The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Harmful Extremist Content’? Why Does Facebook Want You to Be ‘Concerned’?

Posted on | July 4, 2021 | Comments Off on ‘Harmful Extremist Content’? Why Does Facebook Want You to Be ‘Concerned’?

We need Mark Zuckerberg to protect us from Thought Crime:

An eyebrow-raising new Facebook feature warns users when they might have been exposed to extremist content or if they know someone who is becoming an extremist — prompting concerns it may target conservative voices and stifle free speech.
Screenshots of the anti-extremism alerts circulated Thursday on social media.
One of the prompts asks users, “Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?”
“We care about preventing extremism on Facebook,” the prompt goes on. “Others in your situation have received confidential support.”
A second alert read, “You may have been exposed to harmful extremist content recently.”
“Violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment. You can take action now to protect yourself and others,” it continues.
Both of the alerts also redirect users to a support page.
Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesperson, confirmed that the company is testing the prompts as part of a wider approach to radicalization prevention.
“This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk,” Stone said.
“We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future.”

We may assume that the “NGOs and academic experts” with whom Facebook is “partnering” include the SPLC and other Democratic Party propaganda operatives. Considering that today is the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, I was re-reading Winston Churchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples, and what he says about the beginnings of the revolutionary movement in America, which rose from opposition to the 1765 Stamp Act:

With two exceptions it imposed no heavy burden. The stamps on legal documents would not in any case produce a large revenue. The English stamp duty brought in £300,000 a year. Its extension to America was only expected to raise another £50,000. But the Act included a tax on newspapers, many of whose journalists were vehement partisans of the extremist party in America, and the colonial merchants were dismayed because the duty had to be paid in bullion already needed for meeting the adverse trade balance with England. The dispute exposed and fortified the more violent elements in America. The future revolutionary leaders appeared from obscurity — Patrick Henry in Virginia, Samuel Adams in Massachusetts, and Christopher Gadsden in South Carolina — and attacked both the legality of the Government’s policy and the meekness of most American merchants. A small but well-organized Radical element began to emerge.

You see that today we celebrate what “the more violent elements in America” eventually achieved, namely our national independence.

Thank goodness there was no Facebook back then to warn them about “harmful extremist content” from Sam Adams and Patrick Henry.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! You may also enjoy my patriotic argument: “July 4: Why I Am a Populist.”




 

Category: History

Comments

Comments are closed.