The Daily Beast: Facebook Is Silencing Women By Banning Their Accounts

Image Credit: New Vision

The Daily Beast recently reported on Facebook's banning of female users who have called men derogatory terms like "scum" and "trash" after allegedly being trolled on the platform.

Their article starts out by saying "the company classifies white men as a protected group" and proceeds to link to an "algorithmic injustice investigation" conducted by ProPublica.org.

The investigation is titled Facebook’s Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men From Hate Speech But Not Black Children and claims a "trove of internal documents sheds light on the algorithms that Facebook’s censors use to differentiate between hate speech and legitimate political expression."

While the investigation is indeed in-depth, it is also long-winded, social justice-oriented and full of fluff. The claims are simply ridiculous, but have a look for yourself.

Continuing with The Daily Beast article:

"When comic Marcia Belsky sarcastically replied 'men are scum' to a friend’s Facebook post back in October, she never anticipated being banned from the platform for 30 days.

"Belsky was shocked at the severity of the punishment considering her relatively innocuous comment, and immediately spoke to her fellow female friends about the ordeal. They could relate."

Well, does the same thing happen to men who call women names on Facebook? We're not too knowledgeable about the platform since our NMWD account/page was banned just two days after its creation (i.e. real censorship), but we're guessing they get some heat as well.

The article further states:

"Women have posted things as bland as 'men ain’t sh*t,' 'all men are ugly,' and even 'all men are allegedly ugly' and had their posts removed. They’ve been locked out of their accounts for suggesting that, since 'all men are ugly,' country music star Blake Shelton 'winning the sexiest man isn’t a triumph.'"

First off, posting those types of comments aren't "bland" as suggested by the author; they are actually pretty provocative statements and deserved a closer look by Facebook admins which resulted in the eventual ban.

What is Taylor Lorenz, the article's author, trying to pull here?

We took a peek at Facebook's terms of service, which is extremely easy to find, and under the 'Safety' section we saw this:

6. You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.

7. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

8. You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.

There you go, Lorenz. Any users who violated rules 6, 7 or 8 deserved their ban.

Oh, wait. Your article actually addressed this and you even contacted Facebook:

"When reached for comment a Facebook spokesperson said that the company is working hard to remedy any issues related to harassment on the platform and stipulated that all posts that violate community standards are removed.

"When asked why a statement such as 'men are scum' would violate community standards, a Facebook spokesperson said that the statement was an attack and hate speech toward a protected group and so it would rightfully be taken down."

So in the era of "hate speech," which is often times in direct conflict with the First Amendment, Facebook (a publicly owned company) played its liberal / social justice card and clearly explained why statements such as 'men are scum' are unacceptable to post on its website.

Lorenz then focused in on the "protected group" portion of FB's response and proceeded to vaguely connect this to white men in general, instead of just all men (or, if the roles were reversed, all women).

And finally:

"A Facebook spokesperson clarified that this is because all genders, races, and religions are all protected characteristics under Facebook’s current policy."

Oh, so we were right. ALL genders, as well as ALL races and ALL religions, are recognized as protected groups.

The rest of Lorenz's article is full of popular lefty buzzwords, speculation, clichés and an overall weak argument over imaginary things (which only seem to exist in her head).

The mental gymnastics some of these "journalists" perform to push a certain narrative must be utterly exhausting.

Not everything that occurs on planet Earth is some type of injustice. Most times, people just do things they're not supposed to and end up facing the consequences (as in this case).