Facebook attempted to influence the outcome of the Kyle Rittenhouse case by shaping public opinion against Rittenhouse before the trial even began.
Months before Rittenhouse got his day in court, Facebook staff removed posts in support of now-vindicated Rittenhouse after he shot three people in self-defence.
According to the New York Post, Facebook quickly flagged Rittenhouse as a “mass murderer”:
“We’ve designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support of the shooter,” a Facebook spokesperson stated in the days following the incident.
“We don’t allow symbols, praise or support of dangerous individuals or organizations on Facebook. We define dangerous as things like: terrorist activity, organized hate or violence, mass or serial murder, human trafficking, criminal or harmful activity,” states Facebook’s official policy on the issue.
However, Rittenhouse was clearly none of the above, yet the social media giant still treated him as such.
Thepostmillennnial.com reports: Perhaps more alarmingly, Facebook often didn’t outright censor posts, but rather, “shadow banned” them. This means that users didn’t face any direction from Facebook, and their post stayed up, but it was partially or wholly hidden from the public.
Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center commented on the subject, “One of the big things that they did was manipulate the search engine so you couldn’t even find any references to Kyle Rittenhouse.”
The Post article concludes with, “Social media now qualify for various legal protections by claiming to be ‘neutral platforms.’ Yet Big Tech is developing a strong record of suppressing the truth in the service of clear political bias. Something has to change.”
by Sean Adl-Tabatabai
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.