In my opinion, the United States should have also banned big tech ahead of its own elections, seeing as they at least played some part in the election interference (something which they admitted to planning on doing shortly after Trump’s election victory in 2016). It’s kind of a shame that Uganda can run elections better than the U.S. can.
 
But in any case, let’s get to the main subject of the article. A couple of days ago, the president of Uganda temporarily banned Facebook, Twitter and all other big social media platforms ahead of its elections because, according to a spokesman for President Museveni, “Facebook is interfering in the electoral process of Uganda. If people wanted to have evidence of outside interference, now they have it.”
 
The official Twitter account for the government of Uganda tweeted: “The President warns that if social media channels like Facebook and Twitter are not being friendly and equitable to some of the Ugandans, then there is no reason as to why we should have them operate here.”
 
Facebook alleged to the AP that Museveni’s campaign “used fake and duplicate accounts to manage pages, comment on other people’s content, impersonate users, re-share posts in groups to make them appear more popular than they were. Given the impending election in Uganda, we moved quickly to investigate and take down this network.”
 
See, I’d be more willing to believe that Facebook was cracking down on those who clearly violated their TOS if they hadn’t spent the last few years cracking down on those who did not violate their TOS and only held and shared dissenting opinions from the ones Facebook shared. How many of you reading this article have been put in Facebook jail at least once? How many times do you believe you violated the platform’s TOS to deserve such a punishment? What caused you to be punished in such a way? Sharing violent threats? Sharing misinformation? Because Leftists can do both of those things with utter impunity. Did you share things which were pro-Trump but a bigoted Leftist (or a number of them) reported your post/comment(s)?
 
Madonna, back in 2017, publicly shared that she had thought “an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” Terroristic comments like that, when uttered by Leftists and aimed at the Right, are allowed on social media.
 
Now, a liberal might argue: “But she made that threat in a speech during a protest in D.C., not on Facebook, so why would social media ban her?” I don’t know, why did they ban the sitting president’s account? The “incitement” that the Left claims he made was also made in a speech during a protest in D.C. The words he used, by the way, included “peacefully”, so he never even got close to making a terroristic threat like Madonna. And yet, he gets purged from social media, but Madonna receives no punishment.
 
The Ayatollah Khamenei frequently breaks social media TOS by making threats against America, Jews, Christians, etc., and his account is not only not banned, but some have reported that he was PROMOTED by Twitter as someone for them to follow.
 
So forgive me if I don’t exactly believe Facebook’s side of the story here. They very well could be telling the truth, but I could hardly care at this point. If they wanted my sympathy and support, they shouldn’t swing their ban hammers around in the direction of right-wingers solely for the purpose of being right-wing.
 
Naturally, since Twitter was also on the receiving end of this Ugandan ban, they bitched and moaned against “censorship.”
 
“Ahead of the Ugandan election, we’re hearing reports that Internet service providers are being ordered to block social media and messaging apps. We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of the #OpenInternet,” said Twitter’s Public Policy account.
 
And, I just have to say, thank you so very much, Twitter, you hypocritical morons. You have just given those of us who support the regulation of social media a massive gift by admitting that what you provide is a “basic human right”.
 
Uganda didn’t outright ban the internet, it just banned big tech social media platforms. By saying that banning such content is a violation of basic human rights, you give up the argument that people don’t have a basic right to having and using a Twitter account.
 
LOLbertarians (libertarians who hilariously support tyranny when it comes from corporations) argue that “no one has a right to Twitter” or Facebook, etc. Apparently, Twitter itself does not agree with them, seeing as they believe taking away Ugandans’ ability to use social media is a violation of basic human rights.
 
So, then, what purpose does any lawyer have to not go after Twitter for violating the basic human rights of thousands of conservative accounts, including that of the President of the United States?
 
Now, I wouldn’t argue that it’s a “basic human right”, but it should be considered part of a First Amendment right to free speech. Social media, particularly the big ones, have become the new public square. It’s where people share their opinions on things if they so choose. To ban someone for holding the “wrong” opinion is a clear violation of that First Amendment right.
 
“But the founders never envisioned something like the internet and social media when they wrote the First Amendment.” True, but they also didn’t envision modern weapons like what we have today, but if you could ask them about modern weapons, there’s no doubt they would include such weapons as being protected under the Second Amendment.
 
They wrote the Second Amendment with the idea that an armed people would be more difficult to be subjected to tyranny. The weapons people had back then were just about the same as what official militaries had. If anything, I would argue that the founders would make the case for citizens being able to wield the same kinds of weapons that the military has. Maybe not things like tanks, helicopters and aircraft, but fully automatic guns and other things. Maybe not grenades and other explosives, but who knows?
 
So if they intended for Americans to be able to protect themselves with guns, likely knowing that guns would evolve one day and advancements would be made, why wouldn’t they argue in favor of free speech in places like even social media?
 
What’s more, Leftists have no issue with claiming that athletes have the right to protest the flag before games, despite the fact that they are 1) employees of the NFL/the teams that signed them and 2) working in stadiums held by private companies. So if athletes can exercise their free speech rights despite the private ownership of both the teams that signed them/the league that they play for and the private ownership of the stadiums in which they play, why can’t everyday Americans exercise their free speech rights in privately owned social media platforms?
 
I mean, even Twitter is admitting here that it’s a “basic human right” to be able to use their services. I wouldn’t go that far, but people definitely have a First Amendment right to use their services in such a way.
 
“But what about the crazy people like QAnon, who come up with insane conspiracy theories about everything?” What about the crazy people like the Democrat party, which came up with the insane conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election?
 
I’m not one to strongly defend Q because a lot of what those guys say is, at best, baseless and without evidence, but let’s not pretend as though the Left isn’t just as baseless and without evidence about a lot of things they say. For three and a half years, CNN and other fake news media organizations ran with the utter lie that Trump colluded with Russia, despite zero evidence turning up that would prove it. That was as much of a conspiracy theory as the theory that Trump is sending good guys in the DOJ to arrest high-profile individuals like the Clintons, Obamas, Soros, etc.
 
The idea that Trump tried to collude with Ukraine against Biden is as much a conspiracy theory as the one that JFK Jr. is still alive. No evidence means no real reason to believe it’s true. So if Q should be banned from social media because of what they say, then so should the OVERWHELMING majority of the Left.
 
But as long as they aren’t harming anyone, or calling for the harm of anyone, why wouldn’t they be allowed to use social media?
 
There was a guy I saw recently who claimed that the Trump Administration reached out to him and people like him (the guy is from Britain and lived in what looked like a very small and inexpensive apartment) about something regarding Trump staying in office for the next four years with the help of the military. The guy, in his “About” page (he has a website), claims that he is someone who was frequently visited by aliens, “shadow people”, or something like that, and in general, other crazy stuff. The guy is off his rocker, clearly, but what harm does he do by saying what he does?
 
Without providing any evidence, there is no reason to believe anything he says (and his other claims regarding aliens and what-not make any of his claims dubious at best). Why should he not be allowed a platform when the fake news media, again, without evidence, is allowed massive platforms to claim that Trump colluded with Russia (among other things)?
 
And with that same zero amount of evidence, why would Twitter and Facebook not ban people that made that sort of claim if the platforms are intent on stopping the spread of disinformation?
 
The fact of the matter is that the Left is a frequent breaker of social media platforms’ TOS, and yet, they hardly ever receive punishment for their actions. The social media giants have clear agendas and an intent on silencing dissenting voices of opinion, regardless of whether or not they break the TOS.
 
So, again, forgive me if I fail to show or have any sympathy for the woes of social media giants when Uganda chooses to ban the platforms ahead of its elections.
 
It’s not even like I’m necessarily taking the Ugandan governments’ word for their reasons to ban the tech giants. Maybe the Museveni campaign is doing everything Facebook is alleging that they are. But with how often the tech giants cried “wolf” about people breaking their TOS who did not, in fact, break their TOS, why should I give Facebook or social media the benefit of the doubt?
 
Why would I side with them when, to Twitter’s own admission, they “violate basic human rights” when they strip people of their ability to use their platforms? They are every bit the censorious violators of free speech that they claim the Ugandan government to be, so why defend them at any capacity?
 
Give people back their free speech rights, and then I will side with them against the Ugandan government. Until then, and for as long as they choose to be corporate tyrants, I will support regulating them and even breaking them up.
 
Monopolies shouldn’t exist anyway.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”

​Recently, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a lengthy post that “Left unchecked, people will engage disproportionately with more sensationalist and provocative content.”

Gee, it’s almost as though humanity’s nature is not basically good, but basically evil. I mean seriously, I am kind of surprised to see Zuckerberg using this kind of language about people.
 
But I am getting a bit ahead of myself. Let’s look over just exactly what Zuckerberg is talking about.
 
Zuckerberg, in his post, shared the following images:

​As you can see, the new changes Facebook intends to implement work towards limiting the traffic a “sensationalist and provocative” piece of content gets, even if it does not explicitly violate Facebook’s rules and guidelines. Of course, this can be taken as nothing more than yet another attempt at censorship.
 
What needs to be understood here is that, according to Breitbart: “A crucial distinction between this new announcement and previous ones is that the use of ‘sensationalist and provocative’ does not imply that the material Facebook intends to censor isn’t true or factual.”
 
In other words, anything relating to stating the scientific fact that men are men and women are women and that one cannot be a man one day and a woman the next will be subject to less traffic, if not an outright prohibition of the content.
 
Now, an argument could be made that such a thing happens now. But here’s the thing, this new change implies Facebook doesn’t even care to try and b.s. things as being “hate speech”.
 
According to Breitbart: “Facebook’s own research found that posts which were ‘offensive’ but not ‘hate speech’ ended up getting more views. Zuckerberg admits that such ‘offensive’ posts will have their engagement artificially limited in [the] future.”
 
So with this new change, Facebook doesn’t even have to pretend something is “hate speech” even when it isn’t. Granted, the whole charge of “offensive” could be equally as subjective as a charge of “hate speech”, but still.
 
Speaking of “offensive” being subjective, Zuckerberg does not reveal much about how Facebook determines what is considered “offensive” content.
 
But considering history, one would be naïve to expect equal treatment of “offensive” content. If a Christian man shares his views in a post, is that considered offensive? If a Christian man points out the sins of another, is that offensive? If a Muslim man attacks Christianity, is that offensive?
 
We have our own ideas of what is considered offensive and what is not, but it’s likely Facebook has their own ideas that greatly differ from ours.
 
For example, though this is Twitter, a feminist blogger tweeted these two tweets in response to some people: “Men aren’t women tho,” and “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” And although she is right, Twitter deemed that offensive and Twitter notified her that such content is in violation with their rules against “hateful conduct”.
 
Though she is 100% factually correct (and although this is Twitter and not Facebook), the tech giant has their own definition of hateful conduct and such truth is in violation of it. When NYT columnist Sarah Jeong makes it known to people just how much she abhors white people and enjoys it when white people suffer, that’s not offensive or hateful at all. But speaking the truth about men and women, Twitter responds with such a notification. Not an outright shadowban, but still a ridiculous reprimand.
 
And Facebook is not all too different from Twitter in regards to what they consider offensive and hateful speech.
 
Now, allow me to get to the main point of this article. Aside from the fact that this is a clear announcement of further censorship covering a wider area, albeit with a relatively lighter punishment (if content is offensive, it can still be seen, but will suffer in terms of traffic), let me return to the original quote I shared with you in the first paragraph.
 
“Left unchecked, people will engage disproportionately with more sensationalist and provocative content.”
 
That, to me, sounds like an admission from Zuckerberg that humanity’s basic nature is not good, but rather evil. After all, if Zuckerberg were to say that people are basically good, then there would be no need for such measures. With that post, he admits that humanity’s nature is not good, but evil.
 
If humanity were basically good, Facebook would not subject anyone to censorship largely because there would be no need for it at all (arguably, there’s little need for it now). As he says, when left unchecked, people will tend to go down morally questionable roads. It’s in our nature to do so.
 
Why? Because it’s in our nature to sin. The only beings in all of existence who were born without sin were Jesus Christ and Adam and Eve. Christ because, well, He’s the Christ, and Adam and Eve because they were created from God’s own hands and didn’t sin until they disobeyed God.
 
Everyone else who has ever walked this Earth has been born in sin and, for those who have not been saved, died in sin. As a result of the original sin, the basic nature of humanity has been evil. That isn’t to say we all constantly perform evil acts, and that isn’t to say we are all equally evil. Obviously, I would not say I am just as evil as Hitler was. However, what makes all of us, including you and me, basically evil is the sin we commit and the sin in our hearts.
 
To be apart from God means to be unholy and tainted. Humanity is tainted. As such, it cannot possibly be basically good.
 
Objectively speaking, Zuckerberg is right. It’s in our nature to do such things. When we become Christians and become saved and redeemed by Christ, we have a desire to limit such sin in our lives. For example, in that discussion regarding sensationalist and provocative content, he talks about (apart from “hate speech”) content that is sexually suggestive, such as “revealing clothing and sexually suggestive positions”.
 
I find that people who don’t tend to be Christians tend to be more interested in sexual things that, honestly, go further than even that. I remember, back when I had first created my Twitter account and following back everyone that followed me, some occasions when I would follow back accounts from sexual accounts (that I would immediately unfollow upon learning what they were) and would sometimes see flat-out nudity and porn (mostly cartoon porn, for some reason). As a Christian, I became disgusted by it and immediately unfollowed such accounts. But the fact that such accounts exist (or at least existed at that time) is indicative that there are people who make sex a big part of their lives and love seeing such things. That’s not necessarily something that surprises me, knowing the nature of humanity, but indicates the difference between someone who tries not to sin (even though they fail) and someone who is more than okay with such sin.
 
So while the main takeaway from the announcement should be that Facebook is going to implement new algorithms for censorship and regulation of people’s nature (you can’t regulate evil, otherwise there’d be no need for laws that punish murder because there’d be no murder), another thing that may honestly go unnoticed by people is Zuckerberg’s admission that humanity is evil.
 
Sure, it’s not the main point of his post, or the biggest takeaway from it, and it’s not the main point of the Breitbart article either (although I understand why that is, all things considered), but I really felt that it needed to be pointed out.
 
Humanity is basically evil, and that’s a concept even Zuckerberg seems to understand, which really differs from the stance many people tend to have, even those on the Right and those who might consider themselves Christians.

And that is the reason I say that it's ironic that that is what he cites as the reason for these censorship models. A lot of people, particularly on the Left, think we are basically good. So I find it funny and ironic that Zuckerberg, a Leftist, would say we're not.
 
1 Corinthians 2:14
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!