|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The new major social media companies have huge influence on public opinion. Through Facebook and Instagram, corporate parent Meta attracts 200 billion daily views. Google handles 5 billion searches per day. And TikTok has 1 billion viewers per day. These companies provide a vital service communicating with citizens on a continuous basis, providing a convenient and timely alternative to the legacy media, including TV programs. Such power and influence can also be used to directly shape public opinion by skewing the news as they see fit.
Search engines can be manipulated to make searches more difficult to what these companies consider « less-desired” sites. Social media sites can shadow-ban participants with views that are considered controversial and out of “community standards”, whatever that means. In this way, Internet traffic of certain Americans is disadvantaged or even hidden from the larger audience.
So, who bears the brunt of this distortion? “Community standards” criteria are often used to silence conservative voices, who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the values highlighted in the Declaration of Independence. These values can be summarized as faithful to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for 100% of the population.
Why would the leaders of these new media companies wish to restrict the voice of such patriots? What is their interest in empowering the voice to the detractors of our society, the so-called “Elite” who believe in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for only 10% of the population?
The answer is that these companies are managed by the “Elite” who rejects the notion that all law-abiding citizens deserve the freedom to live in a country that respects their inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. This “Elite ”is often captured by outside and alien false narratives, perpetrated by our enemies.
Millions of people have been harmed by such behavior. Good patriotic Americans are being slandered and “canceled,” and many businesses are being directly impaired. Conversely, the false narratives of our enemies are being amplified and exaggerated. Our social conscience is being distorted and many business cliental are being led astray.
The FBI should investigate why these companies often directly aided America’s the enemies and then make public their findings.
So, is there a solution? We suggest the following public policy changes:
1) The key social media companies should publicly disclose the list of those individuals and businesses that are being shadow banned. A second list should be made of those who reject our Constitution and that list should be published separately. All shadow banning should be outlawed in any case.
2) S1 billion should be set aside to compensate the numerous victims of the social media companies.
3) The main social media entities offenders should be publicly identified and apologize to their disaffected users.
4) Warning labels should be posted on all the offending services to warn future visitors of possible bias and distortions.
The question of accountability for high-tech executives such as Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Nick Clegg, and Adam Mosseri has become increasingly urgent as evidence mounts of their companies’ deliberate efforts to censor and silence voices on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. Their involvement in algorithm manipulation and content moderation practices that disproportionately target politically conservative voices is not merely a matter of corporate policy—it is a direct affront to democratic principles, freedom of speech, and public trust. If found guilty of intentionally engaging in such practices, these executives should face the full extent of the law, including potential jail time.
The sheer scale of influence that Meta (formerly Facebook) and Instagram exert over public discourse cannot be overstated. With billions of users worldwide, these platforms effectively function as modern-day public squares, where ideas, opinions, and debates shape the global narrative. Yet, the individuals at the helm of these platforms have transformed these digital spaces into tools of manipulation, guided not by impartiality but by ideology, profit motives, and political expediency.
Under Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership, Facebook’s algorithms have been repeatedly accused of suppressing certain viewpoints, often conservative ones, under the guise of combating “misinformation” or “hate speech.” Sheryl Sandberg, in her role as a key decision-maker, and Nick Clegg, who serves as a public-facing defender of Meta’s policies, bear responsibility for creating and perpetuating systems that disproportionately harm those outside their preferred ideological framework. Instagram, under Adam Mosseri, follows similar patterns, using algorithms to manipulate content visibility in ways that favor select narratives while diminishing others.
Algorithm manipulation is one of the most insidious tools these executives wield. Algorithms determine what users see in their feeds, which voices are amplified, and which are buried in obscurity. By tweaking these systems to promote certain viewpoints and suppress others, Meta executives have effectively become gatekeepers of the digital public sphere.
For example, whistleblowers and independent researchers have highlighted instances where Facebook’s algorithm changes significantly reduced the reach of conservative media outlets while boosting content from left-leaning sources. Similarly, Instagram’s content recommendation system has been accused of shadow-banning users who express dissenting opinions. This is not mere content moderation—it is the calculated suppression of specific voices. When this suppression aligns with the personal or political preferences of the platform’s leaders, it becomes a form of censorship incompatible with democratic values.
Beyond algorithm manipulation, Meta’s content moderation practices reveal a troubling pattern of silencing dissent. Documents released by whistleblowers have shown how Facebook has colluded with government agencies and political organizations to shape public discourse. For instance, the platform has been accused of deplatforming users and organizations based on subjective and opaque definitions of “harmful” or “misleading” content. While Meta often defends these actions as necessary to maintain a safe online environment, the selective enforcement of its rules suggests ulterior motives.
Such practices erode public trust in social media platforms and, more broadly, in institutions of governance and communication. When users feel their voices are being systematically ignored or suppressed, faith in democratic processes diminishes. This is particularly damaging when the suppressed voices belong to individuals and groups already marginalized by mainstream media.
It is not enough to criticize these executives in the court of public opinion. Concrete legal consequences must follow if they are found guilty of using their platforms to manipulate discourse and silence dissent. These actions have far-reaching implications, undermining free speech, distorting elections, and fostering division. The law must view these behaviors not as mere corporate missteps but as serious violations of democratic principles and constitutional rights.
