amendment allows Facebook to say whatever they want to say,” but then contradicts himself by saying: “However, I do strongly believe that the American people have every right to know whether a source of their information has a liberal bias or not.”
Every right? No they don’t – no we don’t! Whatever happened to the free-market principle of buyer beware or taking a few extra minutes between tweets and texts to find out if what you are exposing yourself to is liberal or conservative?
If Congressman Smith doesn’t think the government should get involved, then who should? Mr. Smith didn’t say who. He just cracked the government oversight door open a bit by saying the matter hasn’t been addressed and that “the people” have some sort of right to know. Do I smell congressional hearings down the road? This is how it always starts. One person in government complains, and it’s off to the races.
In a speech on the House Floor, Smith said, “Facebook has an obligation and a public responsibility not to silence conservative voices.” Again – no they don’t, and it should scare anyone, left or right, to hear a sitting congressman – and from Texas no less – throw out terms like “obligation” and “public responsibility,” like Facebook is some kind of utility that should be regulated.
Luckily for Facebook, there are far more libs in government than Zuckerberg employs, and if Hillary gets elected he won’t have thing to worry about. She may go the other way and try to force him to disseminate only the liberal line.
I’m sure, given who runs Facebook and all the liberals who work there, they have a leftward bias. How could they not? But it is the job of the right to compete with them in the arena of ideas. Rather than whining about it, perhaps we should come up with an alternative.
We certainly can’t allow Congress to get involved. Even a single member of Congress speaking like this gives me chills and worries of eventual government oversight.