Tag Archive for: Mark Zuckerberg

Big Tech Bends The Knee To Donald Trump

Multiple Silicon Valley CEOs congratulated President-elect Donald Trump on his win Tuesday night, from Jeff Bezos to Mark Zuckerberg.

Many of the CEOs congratulating Trump have faced accusations of left-wing bias and censorship, and their companies experienced backlash from conservatives. But despite Silicon Valley’s historically left-wing bent, multiple tech CEOs praised Trump on Wednesday.

Jeff Bezos congratulated the next president on “an extraordinary political comeback.” Bezos owns The Washington Post, which did not issue an endorsement for the 2024 presidential election. The refusal to endorse Kamala Harris reportedly cost the paper hundreds of thousands of subscribers and triggered backlash amongst its own staff.

Bezos previously wrote an op-ed detailing why “Americans don’t trust the news media anymore.”

That was only Bezos’s second tweet this year. In July, he tweeted in support of Trump after an assassination attempt at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

However, The Post and Amazon both have a history of left-wing bias.

The Post recently ran an article titled “Trump embraces violent rhetoric, suggests Cheney should have guns ‘trained on her face’” in reference to the false claim that Trump wanted Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad.

Amazon’s Alexa previously expressed support for Harris over Trump for president, although the company claimed it was an error. Amazon has also censored books written by conservatives.

In one instance, it removed a book critical of the transgender movement from its online store in 2021. The book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding To The Transgender Moment” was a bestseller. The Biden-Harris administration also pressured Amazon to censor books skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine, according to emails obtained by the House Judiciary Committee.

Notably, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy also issued a statement congratulating Trump on his victory.

“We look forward to working with you and your administration on issues important to our customers, employees, communities, and country,” Jassy stated.

Other big names congratulating Trump included Apple CEO Tim Cook, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai.

“Congratulations President Trump on your victory!” Cook stated in a post. “We look forward to engaging with you and your administration to help make sure the United States continues to lead with and be fueled by ingenuity, innovation, and creativity.”

“Congratulations to President Trump on a decisive victory,” Zuckerberg stated on Instagram Threads. “We have great opportunities ahead of us as a country. Looking forward to working with you and your administration.”

Both Meta and Google have come under fire for censorship and left-wing bias.

Facebook collaborated with the FBI to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. It also bowed to pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor certain COVID-19 views. Mark Zuckerberg admitted the government pressured Meta, and he expressed regret in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan.

“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote. “I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today.”

Zuckerberg also did not issue an endorsement in the presidential election and reportedly identifies as a libertarian.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai echoed Zuckerberg’s endorsement, congratulating Trump on his “decisive victory.”

Trump stated on Joe Rogan’s podcast that Pichai called him after he visited a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania.

Trump suggested in August that Congress could “shut down” Google over its alleged bias and censorship of conservatives.

That same month, Pichai testified to the House Oversight Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on Google’s censorship of information regarding Trump’s first attempted assassination.

Google’s parent company, Alphabet, told the committee the autocomplete search results did not show results pertaining to Trump when users searched for “President Donald” because of a software “bug.”

Other prominent Silicon Valley congratulations came from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

AUTHOR

Eireann Van Natta

General assignment reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jeff Bezos Slams Washington Post, Offering Glimmer Of Hope For Media

Hundreds Of Thousands Reportedly Cancel WaPo Subscriptions After Decision Not To Endorse Harris

Amazon Confirms They Shut Off A Man’s Smart Home Because A Random Guy Said He Was Racist

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Reps Probe Zuckerberg, Meta For Hiding ‘Political And Social’ Content From Users’ Feeds

Google Takes Massive Hit As Federal Judge Rules It Violated US Antitrust Law

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why did Zuckerberg come clean on his collusion with feds to silence the voices of conservative Americans?

Mark Zuckerberg says he suddenly “regrets” that his company, Meta, bowed to the Biden regime’s pressure to censor content on Facebook, saying in a letter that the interference was “wrong” and he plans to push back if it happens again.

Should we take him seriously? Is this a genuine mia culpa?

According to an article in Politico, Zuckerberg aired his grievances in a letter Monday to the House Judiciary Committee in response to its investigation into content moderation on online platforms. Zuckerberg detailed how senior administration officials leaned on the company to censor certain posts about Covid-19, including humor and satire, and “expressed a lot of frustration” when the social media platform resisted.

Zuckerberg wrote:

“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it. I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction — and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”

Zuckerberg also expressed regret in the letter for his company’s disgusting effort to memory-hole content related to coverage by the New York Post about Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election. This is the story, you will remember, that the FBI falsely warned may have been planted as “Russian disinformation.”

“It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” he wrote.

Republicans on the committee, led by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, celebrated the letter in a long series of posts on X, calling it a “big win for free speech.”

But is it? What, if anything, is Congress going to do about this revelation of guilt, which proves what we already knew about how the government outsources its violations of the First Amendment to its partners in the private sector known as Big Tech.

Robert F. Kennedy has an active lawsuit against the federal government and has explained to Tucker Carlson in a recent interview just how involved the feds were in monitoring the social media platforms and then pressuring them to delete or downplay information that the government didn’t want American citizens to know. It didn’t even matter if the information was true. In fact, it was the truth about Covd and the 2020 election that the government feared the most.

In the video below, fast-forward to the 15:47 mark and listen for the next five minutes or so.

<

If you look at Zuckerberg’s history, he tends to play ball with whatever government holds the reins of power. He cooperates with Chinese communists as easily as he does American globalists. Whatever he needs to do to keep raking in the billions.

Perhaps this is why Zuckerberg decided to come clean at this moment in time. He knows RFK Jr. has teamed up with Trump and the super-lawyer RFK will bring the receipts to the table regarding government censorship if given half a chance. What if Trump wins and makes RFK his attorney general? If Trump wins, Zuckerberg can now say he’s come clean and changed course. This is Zuckerberg covering all his bases. He is no friend of the First Amendment.

©2024. Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook Founder Confesses Censorship of Conservatives Was Ordered by Biden-Harris Admin.


Please visit LeoHohmann.com for:

Investigative reporting on globalism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and where politics, culture and religion intersect.

Facebook Welcomes Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Back on its Platform

“What the Zuck?” is a valid question asked in the title of the Breitbart article below, “What the Zuck: Facebook Welcomes Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Back on Platform.”


In 2021, before the Azov battalion became accepted as a key element of Ukraine’s defense against Russia, Time magazine did an exposé on the group. Some key points that are relevant to the US and other Western countries about the Azov movement, which has denied its neo-Nazi activities for years: Time points out that in October 2019:

40 members of Congress signed a letter calling—unsuccessfully—for the U.S. State Department to designate Azov a foreign terrorist organization. “Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens for years,” the letter said.

Time conducted its own investigations:

TIME, in more than a dozen interviews with Azov’s leaders and recruits, found that the key to its international growth has been its pervasive use of social media, especially Facebook, which has struggled to keep the group off its platform. “Facebook is the main channel.”

The Azov Regiment doesn’t aim to only protect Ukraine, but to spread its National Socialist ideology. There could even be violence in America itself:

In their letter to the State Department in 2019, U.S. lawmakers noted that “the link between Azov and acts of terror in America is clear.”

Azov’s main recruitment center in Kyiv disseminates Nazi propaganda. “On the ground floor is a shop called Militant Zone, which sells clothes and key chains with stylized swastikas and other neo-Nazi merchandise.”

Haaretz has previously reported:

The Azov movement insists it is not neo-Nazi, yet its members have been captured giving Hitler salutes and being virulently anti-Semitic….

Members even muse that some Jews would not be allowed to stay in Ukraine if they ever seized power.

At a time when antisemitism is on the rise, why is the Azov Regiment being welcomed back on Facebook? Mark Zuckerberg has weaponized the Facebook platform as a political tool, employing bold and unapologetic censorship tactics to target users with views that oppose those of the establishment Left. Meanwhile, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were allowed on Facebook, and now the Azov Regiment. Facebook, of course, banned Donald Trump. The reasoning that governs Facebook  (Meta) concerning the Azov battalion is that as the group is “under the command and control of the Ukrainian government,” it is benign and has shed its Nazi elements.

But that line of reasoning is irrational. The neo-Nazi Azov Regiment was formally incorporated into the Ukraine National Guard since November 11, 2014. Its character hasn’t changed just because Ukraine has now been invaded. The change from “Battalion” to “Regiment” was cosmetic — an attempt to rebrand in the face of the war with Russia. As that war goes on, the Doomsday Clock has now moved closer to midnight.

The decision to provide a forum for neo-Nazis will likely backfire on “Zuck.”

What the Zuck: Facebook Welcomes Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Back on Platform

by Lucas Nolan, Breitbart, January 21, 2023:

Facebook (now known as Meta) has removed Ukraine’s Azov Regiment — members of which regularly display Nazi symbols and signs on their uniforms — from its list of dangerous individuals and organizations. With this change, Mark Zuckerberg is welcoming members of the Azov Regiment who were once blacklisted to utilize his massive platform.

The Washington Post reports that as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues, Facebook has modified its approach to content moderation. The neo-Nazi Ukrainian military group Azov Regiment was recently removed from the social media behemoth’s list of potentially harmful people and groups. With this modification, members of the Azov Regiment will be able to sign up for Facebook and Instagram accounts and post content without worrying about it being taken down unless it violates the platforms’ content policies. Other users will be able to openly laud and support the group’s work due to the change.

This policy change comes after months of criticism of how the social media juggernaut is handling the conflict, with many questioning where it draws the line between promoting free speech about the conflict and containing rhetoric that could have violent or dangerous offline repercussions. The company has been criticized by its Oversight Board, an independent group of primarily leftist activists, academics, and experts who oversee Facebook’s content moderation decisions, for going too far in removing content that challenges authoritarian governments or leaders.

Historically, there has been controversy surrounding the Azov Regiment. It is one of Ukraine’s most skilled military units and has engaged in combat with Russian forces in strategic locations like the besieged city of Mariupol and close to Kiev. However, there were worries that the group was drawing extremists because of its ties to its neo-Nazi ideology. The Azov forces were partially referred to when Russian President Vladimir Putin described his invasion of Ukraine as an effort to “de-Nazify” the nation.

According to Facebook, the neo-Nazi Azov Movement and the Azov Regiment are no longer affiliated. It mentions that the unit is formally under the command and control of the Ukrainian government. According to Facebook, there are still “elements of the Azov Movement, including the National Corp., and its founder Andriy Biletsky” on its list of potentially harmful people and groups. “Hate speech, hate symbols, calls for violence, and any other content which violates our Community Standards are still banned, and we will remove this content if we find it,” the company said.

Ukraine’s minister for digital transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, praised Facebook’s choice and singled out former British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, Fakebook’s president for international affairs. “Means a lot for every Ukrainian. New approach enters the force gradually,” Fedorov tweeted. “Big contribution @nickclegg & his team in sharing truthful content about war.”…..

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Britons join neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine

Americans’ Tax Dollars At Work: Corrupt Ukrainian Officials Busted Buying Mansions, Luxury Cars, Lavish Vacations As People Suffered

WWIII: Madman Biden Announces US Will Send Over 30 Abrams Tanks to Ukraine

SMOKING GUN: Hunter’s 20 Point Ukraine Email of CLASSIFIED Information From His Father Sent to Burisma

After Iranian threats, EU backs down on labeling Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as terrorist

Germany: Muslim migrant kills two people, injures seven more in stabbing rampage on train

Pakistan: Muslims abduct, gang-rape married Hindu woman after she refuses to convert to Islam

Spain: Muslim migrant screaming ‘Allah!’ murders sacristan, injures priest and three others in attacks on churches

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

BREAKING: New Facebook Insider Leaks Video of Zuckerberg and Executives

Project Veritas released a new video today leaked by a Brave Facebook Insider exposing CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitting to the company’s willingness to promote a partisan political agenda.

Here are some of the highlights from today’s videos:

  • Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO: “I know this is just a very difficult moment for a lot of us here [at Facebook], and especially our black colleagues. It was troubling to see how people in this [Capitol] mob were treated compared to the stark contrast we saw during [Black Lives Matter] protests earlier this [past] year.”
  • Zuckerberg: “President Biden already issued a number of Executive Orders on areas that we as a company care quite deeply about and have for some time.”
  • Zuckerberg: “The swearing in of Vice President Harris really stands as a reminder that despite the challenges that we are facing as a country, we all have so much to be proud of.”
  • Roy Austin, Facebook VP of Civil Rights: “I want every major decision to run through a civil rights lens.”
  • Nick Clegg, Facebook Head of Global Affairs: “There has been quite a lot of disquiet expressed by many leaders around the world…ideally we wouldn’t be making these [censorship] decisions on our own, we would be making these decisions in line with our own conformity, with democratically agreed rules and principles. At the moment, those democratically agreed rules don’t exist. We still have to make decisions in real-time.”

You can watch the short video here:

You can watch the long raw videos here:

How can Facebook users trust that they are using a “neutral” platform when the company’s CEO is praising a political party’s agenda?

Does Facebook as an organization stand by Zuckerberg’s partisan views?

The Brave Facebook Insider is still embedded within the organization and will keep us informed of further wrongdoing in the future.

To become an Insider, contact us via Signal: 914-653-3110

And make sure to share these videos with your friends and family!

Stay Tuned.

©Project Veritas. All rights reserved.

Zuckerberg Funds Used To Pay Pennsylvania Judges Overseeing Ballot Counts

HARRISBURG, Pa./PRNewswire/ — Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit have filed a motion seeking a restraining order to block the use of private funds from billionaire Mark Zuckerberg for use in local election management, a statutory responsibility of state officials including the Pennsylvania Legislature.

VIEW FEDERAL LAWSUIT BY AMISTAD PROJECT PDF

The motion, filed on October 19 in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, highlights how a grant for $10 million from the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) explicitly requires the City of Philadelphia to open no fewer than 800 new polling places – and failing to do so may require the City to forfeit the grant money. The funding from Mark Zuckerberg also pays for judges to oversee ballot counts and the outcome of disputes that arise regarding the eligibility of ballots in the election.

“The Center for Technology and Civic Life is using Mark Zuckerberg’s millions to require the City of Philadelphia to open 800 new election offices and hire judges who will oversee ballot counts and rule on ballot disputes based on their own admission in court documents,” said Tom King, the legal counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case. “Municipal leaders have ceded their role as a local authority to CTCL with powers that rightfully belong to the people of Pennsylvania through their representatives in Harrisburg by effectively inviting this partisan billionaire into the ballot counting room,” he concluded.

“We are fighting Mark Zuckerberg around the country where he is using CTCL, a nonprofit founded and managed by Obama-affiliated operatives, to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to leftist strongholds in several battleground states to determine the outcome of the election,” said Phill Kline, Director of the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, which is supporting the litigation. “This is a scheme engineered by partisan activists under the guise of COVID-related support. The privatization of the election undermines the integrity of the election,” he added.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in the case, the Pennsylvania Voters Alliance and several officeholders and candidates, previously filed a complaint against Centre CountyDelaware County, and the City of Philadelphia, and Secretary of the Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaKathy Boockvar, in Civil Action No.: 4:20−CV−01761−MWB.

The grants to Philadelphia and the counties are part of a $350 million contribution by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, which is being funneled into leftist strongholds selectively in several swing states to turnout voters for liberal politicians. This strategy may tilt the results of the presidential election in the most critical battleground states in the nation, including Pennsylvania.

The Thomas More Society, a not-for-profit public interest law firm, is providing financial support for litigation in numerous federal cases seeking to block Mark Zuckerberg’s blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

For more information on this and related issues, go to got-freedom.org.

©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Facebook Is The Enemy of Truth

Ezra Levant speaks with whistleblower who busts Facebook for censoring material which affects elections, even in Canada.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column posted by is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Glenn Beck: Fooled by Facebook?

In the wake of reports that Facebook censors conservative voices, media figure Glenn Beck met with company chairman Mark Zuckerberg and emerged from the meeting, as he put it, “convinced that Facebook is behaving appropriately and trying to do the right thing.” Nothing to see here, move along. Unfortunately, this is nonsense.

Beck admits in his article on this subject, “I am not an expert on data or AI or algorithms.” Neither am I. But the Facebook censorship in the news isn’t about artificial intelligence but human intelligence — and its biases. In fact, the focus on technology could be (I’m not implying this is the case with Beck) an effort at Machiavellian misdirection: “Watch what the machine is doing, watch the machine, so you don’t see the man behind the curtain.

I’ll get right to the point. Fraudbook employs a group of young journalists, known as “news curators,” who are empowered to manage the algorithmic results and “refine” what qualifies for the site’s “Trending Topics” section. As company vice president of search Tom Stocky put it, the curators “audit topics surfaced algorithmically: reviewers are required to accept topics that reflect real world events, and are instructed to disregard junk or duplicate topics, hoaxes, or subjects with insufficient sources.”

So already evident is a Fraudbook deception: the Trending Topics section is supposed to reflect “popularity,” not politically correctness. Who decides what constitute “real world events”? What is a “junk” topic and who defines such? Should “duplicate topics” be disregarded if that duplication reflects trends and popularity? Why should “insufficient sources” disqualify a story, given that great breakthroughs — in science and news — often begin with one person’s endeavors? (When the story becomes well known, or “popular,” other journalists investigate the matter and separate fact from fiction; this can’t happen if it’s suppressed in the first place.) And while no one wants hoaxes promoted, we could even wonder how often incredible but true stories are labeled hoaxes by credulous or biased curators.

And who are these people empowered to decide who is an unreal-world, junky, topic-duplicating, insufficiently-sourced, possible hoaxer? Gizmodo.com, which broke the recent Fraudbook story, tells us they are “a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the ‘trending’ module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site.”  LOL, c’mon, Glenn, are you gonna let these people spit down your back and tell you it’s rainin’? While tech workers are notoriously liberal, as the statistics here show, journalism majors from “Ivy League or private East Coast universities” make them look like William F. Buckley2. Fact: giving people the power to “refine” news is synonymous with human bias entering the equation.

And you cannot give young, hardcore liberal journalists from “elite” schools that power without a strong liberal bias entering the equation.

Of course, the nature of biases is that people generally aren’t aware, at least not fully, of their biases. Just consider a Guardian defense of Fraudbook. The news organ interviewed an ex-Fraudbook curator who challenged Gizmodo’s report and related, writes the paper, “that newsworthiness was determined by how often a story appeared on a list of trusted news outlets including this publication [the Guardian], the New York Times and the BBC.” Are you getting this, Glenn?

That the ex-employee and Guardian consider this exculpatory of Fraudbook tells the tale: they’re so oblivious to their own biases they consider left-wing, mainstream-media news sources “unbiased” arbiters of newsworthiness. Obviously, if you use leftist entities to “refine” your algorithmic results, you’ll get Al Gore-rhythmic results.

So as Gizmodo put it, “In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.” Without a doubt. Liberal journalists censoring the news? Check. Institutional guidelines elevating supposed real-world events and disqualifying supposed junk? Check. Reliance upon other left-wing sources to determine real-world quality, junkiness and newsworthiness, creating a liberal echo chamber? Check. Fraudbook’s trending team couldn’t be more like a traditional newsroom if it tried.

So while a selling point of big social media is that it’s a democratic arena in which “the people” determine what’s seen and heard, it’s instead more like professional wrestling circa 1980: certainly fake but still claiming authenticity. Of course, Fraudbook has a right (at least under our system, as opposed to the statist one Zuckerberg is working to visit upon us) to adopt whatever policies it wishes. But how about some truth in advertising? Don’t claim to be presenting merely what’s “popular.”

Beck should also note that Fraudbook has been caught censoring news time and again. As the Gatestone Institute wrote in February, “It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.” Even more damning, at a UN development summit in New York in September, Zuckerberg met with German chancellor Angela Merkel. “As they sat down,” continued Gatestone, “Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.”

And I’m sure Merkel would describe Zuckerberg as someone who was “humble, open, and listened intently,” which, by the way, are the precise words Beck used to describe the Fraudbook figures (including Zuck) he met with. Zuck told Merkel what she wanted to hear, which happened to be the truth; and Zuck told Beck what he wanted to hear, which happened to not be. Zuck is concerned about making money and Fraudbook’s stock price, you see.

Having said this, I doubt Zuck is fully aware of the news curators’ shenanigans. Again, people, liberals especially, are often blithely unaware of emotionally satisfying biases woven into organizations. Stories of Fraudbook censorship of conservatives are legion, however. And while it involves not censorship but an effort at undermining, I have one myself.

Aside from my syndicated pieces, I write exclusive news/commentary articles for The New American (TNA), which has both a website and hard-copy magazine. And as many sites do, TNA has Fraudbook’s “Like” button at the top of every article; it indicates how many Fraudbook users read, liked the piece and chose to click the button. Well, for more than a year and ending only about a year ago, I and members of TNA’s staff noticed a strange and consistent phenomenon: likes would accumulate on a piece and then “poof!” they’d disappear with the counter having been dialed back to zero. This happened consistently across all TNA articles; in one case, one of my pieces had 30,000 likes before they were sent to the gulag.

One might consider this a glitch, but I never observed the phenomenon at any liberal/mainstream-media site. And why does it matter? Because likes are a good metric for not just popularity but also level of readership, and people are influenced by what’s popular. Make an article’s content appear unread and unpopular and people are more likely to dismiss it as a fringe view.

I always assumed, and this accords with Gizmodo’s findings, that the like-button manipulation was the work of one or two rogue (and petty) employees — who were operating in a liberal organization that would turn a blind eye to such shenanigans. Yet Beck’s thoughts are different. In a further glowing endorsement of Fraudbook, he was quoted in a May 19 Time piece as saying about his meeting with the company’s representatives, “I thought it was great. I thought they were sincere. And as I was leaving, I thought: ‘What company has done that with conservatives?’ Especially a media company.” That’s what he thought, alright. And here’s what I think: that Facebook has two faces, and one of them is seen only by big names that Zuck et al. can use for photo-ops and public-relations purposes.

And that’s likely what happened with you, Mr. Beck. You found Zuck and Company cordial — they just find you useful.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Mark Zuckerberg is promoting the Queerest of Folks on Facebook

Facebook has over 1.23 billion users of which 945 million are mobile users with 757 million daily users. There are many families that use Facebook to share photos, videos and leave updates about their lives. A companies culture is determined by its CEO and Mark Zuckerberg is no exception. His stand on various issues is well known and his relationship with President Obama is well publicized.

Zuckerberg appears to be concerned about NSA spying using his platform and has said so publicly and privately to President Obama. However, while they may disagree on who is better at spying on individuals, the NSA or Facebook, Obama and Zuck agree on one thing — gay is good. Zuck 4 gays may be the best way to describe his embracing of the homosexual lifestyle.

facebook gay logoZuck is so pro-homosexual that he is actively reaching out to and promoting the queerest of folks on Facebook in the United States and United Kingdom.

 from the UK Telegraph in her article “Facebook’s 71 gender options come to UK users: Following its successful integration in the US, US Facebook users can choose from one of 50 gender options” writes:

UK Facebook users can now choose from one of 71 gender options, including asexual, polygender and two-spirit person, following the feature’s successful integration in the US.

Users can choose a different gender option from the previous male and female choices by selecting ‘custom’ in the gender tab of their profiles.

In addition, people who select a custom gender will now have the ability to choose the pronoun they’d like to be referred to publicly — male (he/his), female (she/her) or neutral (they/their).

Talking about gender is like talking about nature. There are only two genders, however, there are many forms of sexual behaviors and Zuck is tapping into that market. “Facebook worked with UK groups Press for Change and Gendered Intelligence to add 21 new options to ensure the list best reflected the ways UK users may choose to describe themselves,” notes Williams. Twenty-one new options on how to describe themselves? Really?

Let’s look at a few options that are so queer that they defy description: Female to male trans man, Female to male transgender man, Female to male transsexual man, F2M, Gender neutral and Hermaphrodite. To read the full list click here.

The Brits have many ways of describing a homosexual. Understanding this, there are some options that Zuck and his UK Facebook team may want to consider adding to the list: Bugger, BugR, Bugger2Bugger or the short form B2B (not to be confused with Business2Business unless one is giving the business to his/her M2F or F2M partner), Queer Mary or QM, F2F (you fill in the f-word of your choice), HomoUK, UKHomo and of course one of my favorites from Mel Brookssmuck“. You get the idea.

Ayn Rand warned,

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Zuck is queering Facebook. Parents, families and the 98.4% of straight users in the U.S. beware. He is pandering to the 1.6% in the U.S. who are homosexuals.

Zuck recently friended us on Facebook. Let’s see if he unfriends us.

RELATED VIDEO: Before you share photos online, watch this video —

RELATED ARTICLES:

530 Fatties: Facebook Page Targeted Overweight, Obese Yuba-Sutter Residents « CBS Sacramento
See How Changing Your Gender In Alaska Is As Easy As Counting To Three

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Mark Zuckerberg marching with 700 Facebook employees in the 2013 San Francisco gay pride parade is by Mike Matas/Facebook.

Is Facebook censoring conservative content?

Recently I sat down with our website editor, Michele Hickford, to discuss social media analytics and recurring trends in order for us to better address the issues that matter most to our readers.

She looked at best performing stories, posts, and numbers of comments. We noticed there has been a precipitous decline in views and shares of individual stories in the first week of March on Facebook. The issue is that Facebook manipulates what stories show up in users’ news feeds. So if no one sees our stories, they don’t get read.

Of course in one year we went from about 197,000 to over 925,000 page “likes” overall. But you just have to wonder if someone at the Zuckerberg empire is regulating our traffic – is Facebook censoring conservative content? What’s curious about this is many of our fellow members of the Liberty Alliance are having the same issue.

So during my morning run, some thoughts and perspectives ran through my mind.

There is no debate that I am a strong conservative in my political ideology and governing principles. I believe wholeheartedly in the free marketplace of ideas where ingenuity and innovation thrive.

However, it seems the success of our Facebook page is being seen as a lucrative revenue source that Facebook wants a piece of. What I find so perplexing is that Facebook bubba Zuckerberg is a pretty cozy fella with President Obama — the most anti-free market president we have ever seen, a true progressive socialist.

So why is it that Zuckerberg — and let’s be honest, any business person, — jumps in bed with liberal progressives? If Zuckerberg is looking to make a profit off the endeavors of my conservative Facebook page, doesn’t that go contrary to the political crowd in which he circulates? I always found it ironic that someone like Michael Moore would say capitalism sucks, yet he charges money for people to see his movies — hypocritical?

So let’s see here, Mark Zuckerberg now wants to make more money off a conservative Facebook page so he can make more money to donate to more liberal progressive causes and candidates. So they can espouse their anti-free market ideology and expand the welfare nanny-state and cause my taxes to increase in order to pay for more “free stuff.”

Why shouldn’t we be able to utilize the Facebook traffic for free? After all, isn’t that the center of the progressive socialist mentality — shared prosperity and economic equality and all that?

The only other explanation for what we’re seeing with our Facebook page would be a blatant attempt to censor our message and limit its promulgation — and that wouldn’t be nice, Mark.

The hypocrisy of liberals seems to have no end. They like to make money, but apparently they want to limit who else gets to earn a prosperous living. It’s like the old Soviet politburo establishment where the ruling elite lived under the mantra of “do as we say, not as we do.”

Liberal progressives accept certain elites in their sphere, such as entertainment and sports figures, but not us saps out here just working hard to make a living. I applaud what Facebook has done and the platform it has created. And I certainly wouldn’t want to limit innovators seeking to better their business model and make a profit.

But I do wonder if Facebook throttles back traffic to the Obama social media machine, or is that all gratis since they share the same failed socialist beliefs? And if it is given preferential treatment, does that run afoul of campaign finance laws?

The liberal Left controls the message of the mainstream media, no question about it. Thank goodness conservative voices have alternative ways to disseminate our message through radio, cable and satellite networks, social media, podcasts and on our websites.

But there is also no question the liberal Left will do whatever it takes to strangle our free speech when it conflicts with the progressive agenda.

Mr. Zuckerberg, you believe in the First Amendment, don’t you? They may come after us first, but they’ll be after you too. Think about that next time you’re at one of those swanky liberal cocktail parties, little bro.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.