President Trump Says They’re Monitoring Social Media Censorship Of American Citizens
Trump Censorship

Social media censorship has been escalating to ridiculous degrees. Misgendering someone can get you banned from Twitter. Linking to banned sources can get you booted from Facebook. And apparently having “dangerous” ideas can earn you the axe on Instagram. Well, President Donald Trump has finally taken notice after the latest wave of bans and said that they are monitoring the censorship of American citizens on social media platforms.

Gateway Pundit spotted several tweets from President Trump, who made the comments on May 3rd, 2019, following a string of Facebook and Instagram bans on high-profile Conservatives such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, and Alex Jones, along with radical Left-wing Islamist Louis Farrakhan.

Left-wing Social Justice Warriors have all championed this stringent string of censorship because it’s mostly happening to those on the Right of the political spectrum. They claim that Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, and other large-scale social media services don’t have to accommodate anyone for any reason because private companies don’t have to adhere to the First Amendment.

However, most SJWs only believe that applies in certain circumstances. Plenty of Social Justice Warriors believed that Masterpiece Cake in Denver, Colorado should have serviced the gay couple.

However, in the exact same token, you’ll find that Social Justice Warriors are absolutely okay with someone being banned from a service for what they believe, or for not adhering to certain policies pushed by the Regressive Left.

But since the court ruled in favor of the Denver cake outlet, SJWs are using it as precedence to state that private corporations don’t have to serve anyone they don’t want to.

Well technically, some businesses do rely on social media and internet services to… well, do business.

Journalists like Tim Pool rely on YouTube to provide news services to his audience. He relies on Twitter and especially YouTube to deliver timely news to hundreds of thousands of people. It’s his job. His livelihood.

Now depriving someone of that platform due to ideological views they express – not even illegal or violent in nature – means that they’re being deprived of a platform in which to conduct their business. It’s a deliberate move to de-platform someone.

So taking this to its logical conclusion: if you run a news organization or you are a pundit like Alex Jones and InfoWars, or Laura Loomer, or Milo Yiannopoulos, and your organization or your accounts are banned from Facebook it means you have diminished reach. Now you can still operate that business and still reach people through search engines and other social media services. Well, just until places like Twitter or YouTube also ban you, which is what happened to Alex Jones and InfoWars. So now you’re out of social media connectivity, which means you’ve lost access to reaching hundreds of millions of people – the equivalent of a news station being knocked out of terrestrial syndication.

Now you still have search engines, right? Well, sure… but now the hundreds of millions of people who use social media won’t be alerted to your new content or won’t know when you produce that content unless they go out of their way to search it up or bookmark the site. But it can get worse, there are search engine shadow bans. Now it was revealed that Google has a shadow ban blacklist, which means you have diminished presence on the search engine, meaning that you won’t show up in the Gnews feeds and your content is either pushed down or de-indexed from the general search.

Now if you run a news organization or you’re a political pundit, or work in information distribution, if you cannot distribute your content or reach people through publicly connected services used by large portions of the public, then these companies are essentially enacting anti-competitive measures in order to prevent your organization from maintaining financial viability. That’s basically what’s happening with InfoWars, Laura Loomer, and others.

These big tech companies operate on the exact same wave length as a public utility, yet they hide behind private corporation status to prevent oversight and regulation. They also claim that they’re a platform and not a publisher, yet they selectively choose who to ban or what kind of content – that is not illegal – to censor from appearing on their services, just like a publisher.

Many believe that if Google, Facebook, and Twitter are going to actively deny the publishing of legally deigned ideological views from their services then they should lose safe harbor under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which you can read up on over on the website.

Now one of the other arguments from regressive identitarians has been that if you don’t like the way big tech censors content, then people should go make their own service. Some have, as recounted by Sargon of Akkad.

The problem is that even when those who don’t adopt the SJW worldview and create alternative services like Gab to rival Twitter, they get de-platformed, making it difficult to properly support the service. The same thing happened to Bitchute, which was cut off from payment processors while attempting to rival YouTube.

In some cases the services continue to grow in popularity and can bypass the payment processing roadblocks but run into other problems, like SJWs doxing and threatening the owners, which is what happened with

Long story short: alternative services aren’t viable for reaching the general public due to being de-platformed by rabid SJWs. This forces people to use the Regressive Left’s playpen and forces them to play by an ever-changing manifest of ridiculous rules, giving them leeway to ban, silence, and stifle the speech and finances of people they feel espouse ideas that are “dangerous”.

Now some people have attempted to put an end to this rampant wave of censorship. Republican Senator Joe Gruters introduced bill 1722 called the “Stop Social Media Censorship Act” back in March of 2019.

The bill would make it where any company boasting more than 75 million registered users in America could no longer ban users for no reason or for nebulous reasons without incurring a $75,000 penalty per every violation.

Obviously this bill has received opposition from Social Justice Warriors because they don’t want to support free speech. They hate free speech; they only want their speech to be allowed.

We’ve seen how harmful this can be in affecting elections with Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin being prohibited from making a campaign account on Twitter to reach potential constituents during the MEP elections in the U.K.

This isn’t the first time that Twitter could be in violation of election meddling, which is illegal. The company is also being sued by California Congressman Devin Nunes who alleged that Twitter engaged in election tampering by shadow banning his account and limiting his reach to potential voters.

Again, Social Justice Warriors claim that government officials don’t have a right to reach potential voters through social media because social media services are operated by private corporations. However, when those companies are affording uneven reach to certain candidates over others by purposefully restricting the reach of candidates then how isn’t that swaying an election?

Of course, for now President Trump is monitoring the situation. It would be wise to get something done before the 2020 elections arrive otherwise Facebook, Twitter, and Google will continue to blacklist, shadow ban, and suppress speech in order to flood every corner of social media with Left-wing media bias with practically zero opposition.

(Thanks for the news tips 13animesinwonderlands 13alices, Ebicentre, and Nick Monroe)


Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years covering video games, technology and digital trends within the electronics entertainment space. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Need to get in touch? Try the Contact Page.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!