Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Facebook is Making it Difficult for Pennsylvania Trump Supporters to Organize

    Facebook is Making it Difficult for Pennsylvania Trump Supporters to Organize

    It’s *almost* like they want Trump to lose
    Listen to this article

    In case there was still any question as to where Big Tech’s loyalty lies…

    Not only is Silicon Valley dumping major dough into the 2020 election in the hopes of ousting Trump, but according to at least one report, social media behemoth Facebook has made it difficult for Trump supporters in Pennsylvania to organize. Coincidentally, Pennsylvania could be key in the upcoming election.

    Byron York reports at the Washington Examiner:

    It is hard to imagine the level of organizing that is currently going on without the social media giant.

    Yet, at the same time, the very people who are using Facebook to organize pro-Trump events in Pennsylvania are also chafing under Facebook’s restrictions on their ability to discuss politics with like-minded people in their own state and around the country.

    “Facebook shut me down twice in two days,” said Ed Kroupa of Penn Township, who is organizing Sunday’s turnpike rally. “They disabled my ability to share and post in other groups.” The Facebook crackdown happened after Kroupa posted articles that did not meet the approval of Facebook’s censors. And when, because of that, he was denied access to the site, that meant he was also denied the ability to organize as well. And that means there are times when he has no access to his main organizing tool. When I asked about events coming up in the next couple of days, Kroupa said, “I don’t know, I can’t get on Facebook right now.”

    Mike Destro and his friend Dan Sudsina organized the September rally, which attracted about 1,200 vehicles. They created a Facebook page called the Pro-Trump NHT Rally, with NHT standing for North Huntingdon Township. “Facebook was huge in [organizing] that,” Destro told me. “We would not have been able to get that many people involved in it if we had not had a platform like Facebook.”

    Now, Destro wants to keep the page going — it is a private group with 3,488 members — as a place where people can discuss the news. But he is constantly running into Facebook’s censorship. “I would love to go in there and start a discussion about the Hunter Biden emails,” Destro told me. “But Facebook is going to take those pages down.” Destro has also found that his members cannot mention the name of the man widely discussed as being the whistleblower in the complaint that led to President Trump’s impeachment. “You still can’t say it on Facebook,” Destro said.

    Belle Mulhern, 18 years old, of Westmoreland County, became something of a star of the WalkAway campaign last summer, when she published (on Facebook) an account of her earlier support for Bernie Sanders and her conversion to conservatism and support for President Trump. She is also helping Kroupa organize the coming turnpike rally, which inevitably involves Facebook. But she, too, has had to deal with Facebook’s suppression of political speech. She discovered that when she started a small group, “Dissecting the Fake News,” in which she and her friends post news articles and discuss them. “Every day, I get at least one notification that this or that post was taken down because it violates community guidelines,” Mulhern told me. “It’s irritating.”

    It’s more than irritating for Trump supporters engaged in a determined bid to overcome the odds against Trump’s reelection. Some of the supporters most inclined to get involved in organizing for Trump (on their own, without the assistance of the campaign or party) are also the most likely to run afoul of Facebook’s censorship. When Facebook cracks down on them, and locks them out of the site, it cracks down on their ability to organize for Trump.

    Twitter and Facebook were hauled in front of Senate Committee this week, for whatever good it did. The ongoing censorship is incredibly concerning and of course, why Big Tech has a vested interest in installing Biden.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    BierceAmbrose | October 30, 2020 at 11:40 pm

    You need to talk to the brainy delinquints: the smart kids who hung out in the back of class acting up along with the other misfits.

    Find the folks who got away with the under-age beer parties, played too many viedo games, and so on. The ones who think Ferris Beuller was an amateur.

    Alternative networks. The hall monitors want to control the visible networks. Networks they can’t control they’d rather pretend don’t exist. That gives you lots of leeway.

    A friend of mine was all concerned about possible goblin hordes coming her way. She lives in a cul-de-sack in a small development. They come in the one main road, n she’s trapped.

    No, no, you’re not. Take a walk around the neighborhood with your eyes open. There’s foot trails off the sidewalk, cutting past that fence, over the culvert to the through-road then the mall. There’s game trails and people trails from here to there. There’s non-road paths where vehicles drive for access n maintenance when the weather’s good. Those all go *somewhere*, and most have more than one connection to the road network.

    The smart delinquents knew the way from here to there, the paths to places from before they could drive, the dead ends that aren’t, access roads and odd connections once they could.

    The official, parks-maintained bike n walkng path along the Erie Canal has sections that go through sketchy surroundings. In one town, the first 1/2 mile headed west from the river, going past the airport is one such. There it’s *connected* to feral foot paths, backs into alleys and access roads, hosts folks in alternative industries with known locations and declared turf.

    There are similar alternative networks in every other kind of terrain, including e-space. Also alterative tools — simply being foot mobile off of pavement, for some distance n despite weather opens up whole networks of movement n access.

    If you’re not otherwise plugged in, play anthropologist n go look around. Then follow the likely ones to find out what they really are. Bring a friend, move brisquely, in the light. But, now you know.

    daniel_ream | October 31, 2020 at 4:23 am

    “We would not have been able to get that many people involved in it if we had not had a platform like Facebook.”

    Well, the inability of anybody to remember how this shit was done in 2006 is certainly reason to throw out the First and Fifth Amendments.


      felixrigidus in reply to daniel_ream. | October 31, 2020 at 7:59 am

      « “We would not have been able to get that many people involved in it if we had not had a platform like Facebook.”

      Well, the inability of anybody to remember how this shit was done in 2006 is certainly reason to throw out the First and Fifth Amendments. »

      What do you want to say? Your invocation of “the First and Fifth Amendments” does not make any sense.
      Clearly Facebook is not Government and its behaviour is consequently not subject to those Amdendments (however, the Free Speech god-given right protected by the First Amendment against government is to be protected by government against non-government actors’ attacks).
      So, likely, you want to imply that holding Facebook to their declarations somehow violates their First Amendment rights? Having Facebook follow through with their promises of providing a platform for free speech is not violating their free speech. As far as I can tell, no fraudster has evaded liability by claiming courts cannot hold them to what they represented because that would limit their capacity to lie that is protected by the First Amendment. But you might have better insight?
      As for Facebook suppressing speech of others, that in and of itself isn’t speech at all and certainly not protected by the First Amendment.
      And the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit changing laws last I checked.

        CommoChief in reply to felixrigidus. | October 31, 2020 at 9:12 am

        Puffery is legal, directly making material misrepresentation is not legal. That is fraud.

        Facebook and other tech companies are operating utilizing govt frequency spectrum so there is a nexus though, IMO, too feint and too distant to invoke.

        Bottom line on FB, Twitter etc changing behavior: until the political will exists to treat them as monopolies and apply either regulation or break up their behavior will not get better.

        In the meantime, very correctly point out; FB may be convenient but we did have election organizing prior to it’s existence.

        Even now one can use FB to organize. Just send out the word of an event time and place. Where folks get blocked is making commentary. If one can restrain themselves from making statements that Zuck or Jack object to and simply communicate the 5 W of an event then those communication should pass muster.

          Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | November 1, 2020 at 1:56 am

          Facebook and other tech companies are operating utilizing govt frequency spectrum

          No, they are not.

            CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | November 1, 2020 at 7:40 am


            Every time someone uses a cell phone that accesses a portion of the frequency spectrum. Don’t forget Satellite. Not every thing is fiber optic or coax.

            Certainly the federal government could eliminate FB and google and Twitter access on govt devices and prohibit use of FB and Twitter as information conduits.

            Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 2, 2020 at 12:33 am

            CommoChief, neither Facebook, nor Twitter, nor Instagram use cell phones. That is not how they work. You may use your cell phone to access them; they don’t use it at all.

        Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | November 1, 2020 at 2:00 am

        Facebook’s first amendment rights include the right not to carry on its platform material that it doesn’t want to.

        Facebook has never promised political neutrality.

        Further, even if it had made such a promise it could not be held to it, because it is not taking any money from users. It’s allowing them to use its servers, subject to its whims, so they have no claim against it.

          artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | November 1, 2020 at 12:49 pm

          Don’t Section 230 protections require political neutrality? So if they are not politically neutral, we don’t have to go through a big process of asking them to do better. Just revoke their Section 230 protections and let them do the begging, which should preferably be ignored with enjoyment at the spectacle.

            Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | November 2, 2020 at 12:31 am

            Don’t Section 230 protections require political neutrality?

            NO, THEY DON’T. NO, THEY DON’T. And once more for good measure, NO THEY DON’T. They never have, and they were never intended to. Where are people getting this bizarre idea from?

    artichoke | November 1, 2020 at 12:47 pm

    Your “private group” on FB probably gets extra intense scrutiny. The opposite of privacy.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend