Why Is Twitter And Facebook Allowing Death Threats Against A Presidential Candidate?
By Susan Duclos – All News PipeLine
On February 19, 2016 it was reported by the Las Vegas Review Journal that they had reported a “possible threat related to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton after a man tried to place an obituary notice for the former secretary of state,” which the SS followed up on:
When reached by phone Friday night, Schubert said he had been called by a Secret Service agent. He said he told the agent the obituary attempt was done in “political humor,” a predictive reference to Clinton losing Saturday’s Nevada caucuses.
Schubert said the agent told him that he could be arrested, but the agency wasn’t planning on doing so.
That is the job of the Secret Service, to investigate threats against those they are charged with protecting, yet we are hearing of no investigation into New York Magazine employee and writer, Jonathan Chait for offering a “$100 million bounty for Donald Trump, dead or alive,” on his Twitter account. The tweet is here, but a screen shot at the top of this article in case he deletes the tweet.
As can be seen from the following responses, the FBI and the Secret Service were notified on their official Twitter accounts reporting Chait for this blatant death threat.
Chait is not the only writer that has spoken or suggested an assassination of Donald Trump, as Stefan Stanford reported last week after New York Times “moral values” columnist, Ross Douthat sent out a tweet “joking” about Trump being ‘assassinated’ as the way to get Trump out of the race. (More on that from Alex Jones in the video at the bottom of this article)
Twitter has recently been in the news for allegedly banning Conservative bloggers while refusing to suspend a “kill Trump” account, which they left up for six months and finally after it was made very public, then suddenly suspended it. Breitbart News recently confirmed that Twitter was also “shadowbanning politically inconvenient users.”
Our source was backed up by a senior editor at a major digital publisher, who told Breitbart that Twitter told him it deliberately whitelists and blacklists users. He added that he was afraid of the site’s power, noting that his tweets could disappear from users’ timelines if he got on the wrong side of the company.
Shadowbanning, sometimes known as “Stealth Banning” or “Hell Banning,” is commonly used by online community managers to block content posted by spammers. Instead of banning a user directly (which would alert the spammer to their status, prompting them to create a new account), their content is merely hidden from public view.
For site owners, the ideal shadowban is when a user never realizes he’s been shadowbanned.
Other examples of threats against Trump on Twitter shown below:
Related: Is Twitter Silencing Conservatives?
Over at Steve Quayle’s website we found a link to an Investment Watch Blog post titled “Facebook Refuses to Take Down “Assassinate Donald Trump” Page.” In that we see a screen shot showing that a Facebook page named “Assassinate Donald Trump” was reported to Facebook and according to FB’s reply, the page does not violate their community standards.
As the Investment Watch Blog also points out Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently vowed to crack down on “anti-Muslim” speech, stating “There’s still work to do. We want to do that, but I think we hear the message loud and clear, and we’re committed to doing better. There’s not a place for this kind of content on Facebook.”
What FB does seem to be the place for though, because they are refusing to remove threats from Mulsims as pointed out by Pamela Gellar, who provides a screen shot as evidence:
So, if a page titled “Assassinate Donald Trump” does not violate Facebook’s “community standards,” then what does? See a few examples below:
(Image above via Examiner)
(Image via Examiner)
(Image via Conservative Firing Line)
Readers can find many more examples at FacebookCensorship.com.
Is it a “conspiracy theory” to state that it appears as if political ideology is being used to determine what is and is not acceptable by the Secret Service, FBI, the MSM, and by social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter, when the visual evidence is captured for the world to see?
Is it reasonable to conclude Twitter and Facebook are in fact facilitating hate speech and incitement to violence against Donald Trump while blocking, banning and censoring any “speech” they deem politically incovenient?
(Screen shot of Politico headline)