WHY I KEEP A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT ... FB, as much as I hate their Censorship efforts, is still "useful" to me:
1. It's produced revenue and income for me to help my Substack newsletter (my only business) grow subscribers and expand awareness (in a tiny level) that I have a Substack newsletter.
2. I use it to keep up with friends so I know if they've started a new job or had a death in their family or if one of their kids has done s/thing noteworthy. (One friend's son is a Major League baseball pitcher, and from his updates, I know this kid is tearing it up at the moment).
3) I use it learn about upcoming events. For example, had leading roles in two youth plays, and I made posts about the upcoming performances to try to boost attendance for same.
4) I use it to monitor if Facebook is still doing their censorship algorithms and, if so, how are they doing this? I can confirm by experimenting with different type posts, which ones are completely de-boosted and which one's are only partially de-boosted.
Bottom-line: I know (from first-hand experience) that FB isn't backing down from its censorship program. This tells me many important things I can use in future articles and have already used in previous articles.
For example, I don't think FB executives are worried about Missouri v. Biden. If this company was, they'd be throttling back on Censorship. Instead, they are "full-speed ahead." This anecdote/deduction actually tells me the whole world is probably captured and this company's braintrust must somehow know nothing bad is going to happen to their company in the future because of all their past Censorship. When I think about how they might have reached such a prediction/conclusion, this is kind of scary to me.
I can also compare FB's actions and Censorship Efforts to those of Twitter, which HAS changed course since Elon Musk bought that social media company.
5) I can also look at who is advertising on Facebook and reach the conclusion that all of these companies must support the eradication of the First Amendment or are avid support of rampant Censorship. In my opinion, such companies should perhaps be boycotted or called out for supporting a Brazen and Proud Censor.
6) It's also interesting to see when my posts are "flagged" and what "message" I get when my posts are flagged. This tells me what BS FB is still believing and who their "fact-checkers" are and what their infallible sources are.
7) "Fish where the fish are." If your goal as a writer and thinker is to influence the debate in the "town square," you better try to reach as many people as possible in the ... town square. And those people are on FB whether we like this or not ... and some posts slip through the algorithms. Again, Facebook has one billion users. I haven't reached a billion people via Facebook ... but I've reached several hundred, maybe thousands. That's better than zero people.
So these are several of the reasons I still use Facebook, but it certainly doesn't bother me that many other people do not. In fact, it wouldn't bother me if the company went broke. I've probably written more scathing articles about them than any other Substack writer - but I still want to "keep an eye on them" and see what they're doing.
And I can use them ... for a few good purposes ... while doing this.
.... I also tried to embarrass them with that "hidden message' article/experiment I did a couple of months ago. This message - "Facebook Censors Me" - DID get through to a good number of people. So I used Facebook itself to go after Facebook!
This all sounds good except for item number 2. FB is NOT necessary in order to ‘keep up with friends and family’. I wish people would stop believing that!
Also, people broadcasting photos of their vacation or whatever other superficial thing that makes them look good isn’t “keeping up with them” any more than watching commercials on TV is “keeping up with Coca Cola”.
Twitter has not changed course. They "suspended" my account because I posted ivermectin is a valid remedy for HUMAN onchocerciasis, which they considered "advocating suicide". I've appealed; account still suspended. Elon Musk is an incompetent AI. He at least needs an upgrade to chatbot.
Try being me, who has long been canceled at FB (within 2 years of initially signing on way back), recently tried to open a FB page for a business and within 5 minutes of doing so it disappeared into the nether regions, saying I broke some rule (even tho I hadn't even posted anything yet).
The fact that FB still allows you means you aren't over the target.
Thank you for keeping an eye on Facebook. I cancelled my account in August of 2020 because people were already getting mean-spirited about the upcoming election and because I was spending too much time on it. Now I spend too much time on Substack, but the clientele are friendlier and better informed.
"Australians are being blocked from accessing news in their Facebook feeds, in a dramatic escalation of the social media giant's stand-off with the federal government...The move also prevents people overseas from sharing Australian content on the social media site."
They could have been slaughtering us and you would have never known. Oh wait...they were.
If writing like this ever appears in what's perceived as the MSM I'll be very happy. No company considered MSM today will ever publish anything like this. Their owners forbid it, and they ain't changing. Either honest players take control of the NYT, USA Today, CBS, NBC, AP or similar big mainstream sources, or we have to break into what's considered MSM with our own news source. You'd think the big players would collapse since all they do is lie, and it's perfectly obvious. Yet they remain the most influential. That makes me think the real cause of the problem is the public and their hopeless gullibility. How do you change hundreds of millions from idiots into thinkers? You don't, it's impossible. The only solution is to take control of the messaging. Our message must become mainstream, instead of "alternate".
I second what Cathleen said. Great post. Somehow the mainstream "official" press - has to be completely purged and discredited.
And, yes, I don't even have to send in a resume' or apply for a job. I know I'd never get hired at a corporate news organization. These sites won't run "freelance" pieces from journalists like myself either. That's why they are rapidly dying ... which is a great development.
A) print and TV news is on its way out as internet news is faster to get, up to the minute and cheaper. This creates a financial challenge for MSM. Canadian MSM has gone bankrupt, been reborn and is heading to bankrupcy again.
B) The owners of large financial firms are buying into MSM in the US. Companies like Blackrock and Vanguard own large stakes in MSM news. When Vanguard increased its percentage ownership of FOX by several percent Tucker Carlson was fired and I noticed a different toned down FOX news. Blackrock is a liberal pro ESG company and they own 11% of Vanguard. Meanwhile ABC is owned by Disney, CNN is owned by AT&T, MSNBC and NBC are owned by Comcast, Working backward the ownership by Vanguard and Blackrock of these MSM companies is respectively 14% for Disney, AT&T 16%, Comcast 15%, FOX 10%.
This does not include any other shareholders in these news outlets that are controlled or influenced by Blackrock or Vanguard. This is a quick superficial look at who runs these companies however as you can see, Blackrock and their woke ways has a large influence.
C) With MSM financially on the ropes they were enticed by Big Pharma ads and government covid ads. Shareholders only care about making money so no MSM is going to cut into their advertising by saying Pfizer produces poison. They need the cash so they produce news that supports rather than penalizes their advertisers.
By the way, Blackrock and Vanguard also are top shareholders in Pfizer with a total shareholder percentage of 14%. So simplistically, Pfizer pays news organizations advertising dollars and they in turn say nice things about Pfizer products.
Which brings to mind a similar relationship. With life insurance companies getting hammered with unexpectedly high claims (as pointed out by Dowd and others) some wonder if they might sue Pfyzer and Moderna for damages. Won't happen since the same firms own pharma that own the insurance companies. They'd be suing themselves. This situation where the same players own most everything destroys the adversarial relationship necessary to right the ship when abuses happen.
Yes. The insurers simply are raising subscriber rates, sometimes 100% to recover their additiona payouts as has been reported recently. The insurance company investors lose nothing.
Similarly, one can wonder if it's possible for the MSM to even have financial challenges. If you own military contractors, pharma, chemical companies, banking, insurance, and therefore much of your business model depends on a symbiotic relationship between government and your corporations, what do you do? You buy the purveyors of news, and control the message, therefore the political landscape. So what if news outlets lose money? Just shove more cash to them. It's just a cost of keeping your other businesses, your cash cows, flourishing.
Great, concise breakdown of the Facebook-Biden rape of the First Amendment. In my attempt at being concise, let me add my opinion: I’m done with these fcks.
One and likely the only benefit of the censorship was it was pretty obvious that the censorship was occurring. Which was a big red flag to many people that the vaccines had issues or caused problems and that this censorship/propaganda drive was reason to avoid getting jabbed.
It was pretty hilarious to see them saying "Safe and effective" and banning people for saying the jabs have side effects, while also writing articles about how the bad side effects of the shot means 'it's working'.
Another brilliant article, Bill. You're really good at pointing out what is going wrong in America and Americans need to know about this kind of thing. I was born in early 1950s and most of my life was spent enjoying our right of free speech; it's hard for me now to censor myself and I really don't want to when it comes to telling the truth about what is happening to our country presently. I was on FB but was banned 3 times, the final ban is now lifetime. I was never informed, not once, about why I was banned. I'm sure it was from me telling the truth about the govt, and covid was one of them. I don't care, I wouldn't be using FB now anyway and I have zero respect for them. I wear it as a badge of honor. I was also banned from Twitter 3 times for telling the truth but was reinstated a short time before Elon came back. Now I'm on Substack because it doesn't censor - hooray! The right to free speech/freedom of the press was something very, very dear and foundational to the founders of this country. At this point, journalists have no only been muzzled they have been replaced by A.I. and now sometimes it's very difficult to understand what the heck A.I. is saying, there are so many mistakes. I have followed freelance journalist Bill Still since I was 12 y.o.; I lost track of him when I left Los Angeles (he wrote for L.A. Times) but after 40 something years I found him again on Yoo Toob. His channel is Beth News. He's now in his late 70s/early 80s but he's still giving us the news and he does an excellent job. He captures news that isn't told elsewhere and is always the first to be on top of a news story and also gives background. His videos are short as well. I've followed him now for 57 yrs. because he really is that good. But he's the only journalist from the times of truth-telling that I have found.
I don’t even bother putting most of my Substack articles on Facebook because I know they’ll get no reads and might get me banned again. (I actually have another business idea - not controversial - with a local flavor that I would need to publicize on Facebook. This is another reason I don’t want to be permanently banned from FB ... I can use the site to help launch this business).
And I have recently gotten several PAID subscribers from my Facebook users. When you're worried about coming up with enough $ to buy school supplies for your children, every paid subscriber (or ko-fi donation) makes you want to do-a-little two-step!
Still, I do post/share some of my Substack articles on Facebook. Since FB shows “likes” and “reader comments” I can gauge how many people might be reading or (not reading) my FB posts.
(I have approximately 1,600 Facebook followers so if I could just get 10 percent of these people who know me best to subscribe, my Substack free-lance writing business would be far more advanced than it is right now. In fact, I’d have 160 more paid subscribers, which would more than double what I currently have - 155).
Here’s some of the stories I posted on FB and how many “likes” they’ve generated over many months they've been sitting there. (When you read these low-number “like” figures, you should also know that one of those “likes” was my wife, Carrie, hitting me with a “sympathy like!”)
STORY TALLY AND NUMER OF “LIKES” ON FB …
“Trascriber B Q & A”: zero likes.
Note: This story got 18,400 “reads” on Substack so some people liked it - but none of my 1,600 Facebook followers.
“Random Thoughts on Our Passing New Normal Scene:” Zero likes.
“Never Investigate that which you don’t want to confirm:” One like.
“Great Debates that Won’t Happen:” 2 likes.
“Bobby Kennedy Might Win”: 3 likes.
“What Happened to the Adults in the Room?” 3 likes.
“My Hot Take on our Fearless Sports Pundits:” 4 likes
Note: This included a picture of Paul Finebaum and was mostly about Finebaum, who is one of the most polarizing commentators in my state. I thought for sure more people would comment on this story … but I don’t think many people saw it because I had too many “Covid” sentences in it that were no doubt flagged by AI and the algorithms.
“The Death of the Dinner-and-a-show date:” 6 likes.
Note: This essay was full of local content about our now-closed local movie theater.
“Book Lovers Don’t Mind Banning Books:” 7 likes
Note: This was about a book store in Seaside, Florida and beaches everyone in Troy has visited many times … so I thought it might do a little bette.
But some posts DO get a decent number of likes on FB. Here’s my Facebook Record:
“Meet the Co-Author of My Newsletter” (Annie, my dog): 36 likes!
Note: No Covid references. Everyone loves a dog story and photo!
“Trends that Scare the Heck out of Me”: 25 likes
Note: I don’t know how or why this one got through the algorithms.
“I was interviewed on a podcast from the Isle of Man:” 12 likes
A post about my daughter starring in a local play: 50 likes
Note: No Covid references and my posts do get more likes.
(Of course, it’s possible many of my FB followers see some of these stories and they just disagree with my views or they don’t want to be seen hitting such a non-authorized story with a “like.”)
Final thought: I’ve researched “How to make your Substack a success” articles. It seems to me almost everyone who does really well had a big social media presence and was able to convert many of their Twitter or Facebook followers into Substack subscribers. Not me though.
I think I now have about 20 of my 1600 Facebook followers who are now Substack Subscribers, with about six of them “paid.” Which is is $240 in annual subscriptions - Which I need and am very grateful to receive. I just wish 3.5 percent of my Facebook followers were paid Substack subscribers (That’s my “paid ratio.”). That would be at least 50 more paid subscribers … which I don’t have … because of Facebook censorship IMO.
There is absolutely, positively, without a doubt fingerprints of Jessica Hertz on this scandal. Who is she to this story? Instead of describing it all in a TL/DR comment I'll just drop these links here for readers to find out who she is, and why it's impossible that she isn't in the very center of it. Read them all. Connect the dots. Take note of what her jobs have entailed, her background, education and training the other names mentioned in the stories, her network, then put it all together to reach your own conclusion. If you're able to explain away how she isn't then please, enlighten me.
The evidence against all things Biden is mountainous yet the media is only fixated on one thing, TRUMP. The media should be sued and imprisoned as well!! . Good one, Bill. Linking today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
I know that anything I read, investigate on the web can be lies. I know that my country uses lies, enables criminal events, non-criminal events, in legacy and new media or emerging media to present an inaccurate version of reality. I know not to trust them. the next lockdown, pandemic, whatever will be more transparent to many people. I know the government doesn’t give a damn about me, my safety, family, my environment. I am a mere ant to them. I will find people who have values, ethics, similar to mine and we will hang out, have burgers or whatever and live our lives. The biggest threat is that I know what reality is and when my time is up on this earth, I have no fear of what is next. I am not afraid of death.
I'm not sure why any of this is surprising. Snowden revealed it and where is he now? He said that the information gathering was about control of the people. Face book is an ideal platform for that. People can't extrapolate what government eves dropping will lead to?
The whole COVID pandemic smelled of rotten fish from the start. Why was the US government funding the Chinese to do research in China when it could and should have been done here? And what was the purpose in the first place? Why did the US have the most deaths of all the countries in the world, 2 million plus? How much money did the pharma companies make from the "free' vaccines? And it all started from one bat? Even in hindsight Americans can't figure this out?
And before Snowden was an engineer for the telecom companies who warned that the government was tapping all the lines. That was all part of Y2K. Remember when everything was going to go to hell when the clock changed? The government were in "changed" all the software? It was changed to suck down all the internet information going through it. They were heroes! Americans have short memories and short attention spans.
I can’t tell you how many times friends and family have wondered why I stopped posting on Fakebook when in fact I’m still on. I rarely put up anything anymore.
In this article, I lead with my explanation of why the "Virality Project" is so important. This is the "project" headed up by Stanford academics implemented to keep true posts/speech from "going viral."
What our Censors really fear is people "sharing" good or important posts. These posts, even if shared, don't go viral. Mission accomplished!
However, Substackers can "share" all they want. So I really appreciate subscribers who might share any of my writing they think might be of interest to more people. This is my/our "work-around" to the "Virality Project!"
As a thought exercise, is it likely Facebook would ever admit its censorship was wrong? Would the company admit it was wrong when it conspired to keep its billion users from receiving potentially life-saving information?
This will happen when cows fly. For one reason, this WOULD/might open up the company to massive wrongful death and harm lawsuits. Some lawyer could easily prove Facebook had good reasons to know the information it was censoring was true ... and the company still kept censoring. In fact, the company is still doing this 40 months into the pandemic. Such lawsuits could finish off the company.
If nothing else, such an admission would prove to its users that this social media giant was a bully and a liar and should not be trusted. It would also prove FB was "in bed" with a sinister government and part of a massive fraud.
So this is not going to happen. On top of these reasons, if FB did admit this now, the government and other "club members" would NOT be amused and Facebook would be expelled from "club membership" and face myriad punishments for leaving the pack.
So this little thought exercise post explains why I think Facebook is going to keep-on-keeping-on when it comes to censorship and why all the lies will continue to be protected.
WHY I KEEP A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT ... FB, as much as I hate their Censorship efforts, is still "useful" to me:
1. It's produced revenue and income for me to help my Substack newsletter (my only business) grow subscribers and expand awareness (in a tiny level) that I have a Substack newsletter.
2. I use it to keep up with friends so I know if they've started a new job or had a death in their family or if one of their kids has done s/thing noteworthy. (One friend's son is a Major League baseball pitcher, and from his updates, I know this kid is tearing it up at the moment).
3) I use it learn about upcoming events. For example, had leading roles in two youth plays, and I made posts about the upcoming performances to try to boost attendance for same.
4) I use it to monitor if Facebook is still doing their censorship algorithms and, if so, how are they doing this? I can confirm by experimenting with different type posts, which ones are completely de-boosted and which one's are only partially de-boosted.
Bottom-line: I know (from first-hand experience) that FB isn't backing down from its censorship program. This tells me many important things I can use in future articles and have already used in previous articles.
For example, I don't think FB executives are worried about Missouri v. Biden. If this company was, they'd be throttling back on Censorship. Instead, they are "full-speed ahead." This anecdote/deduction actually tells me the whole world is probably captured and this company's braintrust must somehow know nothing bad is going to happen to their company in the future because of all their past Censorship. When I think about how they might have reached such a prediction/conclusion, this is kind of scary to me.
I can also compare FB's actions and Censorship Efforts to those of Twitter, which HAS changed course since Elon Musk bought that social media company.
5) I can also look at who is advertising on Facebook and reach the conclusion that all of these companies must support the eradication of the First Amendment or are avid support of rampant Censorship. In my opinion, such companies should perhaps be boycotted or called out for supporting a Brazen and Proud Censor.
6) It's also interesting to see when my posts are "flagged" and what "message" I get when my posts are flagged. This tells me what BS FB is still believing and who their "fact-checkers" are and what their infallible sources are.
7) "Fish where the fish are." If your goal as a writer and thinker is to influence the debate in the "town square," you better try to reach as many people as possible in the ... town square. And those people are on FB whether we like this or not ... and some posts slip through the algorithms. Again, Facebook has one billion users. I haven't reached a billion people via Facebook ... but I've reached several hundred, maybe thousands. That's better than zero people.
So these are several of the reasons I still use Facebook, but it certainly doesn't bother me that many other people do not. In fact, it wouldn't bother me if the company went broke. I've probably written more scathing articles about them than any other Substack writer - but I still want to "keep an eye on them" and see what they're doing.
And I can use them ... for a few good purposes ... while doing this.
.... I also tried to embarrass them with that "hidden message' article/experiment I did a couple of months ago. This message - "Facebook Censors Me" - DID get through to a good number of people. So I used Facebook itself to go after Facebook!
This all sounds good except for item number 2. FB is NOT necessary in order to ‘keep up with friends and family’. I wish people would stop believing that!
THIS! 100x THIS!
Also, people broadcasting photos of their vacation or whatever other superficial thing that makes them look good isn’t “keeping up with them” any more than watching commercials on TV is “keeping up with Coca Cola”.
Absolutely.
I left Facebook although my account is still up. I text my friends and family. Or call!
Me, too - probably at least 10 years ago. The people I want to keep up with, I do and those who want to keep up with me , do.
Absolutely.
Twitter has not changed course. They "suspended" my account because I posted ivermectin is a valid remedy for HUMAN onchocerciasis, which they considered "advocating suicide". I've appealed; account still suspended. Elon Musk is an incompetent AI. He at least needs an upgrade to chatbot.
Thanks for reporting, and thanks also for your explanations here-- which are very interesting.
People will do anything for money, even if it harms them.
Welcome to the New World Order. Enjoy you delicious bug salad 🪳
Try being me, who has long been canceled at FB (within 2 years of initially signing on way back), recently tried to open a FB page for a business and within 5 minutes of doing so it disappeared into the nether regions, saying I broke some rule (even tho I hadn't even posted anything yet).
The fact that FB still allows you means you aren't over the target.
The reason I call myself Abuse Productions is that I have been accused many times for abuse at YT (and canceled). Guess who accuses and bans me?
The same people who lie about Nazi Germany culminating in simpleton regurgitation by those who have been brainwashed by the "victor's" lies.
Thank you for keeping an eye on Facebook. I cancelled my account in August of 2020 because people were already getting mean-spirited about the upcoming election and because I was spending too much time on it. Now I spend too much time on Substack, but the clientele are friendlier and better informed.
Anyone remember this? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-18/facebook-to-restrict-sharing-or-viewing-news-in-australia/13166208
"Australians are being blocked from accessing news in their Facebook feeds, in a dramatic escalation of the social media giant's stand-off with the federal government...The move also prevents people overseas from sharing Australian content on the social media site."
They could have been slaughtering us and you would have never known. Oh wait...they were.
If writing like this ever appears in what's perceived as the MSM I'll be very happy. No company considered MSM today will ever publish anything like this. Their owners forbid it, and they ain't changing. Either honest players take control of the NYT, USA Today, CBS, NBC, AP or similar big mainstream sources, or we have to break into what's considered MSM with our own news source. You'd think the big players would collapse since all they do is lie, and it's perfectly obvious. Yet they remain the most influential. That makes me think the real cause of the problem is the public and their hopeless gullibility. How do you change hundreds of millions from idiots into thinkers? You don't, it's impossible. The only solution is to take control of the messaging. Our message must become mainstream, instead of "alternate".
I second what Cathleen said. Great post. Somehow the mainstream "official" press - has to be completely purged and discredited.
And, yes, I don't even have to send in a resume' or apply for a job. I know I'd never get hired at a corporate news organization. These sites won't run "freelance" pieces from journalists like myself either. That's why they are rapidly dying ... which is a great development.
Well said, SteelJ!
I look at it this way:
A) print and TV news is on its way out as internet news is faster to get, up to the minute and cheaper. This creates a financial challenge for MSM. Canadian MSM has gone bankrupt, been reborn and is heading to bankrupcy again.
B) The owners of large financial firms are buying into MSM in the US. Companies like Blackrock and Vanguard own large stakes in MSM news. When Vanguard increased its percentage ownership of FOX by several percent Tucker Carlson was fired and I noticed a different toned down FOX news. Blackrock is a liberal pro ESG company and they own 11% of Vanguard. Meanwhile ABC is owned by Disney, CNN is owned by AT&T, MSNBC and NBC are owned by Comcast, Working backward the ownership by Vanguard and Blackrock of these MSM companies is respectively 14% for Disney, AT&T 16%, Comcast 15%, FOX 10%.
This does not include any other shareholders in these news outlets that are controlled or influenced by Blackrock or Vanguard. This is a quick superficial look at who runs these companies however as you can see, Blackrock and their woke ways has a large influence.
C) With MSM financially on the ropes they were enticed by Big Pharma ads and government covid ads. Shareholders only care about making money so no MSM is going to cut into their advertising by saying Pfizer produces poison. They need the cash so they produce news that supports rather than penalizes their advertisers.
By the way, Blackrock and Vanguard also are top shareholders in Pfizer with a total shareholder percentage of 14%. So simplistically, Pfizer pays news organizations advertising dollars and they in turn say nice things about Pfizer products.
Which brings to mind a similar relationship. With life insurance companies getting hammered with unexpectedly high claims (as pointed out by Dowd and others) some wonder if they might sue Pfyzer and Moderna for damages. Won't happen since the same firms own pharma that own the insurance companies. They'd be suing themselves. This situation where the same players own most everything destroys the adversarial relationship necessary to right the ship when abuses happen.
Yes. The insurers simply are raising subscriber rates, sometimes 100% to recover their additiona payouts as has been reported recently. The insurance company investors lose nothing.
Similarly, one can wonder if it's possible for the MSM to even have financial challenges. If you own military contractors, pharma, chemical companies, banking, insurance, and therefore much of your business model depends on a symbiotic relationship between government and your corporations, what do you do? You buy the purveyors of news, and control the message, therefore the political landscape. So what if news outlets lose money? Just shove more cash to them. It's just a cost of keeping your other businesses, your cash cows, flourishing.
Great, concise breakdown of the Facebook-Biden rape of the First Amendment. In my attempt at being concise, let me add my opinion: I’m done with these fcks.
One and likely the only benefit of the censorship was it was pretty obvious that the censorship was occurring. Which was a big red flag to many people that the vaccines had issues or caused problems and that this censorship/propaganda drive was reason to avoid getting jabbed.
Good point!
It was pretty hilarious to see them saying "Safe and effective" and banning people for saying the jabs have side effects, while also writing articles about how the bad side effects of the shot means 'it's working'.
Yep, the mixed messages with same endpoint ("get vaccinated") was another red flag.
Another brilliant article, Bill. You're really good at pointing out what is going wrong in America and Americans need to know about this kind of thing. I was born in early 1950s and most of my life was spent enjoying our right of free speech; it's hard for me now to censor myself and I really don't want to when it comes to telling the truth about what is happening to our country presently. I was on FB but was banned 3 times, the final ban is now lifetime. I was never informed, not once, about why I was banned. I'm sure it was from me telling the truth about the govt, and covid was one of them. I don't care, I wouldn't be using FB now anyway and I have zero respect for them. I wear it as a badge of honor. I was also banned from Twitter 3 times for telling the truth but was reinstated a short time before Elon came back. Now I'm on Substack because it doesn't censor - hooray! The right to free speech/freedom of the press was something very, very dear and foundational to the founders of this country. At this point, journalists have no only been muzzled they have been replaced by A.I. and now sometimes it's very difficult to understand what the heck A.I. is saying, there are so many mistakes. I have followed freelance journalist Bill Still since I was 12 y.o.; I lost track of him when I left Los Angeles (he wrote for L.A. Times) but after 40 something years I found him again on Yoo Toob. His channel is Beth News. He's now in his late 70s/early 80s but he's still giving us the news and he does an excellent job. He captures news that isn't told elsewhere and is always the first to be on top of a news story and also gives background. His videos are short as well. I've followed him now for 57 yrs. because he really is that good. But he's the only journalist from the times of truth-telling that I have found.
My analysis of Facebook CENSORING OF MY POSTS
I don’t even bother putting most of my Substack articles on Facebook because I know they’ll get no reads and might get me banned again. (I actually have another business idea - not controversial - with a local flavor that I would need to publicize on Facebook. This is another reason I don’t want to be permanently banned from FB ... I can use the site to help launch this business).
And I have recently gotten several PAID subscribers from my Facebook users. When you're worried about coming up with enough $ to buy school supplies for your children, every paid subscriber (or ko-fi donation) makes you want to do-a-little two-step!
Still, I do post/share some of my Substack articles on Facebook. Since FB shows “likes” and “reader comments” I can gauge how many people might be reading or (not reading) my FB posts.
(I have approximately 1,600 Facebook followers so if I could just get 10 percent of these people who know me best to subscribe, my Substack free-lance writing business would be far more advanced than it is right now. In fact, I’d have 160 more paid subscribers, which would more than double what I currently have - 155).
Here’s some of the stories I posted on FB and how many “likes” they’ve generated over many months they've been sitting there. (When you read these low-number “like” figures, you should also know that one of those “likes” was my wife, Carrie, hitting me with a “sympathy like!”)
STORY TALLY AND NUMER OF “LIKES” ON FB …
“Trascriber B Q & A”: zero likes.
Note: This story got 18,400 “reads” on Substack so some people liked it - but none of my 1,600 Facebook followers.
“Random Thoughts on Our Passing New Normal Scene:” Zero likes.
“Never Investigate that which you don’t want to confirm:” One like.
“Great Debates that Won’t Happen:” 2 likes.
“Bobby Kennedy Might Win”: 3 likes.
“What Happened to the Adults in the Room?” 3 likes.
“My Hot Take on our Fearless Sports Pundits:” 4 likes
Note: This included a picture of Paul Finebaum and was mostly about Finebaum, who is one of the most polarizing commentators in my state. I thought for sure more people would comment on this story … but I don’t think many people saw it because I had too many “Covid” sentences in it that were no doubt flagged by AI and the algorithms.
“The Death of the Dinner-and-a-show date:” 6 likes.
Note: This essay was full of local content about our now-closed local movie theater.
“Book Lovers Don’t Mind Banning Books:” 7 likes
Note: This was about a book store in Seaside, Florida and beaches everyone in Troy has visited many times … so I thought it might do a little bette.
But some posts DO get a decent number of likes on FB. Here’s my Facebook Record:
“Meet the Co-Author of My Newsletter” (Annie, my dog): 36 likes!
Note: No Covid references. Everyone loves a dog story and photo!
“Trends that Scare the Heck out of Me”: 25 likes
Note: I don’t know how or why this one got through the algorithms.
“I was interviewed on a podcast from the Isle of Man:” 12 likes
A post about my daughter starring in a local play: 50 likes
Note: No Covid references and my posts do get more likes.
(Of course, it’s possible many of my FB followers see some of these stories and they just disagree with my views or they don’t want to be seen hitting such a non-authorized story with a “like.”)
Final thought: I’ve researched “How to make your Substack a success” articles. It seems to me almost everyone who does really well had a big social media presence and was able to convert many of their Twitter or Facebook followers into Substack subscribers. Not me though.
I think I now have about 20 of my 1600 Facebook followers who are now Substack Subscribers, with about six of them “paid.” Which is is $240 in annual subscriptions - Which I need and am very grateful to receive. I just wish 3.5 percent of my Facebook followers were paid Substack subscribers (That’s my “paid ratio.”). That would be at least 50 more paid subscribers … which I don’t have … because of Facebook censorship IMO.
I wonder if I have a legal case?
There is absolutely, positively, without a doubt fingerprints of Jessica Hertz on this scandal. Who is she to this story? Instead of describing it all in a TL/DR comment I'll just drop these links here for readers to find out who she is, and why it's impossible that she isn't in the very center of it. Read them all. Connect the dots. Take note of what her jobs have entailed, her background, education and training the other names mentioned in the stories, her network, then put it all together to reach your own conclusion. If you're able to explain away how she isn't then please, enlighten me.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201001160154/https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/jessica-hertz
https://nypost.com/2020/10/01/joe-biden-hires-facebooks-jessica-hertz-for-transition-team/
https://www.vox.com/recode/22206646/joe-biden-jessica-hertz-facebook-staff-secretary-big-tech
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/bidens-progressive-appointees-watch-out-below-the-radar/
https://bluetent.us/articles/governing/cass-sunstein-biden-white-house-oira/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10086113/Bidens-staff-secretary-quits-Former-lawyer-Facebook-leave-White-House-coming-days.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20211027145423/https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/ex-biden-facebook-attorney-joining-shopify-as-general-counsel-1
The evidence against all things Biden is mountainous yet the media is only fixated on one thing, TRUMP. The media should be sued and imprisoned as well!! . Good one, Bill. Linking today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
I know that anything I read, investigate on the web can be lies. I know that my country uses lies, enables criminal events, non-criminal events, in legacy and new media or emerging media to present an inaccurate version of reality. I know not to trust them. the next lockdown, pandemic, whatever will be more transparent to many people. I know the government doesn’t give a damn about me, my safety, family, my environment. I am a mere ant to them. I will find people who have values, ethics, similar to mine and we will hang out, have burgers or whatever and live our lives. The biggest threat is that I know what reality is and when my time is up on this earth, I have no fear of what is next. I am not afraid of death.
I'm not sure why any of this is surprising. Snowden revealed it and where is he now? He said that the information gathering was about control of the people. Face book is an ideal platform for that. People can't extrapolate what government eves dropping will lead to?
The whole COVID pandemic smelled of rotten fish from the start. Why was the US government funding the Chinese to do research in China when it could and should have been done here? And what was the purpose in the first place? Why did the US have the most deaths of all the countries in the world, 2 million plus? How much money did the pharma companies make from the "free' vaccines? And it all started from one bat? Even in hindsight Americans can't figure this out?
Snowden did try to warn us ... and we see where he is. Same with Julian Assange. I'd say, "message sent ... and received."
And before Snowden was an engineer for the telecom companies who warned that the government was tapping all the lines. That was all part of Y2K. Remember when everything was going to go to hell when the clock changed? The government were in "changed" all the software? It was changed to suck down all the internet information going through it. They were heroes! Americans have short memories and short attention spans.
I can’t tell you how many times friends and family have wondered why I stopped posting on Fakebook when in fact I’m still on. I rarely put up anything anymore.
‘We remove content that can lead to imminent physical harm.’
I posted this meme in 2020. TWO YEARS later Facebook yanked it. I appealed and they reversed their decision, after an amusing series of back-and-forths. https://substack.com/profile/4958635-tardigrade/note/c-21916924
In this article, I lead with my explanation of why the "Virality Project" is so important. This is the "project" headed up by Stanford academics implemented to keep true posts/speech from "going viral."
What our Censors really fear is people "sharing" good or important posts. These posts, even if shared, don't go viral. Mission accomplished!
However, Substackers can "share" all they want. So I really appreciate subscribers who might share any of my writing they think might be of interest to more people. This is my/our "work-around" to the "Virality Project!"
As a thought exercise, is it likely Facebook would ever admit its censorship was wrong? Would the company admit it was wrong when it conspired to keep its billion users from receiving potentially life-saving information?
This will happen when cows fly. For one reason, this WOULD/might open up the company to massive wrongful death and harm lawsuits. Some lawyer could easily prove Facebook had good reasons to know the information it was censoring was true ... and the company still kept censoring. In fact, the company is still doing this 40 months into the pandemic. Such lawsuits could finish off the company.
If nothing else, such an admission would prove to its users that this social media giant was a bully and a liar and should not be trusted. It would also prove FB was "in bed" with a sinister government and part of a massive fraud.
So this is not going to happen. On top of these reasons, if FB did admit this now, the government and other "club members" would NOT be amused and Facebook would be expelled from "club membership" and face myriad punishments for leaving the pack.
So this little thought exercise post explains why I think Facebook is going to keep-on-keeping-on when it comes to censorship and why all the lies will continue to be protected.