Senator, fake Native American, and 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren was on the warpath Monday night after Facebook took down selected ads of hers — specifically, ads calling for the breakup of “monopolies” like Facebook.
Warren, who purchased ad space on the very monopoly she thinks should be broken up, claimed that Facebook was censoring her ideas. Facebook quickly restored the ads, although it said the issue was Warren’s unauthorized use of Facebook’s logo in an advertisement.
UPDATE: Facebook says its restoring the ads. “We removed the ads because they violated our policies against use of our corporate logo. In the interest of allowing robust debate, we are restoring the ads.” – FB spox
— Cristiano Lima (@viaCristiano) March 11, 2019
So in reality, Warren’s ads on the very platform she claims is too big violated Facebook’s policies, but they restored them anyway “in the interest of allowing robust debate.” So in the end, Warren got her ads and the right to claim her ideas were being censored by one of the tech giants, along with Google and Amazon, she thinks needs to be broken up by the government.
Sadly, Sen. Ted Cruz backed up Warren on her censorship claim.
First time I’ve ever retweeted @ewarren But she’s right—Big Tech has way too much power to silence Free Speech. They shouldn’t be censoring Warren, or anybody else. A serious threat to our democracy. https://t.co/VoesOKSqhA
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 12, 2019
So is Cruz also advocating for the breakup of Facebook, Google, and Amazon, or is he just opposed to the censorship of ideas on social media? Because if the latter’s the case, he should have spoken up long ago. Does he know you can still be suspended by Twitter just by saying “learn to code” in any context because it’s considered targeted harassment?
So now we’ve got bipartisan idiocy.
Facebook always takes down posts that modify its logo. It might be a stupid self-serving rule (of course it is; they wrote it) but it applies to everybody from senators to students.
It’s good to be tough on big tech, but not to be paranoid.
— Marcus Baram (@mbaram) March 12, 2019
So the argument is that Washington should force a private enterprise to host advertisements on its platform that call for that private enterprise's disintegration. Right? https://t.co/dhHwkii8EE
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) March 12, 2019
They didn't censor Warren–her post violated the FB content policy, which they later forgave as a show of good faith.
— Caesar Pounce (@caeser_pounce) March 12, 2019
Clearly it didn't shut down debate – you just used this competing platform to post about it. Also, "breaking up" Facebook doesn't solve the censorship issue. Need a smarter approach than just "break them up"
— Brett Bell (@BWBell10) March 12, 2019
We give them the power they have. They are a private company, not a government agency. They can do whatever they'd like.
— CanAvalanche (@canavalanche) March 12, 2019
If Facebook is a privately owned entity doesn’t this void capitalist freedom?
— Bored with my life ? (@howyoudoingfamm) March 12, 2019
Please point me to the part of the constitution that talks about social media control. Thanks
— Jonathan Salama (@JSalama5) March 12, 2019
We're ok with regulating what ads private companies have to accept now?
— Greg Fuhrmann (@gregfuhrmann) March 12, 2019
Here comes Big government again.
— alec moore (@hedontgotgame) March 12, 2019
so much for being a small government R
— Benjamin Baeker (@btbaek) March 12, 2019
Ted, I don’t trust the govt to be in charge of that. Period.
Just get them to admit that they are either a platform or a publisher and let the market respond. Never thought I’d see a R say this. Disappointed.
— Badfish (@Badfish27934716) March 12, 2019
No. Internet platforms come and go. Govts who give themselves the power to pick winners and control speech never let it go.
— CondenserMike (@CondenserMick) March 12, 2019
Senator, you know how a restaurant reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, or how a baker can refuse to bake a cake for someone (I'm sure you were on that baker's side of the issue)…how is this different? If you don't like Facebook, get off Facebook.
— Richard M. (@Neotek72) March 12, 2019
Don’t like FB or Twitter? Don’t use them. Other search engines out there besides Google. Warren is nothing but a blatant opportunist who will say anything she thinks will get her votes. Kind of like you, Ted.
— Timothy Giblette (@glibguy) March 12, 2019
Tech companies have ZERO to do with our free speech rights, of which you’re well aware. Their platform, their rules. Unless of course you’re up for regulating them like a utility, which may teeter too close to the dreaded socialism for your comfort… Ted?
— MCWright (@MCW_Disruptor) March 12, 2019
This is a *weak* argument at best, as evidenced by the fact she TWEETED it out on TWITTER. I hope she has more ideas about or even evidence of FB using real monopoly power than this. There's a big difference between an industry that requires regulation and breaking up a company.
— ml8_ml8 (@ml8_ml8) March 12, 2019
Senator: I have a lot of respect for you, I hope you don't agree with @ewarren that breaking up #BigTech is the answer.
— Ryan Gniadek (@ryangniadek) March 12, 2019
A Harvard law school grad agreeing with a former Harvard Law professor about the market power amassed by a former Harvard student. Let’s break up Harvard while you are at it.
— Disgustedbyeveryone (@jkre1244) March 12, 2019
If only people had the individual choice to not use Facebook. ?
— Wes ??♂️? (@DevilDocWes) March 12, 2019
Silicon Valley gets cannibalized.
— Tom Toth (@TomToth3) March 12, 2019
Considering how many of them probably use Facebook, it’s amazing how many commenters really want the government to either break up Facebook or regulate its content.
Nearly half of all e-commerce goes through Amazon, but Elizabeth Warren’s going to fix that for you https://t.co/FPjw6DJXGz
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) March 11, 2019
To change your comments display name, click here.