Whether you know it, realize it, or not...Facebook is controlling who, or even whether someone, sees your posts. Perhaps you have been living in a bubble unaware of Facebook's every chaging "algorithms," but the social media behemoth long ago stopped being a platform for free speech.
Facebook now has employees coming forward because they do not want the kind of world Facebook is fostering and helping to create. Because the federal government is not taking this issue seriously states are having to and, thankfully, Florida is at the front of the line in holding the social media outlets accountable. They are no longer shielded in Florida.
Oh, and Facebook is admitting it in a released statement to Project Veritas.
Here's some of what Project Veritas has uncolvered and shared with me via email.
- Two Facebook Insiders have come forward with internal company documents detailing aplan to curb “vaccine hesitancy” (VH) on a global scale.
- The stated goal of this feature is to “drastically reduce user exposure” to VH comments. Another aim of the program is to force a “decrease in other engagement of VH comments including create, likes, reports [and] replies.”
- It was such a shocking revelation, that it moved not just one -- but two whistleblowers to come forward to Project Veritas, so the public could be made aware of this plan to stifle free speech.
- One Facebook whistleblower said the company uses a tier system to determine how a comment should be censored or buried.
- Comments that include “shocking stories” describing “potentially or actually true events, or facts that can raise safety concerns” -- are demoted.
- “I have to do something” about this outrageous censorship, one of the Facebook insiders said.
- “They're trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page, before you even see it,” the other Facebook insider added. “If I lose my job, it’s like, what do I do? But that’s less of a concern to me.”
- Project Veritas reached out to a top Facebook Spokesperson about these documents and received only a brief and broad statement in reply, that failed to address our biggest questions regarding transparency.