2/ Worse. Back in April, they assured many governors they had removed reopen groups. They lied. They only removed public ones, left private ones and told the governors they complied with request and law.
We had to literally expose the private groups and call them out for it.
3/ What I’m getting to is this: there are a range of very simple things that could have done to prevent extremists not only from exploiting facebook’s lax framework but from benefitting from Facebook recruitment.
4/ Among largest, if not single largest, recruitment tool for violent extremists is Facebook’s recommendation algorithm.
Facebook has known about, has been advised, has been repeatedly asked to implement some modest countermeasures. And no.
Criminally negligent seems apt.
5/ And lastly, never forget, that person who ultimately determines the rules (and then how they are enforced) is Joel Kaplan - a longtime Republican operative who understands that letting right wing extremists flourish helps the right-wing and uses his position accordingly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ The way Facebook is handling this QAnon ban is alarming and deceitful.
So, FB announced a ban on QAnon yesterday. *After* announcement, they began telling reporters that it would take a few weeks to implement.
Yikes. Don't get fooled. Here's why that is deceptive and bad...
2/ By announcing the ban, but not being able to fully enforce it nearly immediately, what Facebook is doing is giving the QAnon community an opportunity to do two things: a) adapt/modify their pages to avoid ban; and, b) transition to other platforms w/out.
3/ But it gets worse. There is actually no reason at all for the lagging enforcement.
Back in August, Facebook banned *violent* QAnon communities - a subset of QAnon. During that action, they already largely compiled and identified the Q communities to assess for violence.
1/ Sorry. Nice words here. But Zeke's predecessors and the WHCA as an institution, from Trump's firsts day in office failed to fight to preserve this access - and worse often actively enabled Trump undermining it.
2/ When Trump started to boot some outlets from briefings, instead of emphasizing solidarity and nipping it in the bud; they basically ignored it.
3/ The WHCA literally put out statements at one point heralding Trump as the "most accessible" president ever. Not only was the statement absurd, but also false.
Laura Ingraham: "They'll say this whole mask thing is 'settled science' just like they do with climate change, of course it is not and they know it."
2/ Laura Ingraham: "The science behind the mask mandates is shaky and that is putting it charitably”"
3/ Tucker Carlson: "This is what happens when science intersects with politics. Both lose, and the country loses most of all. [...] forcing everyone to wear a mask when there is no evidence that helps"
1/ Okay. So, I'm seeing some media outlets/reporters using the term "fraternity" to describe the Proud Boys. You definitely should not do this. Not only because it's wrong and doesn't accurately reflect the awfulness of them, but also cuz that term has a specific meaning among PB
2/ The Proud Boys have subgroup called "Fraternal Order of the Alt Knights." The FOAK describe themselves as the "tactical defense" operation of the PBs. But, what they really do is explicitly use violence and antagonizing others so they have to "defend" themselves as a tactic
3/ So for example, at Charlottesville's Unite The Right event, the Fraternal Order of the Alt Knights were very active. This is not the only thing they've engaged in where they have helped stoke chaos.
2/ The 10% theory was this super revisionist history that started percolating in right-wing media right after Obama came into office. It basically says that all you need is a fervent 10% of population and with that you can either bully others into support or silence.
3/ Right-wing media fed this notion to themselves for years. And, they attributed most major historical events to the the 10% theory - American revolution, Civil War, etc..etc..
1/ Apropos Facebook banning new political ads 1 week before election:
This is a window-dressing that is designed to fool media and the public into thinking Facebook is taking disinfo seriously. It is a genuinely pointless policy - and if anything will be do more harm than good.
2/ For starters, of all the disinformation and extremism problems on Facebook, political ads are bottom of list. Facebook’s signal boosting right-wingers and lax policy enforcement much bigger issue.
It was’t FB ads that brought the Kenosha killer to Wisconsin.
3/ The loopholes are just nuts. Zuckerberg warns of unrest. And so, he bans new political ads...but only 1 week before election? What about all the other weeks before when voting till place remotely or what about the week after election?