False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives - Squarespace
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
False Accusation:
The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies
Censor Conservatives
PAUL M. BARRETT AND J. GRANT SIMS
Center for Business
and Human Rights February 2021
Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction............................................................................................. 3
2. Breaking Down the Bias Claim................................................................. 6
Sidebar: Going to Court........................................................................ 10
Sidebar: Attacking Google..................................................................... 12
3. Assessing Available Data....................................................................... 14
Sidebar: Getting Banned by Twitter....................................................... 16
4. Conclusion and Recommendations....................................................... 19
Endnotes................................................................................................... 22
Acknowledgments
We thank the following people for their time and insight:
Sarah Brandt of NewsGuard, Sam Clark of Transparency Tube, Renée DiResta of the
Stanford Internet Observatory, Eric Effron of NewsGuard, Dipayan Ghosh of the Digital
Platforms and Democracy Project at Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center,
Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University School of Law, Jennifer Grygiel of Syracuse
University, Jess Hemerly of Google, Justin Hendrix of Tech Policy Press, Mark Ledwich of
Transparency Tube, Filippo Menczer of Indiana University, Benedict Nicholson of NewsWhip,
James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute, Matt Perault of the Center on
Authors Science & Technology Policy at Duke University, Nick Pickles of Twitter, Neil Potts of
Facebook, Naomi Shiffman of CrowdTangle/Facebook, Francesca Tripodi of the University
Paul M. Barrett is deputy director of
the NYU Stern Center for Business of North Carolina.
and Human Rights.
J. Grant Sims is a Ropes & Gray We extend special thanks to Craig Newmark and Craig Newmark Philanthropies for
Research Fellow with the Center. continued guidance and financial support.Executive Summary
Conservatives commonly accuse the major social media companies of censoring
the political right. In response to Twitter’s decision on January 8, 2021, to exclude
him from the platform, then-President Donald Trump accused the company of
“banning free speech” in coordination with “the Democrats and Radical Left.”
“
Two days earlier, Trump had included the against undermining election results
ideological bias claim in an incendiary and inciting violence. If anything, the
address to supporters, some of whom platforms previously had given Trump
The claim of anti- then participated in a riot inside the U.S. a notably wide berth because of his
conservative animus Capitol. “The radical left tries to blacklist position, seeking to appease him,
you on social media,” Trump said in his despite his demagogic and routinely
on the part of social speech. “They don’t let the message false claims.
media companies get out nearly as they should.”
Trump has been the leading purveyor
is itself a form of This accusation—that social media of the bias accusation, but it will not
disinformation: platforms suppress conservatives— recede with the end of his presidency.
riles a Republican base that has long In his quest to remain politically relevant,
a falsehood with distrusted the mainstream media and Trump almost certainly will continue to
no reliable evidence is prone to seeing public events as press the case via far-right media chan-
being shaped by murky liberal plots. nels and/or right-wing online platforms
to support it. On a policy level, the bias claim serves like Parler and Gab. After getting kicked
”
as a basis for Republican attacks on off Twitter, Trump said he might set up
Section 230 of the Communications a platform of his own. Other Republican
Decency Act, the federal law that politicians likewise will maintain the
protects platforms from liability asso- accusation, in no small part because
ciated with user posts and content it resonates so powerfully with so
moderation decisions. many GOP voters.
But the claim of anti-conservative Part 1 of this report provides an intro-
animus is itself a form of disinformation: duction and thematic overview. Part 2
a falsehood with no reliable evidence charts the rise and spread of the bias
to support it. No trustworthy large- claim, analyzing its various manifesta-
scale studies have determined that tions. Part 3 assesses available data
conservative content is being removed showing that conservatives enjoy a
for ideological reasons or that search- prominent place on major social media
es are being manipulated to favor platforms—a situation unlikely to be true
liberal interests. if conservatives were being systemati-
cally suppressed. Part 4 offers a series
Even anecdotal evidence of supposed
of recommendations to the platforms
bias tends to crumble under close
and the administration of President Joe
examination. Take Trump’s exclusion
Biden, as they each consider how to
from Twitter and Facebook. These
respond to the bias claim. We offer a
actions, while unprecedented, were
thumbnail version of those recommen-
reasonable responses to Trump’s
dations on the following page.
repeated violation of platform rules
FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES 1Recommendations in Brief
For the social media industry:
1 Provide greater disclosure for content moderation actions. The platforms should give an easily under-
stood explanation every time they sanction a post or account, as well as a readily available means to appeal
enforcement actions. Greater transparency—such as that which Twitter and Facebook offered when they
took action against President Trump in January—would help to defuse claims of political bias, while clarifying
the boundaries of acceptable user conduct.
2 Offer users a choice among content moderation algorithms. Users would have greater agency if they
were offered a menu of choices among algorithms. Under this system, each user would be given the
option of retaining the existing moderation algorithm or choosing one that screens out harmful content
more vigorously. The latter option also would provide enhanced engagement by human moderators
operating under more restrictive policies. If users had the ability to select from among several systems,
they would be empowered to choose an algorithm that reflects their values and preferences.
3 Undertake more vigorous, targeted human moderation of influential accounts. To avoid high-profile
moderation mistakes, the platforms should significantly increase the number of full-time employees working
directly for them who would help to create a more rigorous human-led moderation channel for the most influ-
ential accounts. To supervise this and other important issues related to policing content, we recommend that
the platforms each hire a senior executive—a content overseer—who reports directly to the CEO or COO.
4 Release more data for researchers. More granular disclosure would allow academics and civil society
researchers to identify enforcement patterns, such as whether content is being removed for ideological
reasons. This greater transparency should include the nature of any content that is removed, the particular
rule(s) a post violated, how the platform became aware of noncompliance (user report versus algorithmic
moderation), and how any appeals were resolved.
For the Biden administration:
5 Pursue a constructive reform agenda for social media. This will require the federal government to press
Facebook, Google, and Twitter to improve content policies and their enforcement, even as the government
pursues pending antitrust lawsuits against Facebook and Google. The industry, for its part, must strive with
urgency to do a better job of protecting users and society at large from harmful content—progress that can’t
wait for the resolution of what might be years-long antitrust court battles.
6 Work with Congress to update Section 230. The controversial law should be amended so that its liability
shield is conditional, based on social media companies’ acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related
to policing content. One of the new platform obligations could be ensuring that algorithms involved in content
ranking and recommendation not favor sensationalistic or unreliable material in pursuit of user engagement.
7 Create a new Digital Regulatory Agency. The false claim of anti-conservative bias has contributed to
widespread distrust of the platforms’ willingness and ability to govern their sites. A new independent authority,
charged with enforcing the responsibilities of a revised Section 230, could begin to rebuild that eroded trust.
As an alternative, expanded jurisdiction and funding for social media oversight could be directed to an existing
agency such as the Federal Trade Commission or Federal Communications Commission.
2 FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES1. Introduction
“
On January 8, 2021, two days after a mob of Donald Trump supporters
ransacked the U.S. Capitol, Twitter permanently banned the sitting president.
Twitter said it acted because, even after the deadly riot, Trump continued to
Trump’s being tweet in a manner “highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate
exiled from the most the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.”1
popular social media Facing the last days of his presidency In fact, before he was shut down,
channels should not without his preferred megaphone, Trump had more than 88 million
Trump turned to the official White House followers on Twitter, seven times as
be misconstrued as Twitter account, @POTUS, to vent his many as he did just before his election
confirmation of the anger: “Twitter has gone further and in 2016. On Facebook, which indefi-
further in banning free speech,” he said, nitely suspended Trump and referred
claim he and others “and tonight, Twitter employees have the question of his status to its content
on the right have coordinated with the Democrats and Oversight Board, he had 35 million fol-
Radical Left in removing my account lowers. Going back to before his first
long made about from their platform, to silence me— run for the White House, the platforms
and YOU, the 75,000,000 great had allowed Trump to spread conspiracy
platform bias.
”
patriots who voted for me.”2 theories, threaten political opponents,
applaud armed protesters, and under-
Twitter soon deleted Trump’s @POTUS mine basic democratic institutions like
tweets, as well, but not before he’d voting. If anything, the platforms had
had a chance to declare once more given him a wide berth because of his
what has become a conservative position, despite his demagogic and
article of faith. For years, Trump and routinely false claims.
many others on the political right
have accused the major social media The Twitter and Facebook actions
companies of censoring conservatives. against Trump—especially when
Trump included the claim in his incen- combined with similar punishment by
diary address to supporters before the Facebook subsidiary Instagram and
riot at the Capitol. “The radical left tries a host of smaller platforms—mark a
to blacklist you on social media,” he turning point for social media. They
told the restive crowd. “They don’t let raise important questions about free
the message get out nearly as they speech, the power of a handful of
should.” On Twitter, he added, “If you’re billionaire Silicon Valley executives,
a conservative, if you’re a Republican, and, more narrowly, Trump’s political
if you have a big voice, I guess they future without access to Twitter.
call it a shadow ban.”3
FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES 3But Trump’s being exiled from the most A Pew Research Center poll released were being interpreted in various online
popular social media channels should in August 2020 zeroed in on the ques- forums as supporting the U.S. Capitol
not be misconstrued as confirmation of tion of censorship. It found that 90% of attackers and continued resistance to
the claim he and others on the right Republicans and Republican-leaning the 2020 election result, the company
have long made about platform bias. independents say it’s at least some- said.10 Trump had become a serious
The Trump bans, while unprecedented, what likely that social media companies threat to public safety, and one Twitter
were based on reasonable determi- intentionally censor political viewpoints no longer wished to amplify.
nations that he violated platform rules they find objectionable. The comparable
against sabotaging election results figure on the Democratic side is lower Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
and inciting violence. but still substantial at 59%.8 offered a similar justification for his
company’s indefinite suspension of
The false contention that conservatives The trouble with this belief—that tech Trump. The then-president’s “decision
are throttled online goes far beyond companies are censoring political to use his platform to condone rather
Trump and the attack on the Capitol. viewpoints they find objectionable— than condemn the actions of his sup-
It is heard from Fox News hosts, law- is that there is no reliable evidence to porters at the U.S. Capitol building has
makers and witnesses at congressional support it. There are no credible studies rightly disturbed people in the U.S. and
hearings, and right-wing online pundits. showing that Twitter removes tweets around the world,” Zuckerberg wrote.
for ideological reasons or that Google Facebook removed these statements
Consider just a handful of examples manipulates search results to impede “because we judged that their effect
from last year: conservative candidates (see sidebar —and likely their intent—would be to
■ Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), July 2020, on Google on page 12). provoke further violence,” he added.
during a hearing of the House Judiciary The company took the further step
“The Republicans continue to push this of suspending Trump out of concern
antitrust subcommittee: “I will just cut false narrative that tech is anti-conser-
to the chase. Big Tech is out to get that he intended “to use his remaining
vative,” says Hany Farid, a computer time in office to undermine the peaceful
conservatives. That’s not a suspicion. scientist at the University of California,
That’s not a hunch. That’s a fact.”4 and lawful transition of power to his
Berkeley. “There is no data to support elected successor, Joe Biden,”
■ Conservative internet commentator this. The data that is there is in the Zuckerberg added.11
Ben Shapiro, October 2020, on Twitter: other direction and says conservatives
“What we are watching—the militari- dominate social media.”9 These responses to Trump’s social
zation of social media on behalf of media behavior constitute reasonable
Democrats, and the overt suppression The Trump Ban attempts to forestall additional violence
of material damaging to Democrats and avoid real risks to the workings
Even anecdotal evidence tends to of American democracy. They are not
to the cheers of the press—is one of
crumble on close examination. Take examples of ideologically motivated
the single most dangerous political
the crackdown on President Trump censorship. Further reinforcing this
moments I have ever seen.”5
in January 2021. conclusion were the multiple occasions
■ Fox News host Tucker Carlson,
Twitter explained its action on a com- in 2020 when Trump used Twitter to
November 2020, three weeks after applaud armed protesters opposing
the presidential election: Social media pany blog with an unusual degree of
specificity. As backdrop, it observed pandemic-related lockdown orders in
companies “rigged the election in front Michigan, Virginia, and other states.12
of all of us, and nobody did anything that “plans for future armed protests
about it.”6 have already begun proliferating on By many measures, conservative voices
and off-Twitter, including a proposed —including that of the ex-president,
This drumbeat of accusation has had secondary attack on the U.S. Capitol
consequences. It helps explain why until he was banished from Twitter
and state capitol buildings on January and Facebook—often are dominant in
Republican voters don’t trust the social 17, 2021.” In that ominous context,
media companies when it comes to online political debates. Compare user
Twitter noted that Trump’s supporters engagement with Trump’s Facebook
politics. According to a HuffPost/YouGov parse his statements for what they
poll published in October 2020, 72% page versus Joe Biden’s page during
perceive as signals from their leader. the peak of last year’s presidential
of Republicans think social media plat- Defiant Trump tweets after the U.S.
forms have a liberal bias. In contrast, campaign, from September 3, 2020,
Capitol riot—in which he referred to to Election Day. The total number of
a majority of Democrats think the plat- his supporters as “American Patriots”
forms are either neutral (39%) or biased likes, comments, and shares was
who “will not be disrespected or treated 307 million. Trump elicited 87% of the
in favor of conservatives (16%), with unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”—
another 10% seeing a liberal bias.7
4 FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVEStotal; Biden, only 13%. These numbers,
derived from CrowdTangle, an analytics
tool owned by Facebook, don’t suggest Trump Dominated Biden in Facebook Engagement.
a Republican candidate being stifled.13 Interactions (likes, shares, and comments) with posts by candidates’ pages.
September 3 through November 3, 2020.
Political Disinformation
The false bias narrative is an example
of political disinformation, meaning 13%
an untrue assertion that is spread to Total interactions:
deceive. In this instance, the deception 307 million
whips up part of the conservative
base, much of which already bitterly Biden
distrusts the mainstream media. To call Trump
the bias claim disinformation does not,
of course, rule out that millions of 87%
everyday people sincerely believe it.
Trump has been the leading purveyor
Source: CrowdTangle
of disinformation about platform bias,
but the claim will not recede with the
end of his presidency or presence Twitter allowed Blackburn to tweet the Another reason the bias claim matters
on Twitter or Facebook. As he jockeys message from her regular account but is that it distorts the larger debate
to remain politically relevant, he’s likely banned her from promoting it as an ad. about social media. Facebook, Twitter,
to keep the claim in heavy circulation. “I’m being censored for telling the truth,” YouTube and other platforms deserve
In one of his last utterances on Twitter, Blackburn told potential donors in an skepticism for their role in the spread
he said, via the @POTUS account, email fundraising appeal. “Silicon Valley of disinformation, hate speech, and
“We have been negotiating with var- elites are trying to impose their values other harmful content. Their intrusions
ious other sites, and will have a big on us.” Blackburn was elected to the on user privacy and tendency to smother
announcement soon, while we also Senate in November 2018 and has start-up competition likewise merit
look at the possibilities of building out been a proponent of the bias claim.15 tougher oversight, some of which they’re
our own platform in the near future.”14 now getting in the form of federal and
Right-wing sites like Parler and Gab, Congressional Republicans also deploy state antitrust lawsuits filed against
as well as Trump-friendly media outlets the accusation in support of their effort Google and Facebook. But the mis-
such as Fox News, One America News to revoke Section 230 of the Commu- leading Republican suppression
Network, and Newsmax could provide nications Decency Act. That’s the key argument only distracts from reality-
other potential avenues for him to keep federal provision that protects platforms based critiques of the platforms.
the message about online political from liability associated with user posts
favoritism in circulation. and content moderation decisions. Disinformation about bias contributes
Republicans argue that the platforms to the delegitimization of the platforms
Trump and other Republicans will hide behind Section 230 to quash at a time when they’re actually experi-
perpetuate the bias allegation, in part, conservative views. In the chaotic final menting with more aggressive forms of
because it appeals to the same con- weeks of his White House term, Trump fact-checking and content moderation
spiratorial mindset that has fostered the demanded that Congress repeal the —not just in the case of Donald Trump,
QAnon movement and that animated law as a condition of his signing a major but also in connection with falsehoods
at least some of the rioters at the U.S. defense-spending bill. That gambit didn’t about Covid-19 vaccines and conspiracy
Capitol. It’s also a handy fundraising work, but Republican lawmakers have theories like QAnon. It’s not clear how
tool. In 2017, then-Representative vowed to try again in 2021. Following far these experiments will go or what
Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) boasted the Trump Twitter ban, Senator Lindsey kind of impact they’ll have on users or
in a Twitter ad that she had “fought Graham (R., S.C.) tweeted: “It is now time society at large. But what’s needed
Planned Parenthood” and “stopped the for Congress to repeal Section 230 and now is sober analysis of the platforms’
sale of baby body parts.” In fact, there put Big Tech on the same legal footing actual behavior, not unverified allegations
is no credible evidence that Planned as every other company in America.”16 of political intolerance.
Parenthood sold baby body parts.
FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES 52. Breaking Down the Bias Claim
“
The effort purporting to show that the major social media companies
suppress conservative views started in earnest in 2016. Republicans at that
time began to promote the idea that because most of these firms’ employees
Republicans have and executives are politically liberal, the platforms themselves must be
promoted the idea that hostile to conservatives. Or, as Donald Trump put it in a tweet in May 2020:
“The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram,
because most social Twitter and Google.”17 This section explains the evolution of the bias claim
and intersperses evidence that undercuts it.
media employees
and executives are
2016 viewpoints. Facebook nevertheless fired
politically liberal, the the Trending Topics staff and eventually
Silicon Valley Politics shut down the feature altogether.19
platforms themselves
Central to the origin story of the bias A Republican Senate inquiry into the
must be hostile claim is a now-defunct Facebook incident fizzled out, but Trending Topics
to conservatives. feature called Trending Topics—a has remained an emblem of how Face-
”
curated list of articles popular at any book, and, by extension, all of Silicon
given moment on the site. The web Valley, are in the grip of progressives
publication Gizmodo reported in May hostile to the right. “Bias and censor-
2016, just as the presidential campaign ship in Big Tech come as no surprise
was heating up, that according to two given the left-leaning corporate cultures
anonymous former Facebook contract of technology companies and Silicon
employees, the Trending Topics team Valley overall,” asserts an October 2020
had routinely removed articles from report issued by Republicans on the
right-wing sources. Other former House Judiciary Committee, which
employees denied this account.18 cites the Gizmodo piece.20
In response to a conservative outcry, One can debate whether the Trending
the company did several things. Founder Topics episode was overblown. But
and CEO Mark Zuckerberg invited a it’s beyond dispute that Silicon Valley
group of right-leaning commentators tech employees are overwhelmingly
like Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson to liberal. Political donations tell the story.
a conciliatory meeting at his Menlo Park, At Facebook, 92% of individual, political
Calif., office. Separately, the company action committee, and “soft money”
did an internal investigation, determining contributions to federal candidates and
that, while it couldn’t rule out the possi- parties in the 2020 election cycle went
bility of “isolated improper actions or un- to Democrats. At Google, the compa-
intentional bias,” there hadn’t been any rable figure was 96%; at Twitter, 97%.21
concerted effort to curb conservative
6 FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVESThe question, though, is whether These employees contended that the taken down, but most of the rest
personal preference for Democrats posts violated the company’s prohibi- were allowed to remain so as not to
leads to bias against conservative tion of “hate speech.” Zuckerberg anger Republicans.24
content and personalities. reportedly intervened, agreeing that the
statements amounted to hate speech ■ Kaplan played a similar role in late
Appeasement, Not Hostility but concluding that the implications of 2017 and 2018, when Facebook re-
removing a candidate’s comments on vamped the algorithm for its scrolling
Challenged on this point at a November News Feed feature. Seeking to limit mis-
a newsworthy topic were too drastic.
2020 Senate Judiciary Committee information, the company changed the
Trump’s anti-Muslim diatribes remained
session, both Zuckerberg and his coun- algorithm to emphasize posts by friends
on the site.23
terpart at Twitter, Jack Dorsey, denied and family, as opposed to publishers.
the bias accusation. But they acknowl- ■ In the weeks after the 2016 presi- Kaplan reportedly pointed out that the
edged the dominant political cultures of dential election, Facebook launched an adjustment would hinder conservative
their companies. “We need to be careful internal hunt for pages that had spread publishers more than others. When
and intentional internally to make sure false news during the campaign. Most data analysis confirmed that he was
that bias doesn’t seep into decisions of the dozens of pages in question correct, the new algorithm was adjusted
that we make,” Zuckerberg testified.22 showed a rightward tilt. In response to to diminish the disproportionate impact
this push to take down offending pages on conservative outlets. Once again,
There’s a further observation to be
on the grounds that they had riled the Facebook accommodated the right.25
made here. In the absence of the
electorate with disinformation, one
long-departed Trending Topics team, Portrayed by some liberal critics as
of the company’s senior executives,
routine content moderation decisions a right-wing bogeyman,26 Kaplan is
Joel Kaplan, reportedly warned that
—the day-to-day calls on what stays defended by current and former
an across-the-board removal would
on the site and what gets removed— colleagues who say he was merely
have a disproportionate effect on con-
generally aren’t made by Silicon Valley forecasting how conservatives would
servatives. A relatively rare Republican
employees. These decisions are made react to proposed company actions
at Facebook and a former White House
by content moderators based largely and pushing for clear policy bases
deputy chief of staff in the George W.
outside of the U.S. and employed by for those actions. Certainly, empirical
Bush administration, Kaplan runs the
third-party contractors. Because they research confirms the plausibility of
company’s Washington office. He had
don’t like to talk publicly about out- one of Kaplan’s concerns: that initiatives
partial success in the internal fake news
sourcing, U.S. social media executives to comb out false content dispropor-
debate. A few of the worst pages were
typically don’t discuss how much con- tionately hurt conservatives.
tent moderation occurs in places like
the Philippines and India. But it seems
unlikely that contract employees in
Manila or Hyderabad would censor Trump Led the Pack Among U.S. Elected Officials.
content based on its ideological Facebook interactions (likes, shares, and comments) with posts by politicians’
significance in the U.S. pages. January 1 through November 3, 2020.
What does take place in Silicon Valley 654 million Donald Trump
is the making of content policy and
high-level decisions, such as whether 33 million Sen. Bernie Sanders
to remove a notorious post or “de- 22 million Elizabeth Warren*
platform” its author—someone like
Donald Trump. In this regard, there 14 million Sen. Ted Cruz
is ample evidence that the leaders of
the social media platforms are acutely 13 million Sen. Eizabeth Warren
aware of conservative criticism—and 10 million Rep. Kevin McCarthy
are determined to placate, rather than
antagonize, the political right. 10 million Vice President Mike Pence
Several illustrations from Facebook: 9 million Gov. Andrew Cuomo
■ In early 2016, a number of Facebook 8 million Speaker Nancy Pelosi
employees pushed for the removal of
then-presidential candidate Trump’s 8 million Rep. Jim Jordan
anti-Muslim posts, including his call for
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
“a total and complete shutdown of
*Sen. Warren’s personal page Source: CrowdTangle
Muslims entering the United States.”
FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES 7feature that tracks the U.S. groups and
pages attracting the largest number of
Fox News, Breitbart Outdistanced Mainstream Media. hateful user comments. BuzzFeed
Facebook interactions (likes, shares, and comments) with posts by media obtained a list of the top 10 hate bait
organizations. January 1 through November 3, 2020. sources over a recent 14-day period.
Although admittedly just one snapshot
Fox News 448 million
in time, not a conclusive determination
Breitbart 295 million by Facebook, the list was made up
entirely of right-leaning organizations,
CNN 191 million
led by Breitbart, Fox News, and The
ABC News 138 million Daily Caller.30
BBC News 109 million 2017
NBC News 106 million
‘Always Anti-Trump’
NPR 99 million
Since his initial campaign for the pres-
The Daily Caller 97 million idency, Donald Trump has sought to
Now This 90 million
galvanize his political base by attacking
the traditional media as “fake news” and
The New York Times 87 million “the enemy of the people.” Gradually,
he began including “Big Tech” in his
100 200 300 400 500
indictment. “Facebook was always
Source: CrowdTangle
anti-Trump,” he tweeted in September
2017.31 A little more than a year later,
That’s because the right spreads more of false content: “No fact emerges he declared—again on Twitter—that
content that violates platform rules more clearly from our analysis of how “Twitter has removed many people from
than the left. In light of this discrepancy, four million political stories were linked, my account and, more importantly, they
it stands to reason that right-leaning tweeted, and shared over a three-year have seemingly done something that
content would face labeling, demotion, period [2015 - 2017] than that there is makes it much harder to join.” His Twitter
or removal more frequently than left- no symmetry in the architecture and account had once seemed like “a Rocket
leaning content. dynamics of communication within Ship,” he added, but “now it is a Blimp!
the right-wing media ecosystem Total Bias?”32
Consider some of the studies finding and outside of it,” the Harvard team
that the right generates more online wrote in a 2018 book called Network Trump’s contention that Facebook and
falsehoods than the left: Propaganda. They underscored “the Twitter had targeted him for unfavor-
■ Using U.S. samples collected during central role of the radicalized right in able treatment doesn’t survive scrutiny.
a 90-day period in late 2017 and early creating the current crisis of disinfor- For years, the two platforms helped
2018, the Oxford Internet Institute divid- mation and misinformation.”28 him circumvent the mainstream media
ed Twitter users into 10 groups, ranging and maintain control over his message
from Trump supporters to progressives. ■ Scholars from Harvard, Northeastern and base. At the same time, the main-
Trump supporters, the researchers University, and the University of Buffalo stream outlets amplified that message
found, circulated more “junk news” than published congruent findings in 2019. by covering his tweets and posts as
all of the other groups combined. Using In a study of more than 16,000 Twitter news events.
different groupings for their Facebook accounts active during the 2016 elec-
analysis, the Oxford team found that tion season, they determined that Contrary to being an enemy, social
“extreme hard-right pages” circulat- fewer than 5% of people on the left or media played a central role in Trump’s
ed more junk news than all the other in the center ever shared “fake news.” 2016 victory. Brad Parscale, his former
audiences put together. The research- But 11% of people on the right and 21% digital campaign chief, told Wired just
ers defined “junk news” as deliberately of people on the extreme right shared after the election: “Facebook and
deceptive information purporting to be fake news. These scholars defined Twitter were the reason we won this
real news.27 “fake news” as the output of entities thing. Twitter for Mr. Trump, and Face-
that lack editorial norms and process- book for fundraising.” Targeted ads
■ Researchers affiliated with the es for ensuring accuracy.29 on Facebook helped generate the
Berkman Klein Center for Internet & bulk of the $250 million the first
Society at Harvard University observed Finally, on this point, BuzzFeed News Trump campaign raised online.33
a similar imbalance in the production reported in December 2020 on Face-
book’s “hate bait dashboard,” an internal
8 FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES“
Facebook, in particular, aided the 2016 certain political points of view should
Trump campaign by helping to sharpen concern every American,” said Ronna
the targeting of tens of thousands of McDaniel, the chairwoman of the
variants of online ads. The company Republican National Committee, who By 2019, what may have
even dispatched ad-sales employees was one of the prominent GOP figures seemed like spontaneous
to “embed” at Trump campaign offices, allegedly shadow banned.38 Others
where they helped with the placement included Republican Representatives attacks on ‘Big Tech’
of political messages for highly specific Matt Gaetz of Florida and Jim Jordan
groups of voters. Google and Twitter of Ohio. In October 2020, Republicans had crystallized into a
provided similar services to the Trump on the House Judiciary Committee coordinated Republican
campaign. Facebook offered to embed called the shadow banning allegations
employees with the Clinton campaign, “perhaps the most prominent example disinformation drive.
”
but the Democratic candidate declined. of Twitter’s mistreatment of certain
In 2020, the platforms didn’t embed views and speakers.”39
employees in presidential campaigns.34
But there’s no evidence that Twitter
The assertion that Twitter has intention- intentionally shadow banned Repub- the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS
ally undercut Trump by removing some licans or anyone else. Rather, Twitter on social media platforms.”42
of his followers isn’t true. Since 2017, said it experienced a technical glitch
Facebook had ample grounds, based
Twitter periodically has purged its which caused some 600,000 accounts
on its published community standards,
servers of millions of automated “bots” —including those of some Democratic
for banning the group of seven. The
and other suspicious accounts. This politicians—not to be auto-suggested
platform’s prohibition of “dangerous
housekeeping, from time to time, has when people searched for them.
individuals” includes people who en-
mildly dented Trump’s follower count,
The problem grew out of Twitter’s efforts gage in hateful speech or conduct.
just as it has affected the followings of
beginning more than a year earlier to Alex Jones had described the 2012
other popular Twitter users, including
remove or down-rank low-quality and Sandy Hook elementary school mas-
former President Barack Obama and
harassing accounts. What apparently sacre as a hoax designed to promote
pop star Katy Perry.35
happened was that large numbers of gun control, and he referred to 9/11 as
2018 these disfavored accounts had inter- an inside job.43 According to the Anti-
acted with the Republican politicians’ Defamation League, Yiannopoulos’
Shadow Banning accounts. This caused Twitter’s search public statements reveal someone
system not to auto-suggest the Repub- who is “misogynistic, racist, xenopho-
“Twitter ‘SHADOW BANNING’ promi-
licans, the company said. The malfunc- bic, [and] transphobic.”44 Illustrating
nent Republicans. Not good,” Trump
tion, which never had to do with bias that it wasn’t aiming exclusively at far-
tweeted in July 2018. “We will look into
against politicians of either party, was right zealots, Facebook also banished
this discriminatory and illegal practice
fixed within 24 hours.40 But the claims Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan,
at once!”36 Trump has used the term
of partisanship related to the episode who has warned his followers about
“shadow banning” to mean different
have continued to echo years later. “the Satanic Jews” and compared
things at different times. His tweet in
Jews to termites.45
2018 referred to the central assertion
of an article in Vice published the day
2019
A few months later, Trump hosted
before—namely, that Twitter had manip- ‘Dangerous Individuals’ a Social Media Summit at the White
ulated its search algorithm to limit the House devoted to airing right-wing
visibility of certain Republican officials.37 In May 2019, conservatives erupted
grievances. “The truth is that the
In this context, shadow banning refers when Facebook announced it had
social media giants would love to
to what happens when a Twitter user banned seven controversial figures for
shut us down,” Senator Josh Hawley
begins to type a name into the plat- violating its rules against “dangerous
(R., Mo.), told the audience of conser-
form’s search box. As letters are typed, individuals and organizations.” Among
vative digital pundits and provocateurs.
Twitter ordinarily “auto-suggests” poten- them were Alex Jones of InfoWars, the
Hawley referred to Section 230, the
tial search results. The shadow banning purveyor of numerous right-wing con-
liability-shield law: “If they want to
claim arose when auto-suggestions spiracy theories, and Milo Yiannopoulos,
keep their special deal, here’s the
didn’t appear for certain people, requi- an alt-right commentator who previously
bargain: They have to quit discrimi-
ring searchers to enter full names to had been banned by Twitter for leading
nating against conservatives.”46 In
find their tweets. a racist campaign against African-
January 2021, Hawley helped lead
American actor Leslie Jones.41 In a
the abortive attempt to overturn
Republicans reacted angrily to the sha- tweet, then-President Trump decried
Joe Biden’s presidential victory.
dow banning claim. “The notion that the bans: “I am continuing to monitor
social media companies would suppress
FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES 9Coordinated Campaign
Trump’s Social Media Summit illustrated
Going to Court how, by 2019, what may have seemed
like spontaneous attacks on “Big Tech”
Dozens of conservatives have turned their censorship allegations had crystallized into a coordinated
into lawsuits against social media platforms. These legal actions Republican disinformation drive. This
have failed to present substantial evidence of ideological favoritism— strategy, tied to Trump’s reelection pre-
and they have all been dismissed. parations, grew, in part, out of internal
GOP polling showing that an increasing
In June 2020, a state judge in Virginia rejected a suit filed against number of Americans distrust the major
Twitter by Representative Devin Nunes (R., Calif.). The suit concerned platforms. “People feel they’re being
posts by two parody accounts, one pretending to be the congress- manipulated, whether it’s by what they’re
man’s mother; the other, his cow. Echoing many of his Republican being shown in their feeds or actions the
colleagues, Nunes alleged, in part, that Twitter and other social media companies have taken against conserva-
companies discriminate against conservatives. The judge ruled that tives,” an unnamed Republican operative
a federal liability shield called Section 230 of the Communications told Axios.47 Another reason more and
Decency Act precluded the suit.1 more Republicans believed the bias disin-
formation was that Trump and other GOP
This litigation is part of a larger set of some three dozen cases in leaders told them so often it was true.
which social media users claim to have been harmed by an action
against their account or their content. Every case has failed at a Facebook tried to respond to persistent
pretrial stage, according to Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa claims of bias by releasing the results
Clara University who tracks internet litigation. of an independent “audit” in August 2019.
The company had recruited a former
While the suits put forward scant evidence of bias, they tend to senator, conservative Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.),
get dismissed for other reasons. One ground for dismissal is Section to lead the investigation. With the help
230, which protects platforms from liability for most content posted of attorneys from the law firm Covington
by users. The other main basis for dismissal arises in response to & Burling, Kyl interviewed more than
claims that platforms violate the First Amendment when they limit 130 individuals and organizations. His
users’ speech. Courts generally have ruled that the First Amendment report noted that many conservatives
applies only to government actors, not to private sector corporations. perceived the company’s content policies
and practices as being skewed against
Roughly another dozen suits have alleged that a platform illegally
them. Kyl himself concluded that “Face-
removed or restricted third-party content by, for example, demone-
book’s policies and their application have
tizing it or placing it behind a restricted-viewing filter. These cases
the potential to restrict free expression,”
also have failed.
adding that “there is still significant work
In February 2020, Google convinced a federal appeals court based to be done to satisfy the concerns we
in San Francisco to reject claims that YouTube illegally censors heard from conservatives.” But he didn’t
conservative content. The suit had been filed by Prager University, point to any evidence of actual bias.48
a right-leaning non-profit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager. “They found nothing,” Renée DiResta of
The plaintiff contended that YouTube’s political hostility prompted it the Stanford Internet Observatory says
to restrict access to dozens of videos on such topics as abortion and in an interview.
Islam and to block advertising adjacent to the videos. But the court
Mark Zuckerberg, meanwhile, was per-
ruled that YouTube is a private forum not covered by the First Amend-
sonally reassuring prominent conservative
ment and therefore may decide how content is displayed on its site.
figures that Facebook meant them no
Google has consistently maintained that YouTube’s decisions are not
harm. Over several months in 2019,
tainted by ideological animus.2
he reportedly had a series of informal
talks and off-the-record dinners with the
likes of Fox News host Tucker Carlson;
syndicated radio personality Hugh Hewitt;
1 The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/us/politics/devin-nunes-cow- and Ben Shapiro, co-founder of the con-
tweets.html).
servative website The Daily Wire. In Sep-
2 Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-lawsuit-censorship/google-defeats-con-
servative-nonprofits-youtube-censorship-appeal-idUSKCN20K33L). tember 2019, Zuckerberg held meetings
in Washington with then-President Trump
and his son-in-law and senior adviser,
Jared Kushner. The following month, the
10 FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES“
CEO and his wife, Priscilla Chan, or modify the incendiary looting/shoot-
attended a private dinner with Trump ing post. Zuckerberg even spoke by
at the White House.49 In reaction to phone to Trump about the situation.
media coverage of his encounters with After some haggling, Trump posted Consistency, clearer rules,
conservatives, Zuckerberg responded again to say that the looting/shooting and greater transparency
on Facebook: “I have dinners with lots comment was meant merely as a
of people across the spectrum on safety warning to the public. With would have gone a long
lots of different issues all the time.”50 that qualification, the Facebook post
would stay up.53 way toward defusing
2020
Several months later, as the Trump- criticism of Twitter and
Fact-Checking versus-Biden contest neared its bitter Facebook in the episode
Traumatic public events and a conten- conclusion, Twitter and Facebook both
tious presidential campaign combined took action against posts of a question- involving the New York
to bring the bias claim into high relief able story about the Biden family pub-
lished by the New York Post. The article,
Post’s coverage of alleged
in 2020. Twitter responded to the
turmoil by more aggressively fact- apparently based on stolen emails, Biden family corruption.
”
checking and labeling certain dubious suggested that in 2015, Hunter Biden
tweets, including some posted by arranged for a meeting between his
then-President Trump. This provided father, then-Vice President Joe Biden,
a new target for conservatives claiming and an executive with a Ukrainian
partisan suppression. energy company. The Biden camp
denied that any such meeting occurred.
In other instances, Facebook relaxed
In May, Twitter appended fact-check Facebook reduced distribution of the
its rules on misinformation to allow
labels to two Trump tweets asserting, Post story; Twitter blocked it from
conservative news outlets and person-
without evidence, that casting ballots being shared at all.
alities to avoid “strikes,” as in baseball
by mail leads to vote fraud. The presi-
Republicans responded with fury. strikes, which can lead to restrictions
dent responded two days later by
“Never before have we seen active on the distribution of posts and/or
issuing an executive order aimed at
censorship of a major press publication advertising revenue. Beneficiaries of
punishing the social media industry
with serious allegations of corruption this rule-bending reportedly included
by rolling back Section 230. From
of one of the two candidates for presi- pages run by Breitbart, pro-Trump
the Oval Office, he lashed out at tech
dent,” Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) internet personalities known as Diamond
companies, which he said possessed
told reporters.54 and Silk, and the right-leaning nonprofit
“unchecked powers to censor, restrict,
outlet Prager University. Citing leaked
edit, shape, hide [and], alter virtually
The Post/Biden imbroglio, in retrospect, company documents, NBC News report-
any form of communication.”51
seems like a case of reasonable deci- ed in August 2020 that over the previous
A day after that, Trump reacted to un- sions wrapped in mystifying processes. six months, Facebook employees and
rest in Minneapolis following the police Facebook generally tries to stop posts executives deleted strikes imposed
killing of George Floyd, an unarmed from spreading if there are “signals” against conservative pages in hopes of
African-American. Trump tweeted that of falsehood. But as in the Post/Biden avoiding further backlash from the right.56
the U.S. military was ready to “assume case, the company doesn’t disclose
control” and that “when the looting starts, what those signals are, leaving onlook- 2021
the shooting starts.” Twitter quickly ers to speculate. For its part, Twitter
froze the Post/Biden story based on
‘Be There, Will Be Wild!’
put the president’s dispatch behind a
message stating that the tweet violat- a rule against sharing hacked material. In the social media world, the U.S.
ed its rules, and the company blocked But under fire from conservatives, Capitol riot will be remembered primarily
other users from retweeting, liking, Twitter backed down, saying that from as the event that precipitated Donald
or replying to it. Trump posted the now on, it would ban hacked material Trump’s ouster from Twitter and Face-
same message on Facebook, where only if it is directly shared by hackers book. That’s fair enough, but it shouldn’t
it remained, unlabeled.52 or their accomplices. Then, Twitter obscure the fact that in the build-up
switched its justification to say that to the insurrection, social media provi-
Facebook’s response to Trump’s the Post’s inclusion of certain personal ded Trump and his supporters with the
looting/shooting post pointed once information was the reason the Biden crucial means to organize a large-scale
more to the company’s eagerness piece was blocked. Consistency, clearer invasion of Congress. In this sense,
to mollify conservatives, not confront rules, and greater transparency would Facebook and Twitter did not censor
them. As recounted by Axios and The have gone a long way toward defusing an extreme conservative cause, but
Washington Post, Facebook deferen- criticism of these platform actions.55 facilitated it.
tially asked the White House to delete
FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES 11“
In connection with the
Capitol riot, Facebook
and Twitter did not
Attacking Google
Just after the November 2020 election, three Republican senators sent a letter
to Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, accusing the company of surreptitiously using
its search engine to help Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump. In a statement accom-
censor an extreme panying the letter, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said: “Google must provide answers
as to why and how it manipulated users to influence this election.”
conservative cause,
but facilitated it. The researcher whose findings propelled the letter—and who for years has fueled
”
Republican claims that Google uses search results and other means to favor
liberal candidates over conservatives—is Robert Epstein. He’s a Harvard-trained
PhD psychologist and former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today magazine who
has advanced his views in testimony before Congress, dozens of articles, and
In the weeks leading up to the riot, multiple appearances on Fox News. A crucial figure supporting the conservative
Trump tweeted at least six times to bias claim, he broadens the accusation to include not just social networks but
exhort his faithful to come to Washington also Google’s dominant search engine.
on the day Congress was scheduled to
ceremonially count the electoral votes Based on a series of experiments, which in aggregate have involved thousands
confirming Joe Biden’s victory. “Big of subjects, Epstein estimates that Google has “shifted” millions of voters to
protest in D.C. on January 6th,” he supporting Democratic candidates in 2016, 2018, and 2020. In an interview,
tweeted on December 19. “Be there, he says that the “rock bottom” number of votes Google affected in last year’s
will be wild!” presidential race was six million. What’s more, he adds, “it’s obvious that they’re
doing this deliberately.”
His supporters responded, many of
them anticipating violence and discuss- Epstein, 67, speaks urgently about the need to raise money to “monitor” Google.
ing the need for weapons. Accounts “By exposing their manipulations, we can get them to back off,” he says on
on Twitter posted conspiracy theories his website StopBigTechNow.com. The site, which offers links to his interviews
about leftists plotting to kill Trump sup- with conservative media luminaries like Tucker Carlson, Mark Levin, and Glenn
porters at the protest and suggested Beck, solicits donations to the American Institute for Behavioral Research and
that demonstrators arm themselves Technology, the nonprofit in Vista, Calif., to which he’s attached.
for “Independence Day.”57
Google flatly denies Epstein’s claims. “Any allegations that Google deliberately
On the Facebook group Red-State designed search algorithms or intervened with the intent of swaying voters
Secession, which had about 8,000 is categorically false,” Mark Isakowitz, the company’s vice president for public
followers, participants openly discuss- policy and government relations in the U.S. and Canada, wrote in a November 12,
ed plans for January 6 over a period of 2020, response to Senator Cruz and his Republican colleagues. “We approach
weeks. On the day before the protest our work without political bias, full stop.”
and riot, a member said: “If you are not
prepared to use force to defend civiliza- ‘Not Comfortable’
tion, then be prepared to accept barba-
rism.” Comments responding to that Epstein says that personally, he holds liberal political views and votes for
post showed photos of firearms people Democrats. “I have been pushed into this little corner that is conservative
said they were bringing to Washington. America,” he says. “I am not comfortable at all.”
Other comments referred to occupying
A brush with Google in 2012 piqued his interest in the company. The incident
the Capitol and forcing Congress to
involved Google warning would-be visitors away from an Epstein website (not
overturn the 2020 election. Facebook
StopBigTechNow.com), saying it had been compromised by hackers. Epstein
removed Red-State Secession on the
maintained he hadn’t been hacked. The New York Times covered the spat
morning of January 6, by which time
and quoted him as asking, “How did Google come to have so much power?”1
protesters were gathering to hear
Trump speak.58 Epstein’s research has many permutations. In one, he rearranges the order of
search results shown to groups of voters. One group sees an ordering that
favors candidate A; the other group, candidate B. The reordered results can
shift voting preferences by 20% or more, Epstein says. He calls this the Search
Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). Looking at the 2020 presidential race,
12 FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVEShe assumed that 30 million voters were uncommitted in the run-up to the election and susceptible to
being influenced by SEME. He applied the 20% rate to the 30 million figure to arrive at his “rock bottom”
estimate of six million votes “switched” to Biden. (Biden won the popular vote by seven million.)
The basic question Epstein asks—how might internet searching affect voting—is potentially important.
But his extrapolation to hard numbers of purposefully changed votes seems highly questionable.
Francesca Tripodi, a social media scholar at the University of North Carolina who has reviewed Epstein’s
work, says in an interview that he lacks evidence of either Google’s intent to manipulate elections or that
the company has distorted search results toward that end. In a November 2020 article in Slate, she writes
that “his hypothesis that Google influenced U.S. elections has never been rigorously tested or reviewed
by political or information scientists.”2
In fact, there is other research that clashes with Epstein’s findings. A study released in 2019 by researchers
at Stanford University concluded that Google’s search algorithm is not biased along political lines and
instead emphasizes authoritative sources.3 In a separate inquiry published the same year, The Economist
came to a similar conclusion. The magazine compared news sites’ actual proportion of search results
in Google’s News tab with a predictive model of that proportion based on factors Google says its search
rankings rely on—namely, a site’s reach, output, and accuracy. “If Google favored liberals, left-wing sites
would appear more often than our model predicted, and right-wing ones less,” The Economist said.
“We saw no such trend.”4
Epstein counters that his “work is meticulous. My standards are very high.” He points out that in 2015, he
co-authored an article on SEME for the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
That piece, however, didn’t make any allegations against Google or point to any actual vote manipulation.5
Asked how he knows Google intentionally changes votes, Epstein responds, “Look at all the leaks.” By that
he means various disclosures, some from unhappy former Google employees. In one video obtained by the
right-wing outlet Breitbart, company co-founder Sergey Brin is seen at an all-hands meeting bemoaning
Donald Trump’s 2016 victory.6 In another, Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, which is owned by Google,
says the video service is “pushing down the fake news” and boosting “authoritative news.”7
It requires quite a leap of fact and logic, though, to get from these statements to a corporate conspiracy
to control elections.
The letter Senate Republicans sent to Google in early November referred to another Epstein finding: In fall
2020, he says that he discovered that, for a time, only liberal subjects were receiving get-out-the-vote
messages on Google’s home page.
The company says that it didn’t discriminate in sending the pro-voting messages. According to Isakowitz,
the Google vice president: “In the days prior to the election, our home page reminded all users in all states
how to find authoritative information on where to vote and how to vote. Any claim that this information
targeted people based on their political ideology is absolutely untrue.”
1 The New York Times (https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/one-mans-fight-with-google-over-a-security-warning/?searchResultPosition=1).
2 Slate (https://slate.com/technology/2020/11/big-tech-conservative-bias-trump-election-voter-suppression.html).
3 Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery on Human-Computer Interaction via Stanford University (https://news.stanford.edu/
press-releases/2019/11/26/search-media-biased/).
4 The Economist (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/08/google-rewards-reputable-reporting-not-left-wing-politics).
5 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes).
6 Breitbart (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/).
7 Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/354354050).
FALSE ACCUSATION: THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES 13You can also read
