Facebook Beefs Up Censorship of Non-Liberals, Shuts Down ‘Being Libertarian’

Last week, we reported to you that Liberty Memes was on the brink of being shut down, after Facebook briefly unpublished their page because of a meme critical of Hillary Clinton. Today, Facebook deleted the page Being Libertarian after they posted the following image.

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 4.16.42 PM

Being Libertarian’s Head of Media Relations, Mike Mazzarone, said the following on his personal Facebook, lamenting about the deletion.

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 4.18.04 PM

Being Libertarian has reached out to Facebook in hopes of receiving a media inquiry about the deletion of their page. After Facebook was recently caught tailoring their news towards liberal sources, it was believed that their relationship with non-liberals would improve. But this week’s turn of events indicate that things aren’t getting any better. We know that conservatives are being censored by Facebook, but the censorship of libertarians is even worse.

Please share this story to help our friends at Being Libertarian get their page back. They’ve worked arduously to build a loyal following of more than 90,000 fans who enjoy their daily content, and would appreciate if you could give them a helping hand.

Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 7.43.27 PM

  • lyricosm

    Being Libertarian is a troll page. It offers little if anything worthwhile to the cause of libertarian ideology other than exploitation of the right to be an asshole. Nevertheless, between trolling and censorship, the latter form of assholery is the stinkiest.

    • hyraxx

      I don’t follow the page religiously to confirm that they troll. Very few memes offer little to anything worthwhile. I’m just tired of censorship. My post was removed from some leftist disqus discussion because I compared BLM blocking a highway to Bridgegate. Very legitimate and serious comparison

      • Ixoziel

        You only compared it to Bridgegate? I just call them primitives. I wouldn’t bother trying to discuss anything with progressives. They’re far too zealous to respond reasonably. I find their behavior funny when you consider that they’re the main party of atheists.

        “Racist” is the new “heretic”.

        • Ryan Floch

          “”Racist” is the new “heretic””. That comparison is eye opening. I was trying to find a way to express how I felt about that term and you nailed it

    • Matthew Denniston

      Comedy is a worthwhile enterprise both in it’s own right and for spreading ideas.

      If you need more examples let me know but start at “Daily Show” and go from there.

    • Ixoziel

      I wouldn’t really compare trolling and censorship … the former is exercising your right to free speech, the latter is suppressing the rights of others.

      • Considering censorship only happens under the force of law, a private company excluding you from participating in their product or service is hardly censorship.

        • Ixoziel

          Yes, it is.

          “Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.”

          What exactly would you call it when you play an online game (just an example) and you try to type an obscene word, like “Fuck”, but it turns into ****? Is that not censorship?

          It’s still censorship, it’s just not ILLEGAL censorship (not protected by the first amendment since it is their private property). They are allowed to suppress your right while you are on their property. That doesn’t make it “morally” okay.

    • Bill Fleming

      and what if it is a “troll page”? Why does that have any impact on Free Speech?

  • hyraxx

    What Facebook should do is instead of removing the photo is to change the audience from ‘public’ to people who actually consent to see what you post. Now they are removing the entire page? Why are they censoring posts I consent to viewing?

    • Matthew Denniston

      In the EULA you agreed that Zuckerberg is the curator of your brain.

  • Liberty Smurf

    Libertarians are ruining facebook for everyone. 🙂 j/k

  • holygoat

    Can you guys please start using the term “leftist” or “progressive” where you currently use “liberal”? Part of our mission ought to be to reclaim the English language from the left. There is nothing “liberal” about the leftist, Progressive Democrat Party, or the dozens of Marxist agitation groups currently operating in America.

    • Anon

      neither is there anything “progressive” about them. Don’t let them dictate the direction of “progress”.

      • Maine Rifleman

        Exactly! I had a marxist say we need to try something “new and different”, referring to socialism. oy! I kid you not.

        • Fred Autonom

          Say, okay, let’s try something new and different and hand em something about Agorism. http://agorism.info

          • Ixoziel

            It seems like that would devolve into feudalism. You would have a bunch of companies “providing security” (aka warlords), each fighting over a sphere of influence.

          • How about we try gradually abolishing the federal government as a separate entity and replacing it with 50 state governments eventually. This Constitution isn’t working as sold.

          • Fred Autonom

            That would be more Constitutional.

          • Fred Autonom

            That would be more Constitutional.

      • Jaime Osbourn

        They call themselves progressives, so let’s use their word.

        • Dookiestain_LaFlair

          They are regressives, not progressives.

          • Jaime Osbourn

            As I said I’m willing to use their word.

          • SylvieFeatherfoot

            So long as we keep reminding them of the long, proud history of their “movement” – promotion of forced sterilization, minimum wage instituted to keep minorities and women out of the work force, etc.

      • Troy

        In political parlance, “Progressive” is a specific ideology emerging around 1900, extolling the virtues of identity politics and government solutions to matters of inequality of outcome. It does not merely mean “progress.”

        • We can argue over terms, but it’ll come to nothing.

          • Troy

            The more ambiguous the meaning of words becomes, the more difficult it becomes to communicate.

          • I don’t disagree with you, Don Quixote.

          • Hoyt Duff

            OMG, a voice of reason! +!

      • asmith1234

        “Progressive” is just the new term for what has been known in history as ‘communist’. They came up with the term, ‘progressive’ because of the negativity connected to the term, ‘communist’.

    • Maine Rifleman

      I agree and use the term “regressive” to describe this wave of leftist.

  • holygoat

    Is the “Being Libertarian” page I’m currently looking at on FB a different page, or have you been reinstated?

  • ZyklonSlick

    And Libertarians are mad why? A corporation exercised its property rights :^). Libertarians and Ancaps should be rejoicing and following the N.A.P. Facebook is making money so why should it bother you whether the wider culture suffers so long as it is not by violence XDDDDDD

    • LoneWiseMan

      They can still be mad at the company and vocalize that.

      Are you so oblivious to think that their freedom of speech should be limited because it’s a private company?

      • MG

        Libertarianism means that Facebook has the right to decide what they want to allow on their site. It also means that people can raise a stink, threaten a boycott, whatever, if they don’t like Facebook’s decisions.

        Libertarianism doesn’t mean you have to approve of or shut up about other people’s actions. It just means that, in general, those actions should not be controlled by force of law.

        • ZyklonSlick

          Of course you have every right to be buttmad and call for a boycott just as all establishments have the right to throw you on the sidewalk for shouting “TITS!!!”. But the low likelihood of a boycott working against Facebook shows just how impotent libertarians are. Libertarians like Communists refuse to believe that their ideology is flawed and can be exploited. Not everyone will agree with it because we do not have a hivemind.

          • John Mark Eaton

            Enlighten us with an unflawed ideology. Do you uphold the status quo? What tweaks might you make? Libertarians are indeed somewhat erelevant, and basically just waiting to say I told you so. That day will come.

        • Bill Stypick

          Consider this a form of consumer review from upset patrons…. This is how the free market shuts down improperly run business’s…. We’re not demanding that the gubment come in and take control of FB and force people to listen to us….

          • MG


        • Ryan Floch

          1. What if the Facebook censorship is due to pressure from X state organization ?

          2. For all practical purposes, your facebook page and wall are public domain. Except legally. Facebook shutting down a facebook page is a grave action, and should only be performed against dangerous groups

        • Josh

          Private companies also have customers who can become upset with poor service… Like when you didn’t like that your local pizza place stopped carrying pepperoni.

          • MG

            And customers have every right to complain, leave negative reviews, organize a boycott, whatever.

            Excellent service should not be compelled by force of law. The desire to make a profit is generally good enough incentive, and when that fails, legislative intervention usually makes matters worse.

    • Friedriche Dali

      Actually you’re wrong. Facebook has conditions, community standards, if you respect these standards they have no right to censor you since you respect the established contract between you and them, which they are currently breaking.

      • The internet is a playground. Facebook presently the most popular ride, but that’ll change. It will get too big and fall over, like a bridge.

        • Snowy

          Bridges don’t get taller. You’re thinking of towers.

    • Chris

      I think a big part of it is the blatant lying and hypocrisy on the part of facebook, in how they treat the regressive left, muslims and everyone else. If you went to another business and they blatantly displayed bias for a particular group of customers and treated everyone else so poorly, you would most likely have legal basis to sue for discrimination.

      • Snowy

        Welcome to what a Libertarian-run world looks like.

    • Matthew Reece

      That is an autistic response. This is not occurring in a vacuum; multiple governments are pressuring and being pressured by Facebook. This has nothing to do with free markets punishing bigotry.

      • I don’t think Being Libertarian was making a bigoted, just showing the hypocrisy in the left’s own bigotry.

      • Snowy

        And in a Libertarian world, the companies would just run the show without that pesky government in the way. Things like this would be an every day occurrence.

        • You’re thinking of ancaps. Libertarians want government, just smaller.

        • Matthew Reece

          It would be easier to compete with those companies without a state, as there would not be state regulations or corporate taxes. Companies that act against their customers without good cause would find their customers going to competitors or starting competing businesses themselves.

    • Take a breath man. We’re just kvetching. Nobody is suggesting we get government involved to *force* Facebook to conform to our wishes. I for one am very happy for the Zuck. He’s living the dream.

    • SylvieFeatherfoot

      Libertarians are disturbed that the terms of service are interpreted differently depending upon the political views espoused.

      They are not seeking legal recourse, unlike those gay couples who have been refused a wedding cake by an evangelist baker (a similar circumstance – “we let leftist pages say similar things, but not you;” “we bake wedding cakes, but not for you.”)

  • Bruce

    Facebook, being a private organization, is free to ban or permit anybody they want. Why would you want to be a part of an organization that clearly doesn’t want you?

    • John Cross

      Then it shouldn’t be a website that’s supposed to include everyone from all walks of life, they should change their name to BolshevikBook if they want to ban everything remotely conservative or right wing.

    • Tannim

      California’s Public Accommodations Law says otherwise.

      • Bruce

        I disagree. Case law is clear – online boards of all types are not public accommodations.

  • Aaron H

    Socialist. Its leftist regressive Socialism. Nothing Liberal about any of it. Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal. Hillary is a psycopathic regressive Socialist, just like Barry.

  • David D

    Keep in mind that while there is indeed some human decision making behind what gets pulled and what doesn’t, a lot of it is automated, based on the number of people who “report” an image or group, and in my experience many leftists tend to report things they do not agree with, as they see disagreement as a personal attack, and thus “abusive” (this mindset is especially prevalent with millennial leftists). That being said, I am sure there is some human bias at play here, as companies get a lot more negative PR (and government scrutiny) when they are perceived to be anti-[insert protected class here] then when they are perceived to be anti-[insert “oppressor” class here].

  • Did you use the Facebook page to get permission to contact fans via email? Facebook pages are entry points, not destinations. Use them to collect email addresses (with proper permissions and allowing one-click unsubscription) so that if this happens, you don’t lose contact with people, i.e., lose all your work.

  • Ben R

    Doesn’t a private company have the right to do what it pleases with it’s own property? The page was legally Facebook’s as per the user agreement so what’s the trouble?

    • pjwal

      No one is claiming they are breaking the law you fool. They are trying to point out the imbalance of the application of their content management policy.

    • SylvieFeatherfoot

      Certainly. However, Facebook’s terms of service are being applied inconsistently, or even potentially violated by Facebook when it comes to non-leftist pages. If Facebook wants to promote leftist politics and censor other views, then it needs to be clear and open about that goal.

  • Rufrignkidnme

    This is amusing to me. I deleted and removed all trace of myself on facebook just over 2 years ago. I was sure that Facebook would go the way of the pet rock very quickly. Yet people still have accounts and are surprised when content that doesn’t fit the leftist narrative is deleted.. outraged even. Really?

    Just delete it and forget it.. it’s crap app anyway that the guy stole from his college “friend.” zuckerberg deserves $0 of the success of that program.

  • I got page with 140,000 followers removed for using the word feminist. Yes. Just uttering the word feminist even in a positive light while being in possession of a penis is enough to get your page taken, and your account banned for 30 days.

  • Anonymous NTX

    Wish the ballot didn’t have “LIB” as the voting option in Texas.

  • Dave_Plankton

    Facebook is a private company and it has every right to enforce its own policies. It chose to censor posts based on market forces.

    Welcome to the effects of actual real-life libertarianism.

  • Kim White

    Facebook changed my share setting to “only me” when I tried to share a story about Johnson.

  • Get more people to use http://www.VK.com
    It’s just like Facebook but I believe it is Russian based and a lot less censorship.