Connect with us

SOCIAL

Pro-Lifers’ Social Media Bans Are Too Numerous To Not Be Censorship

Published

on

default img rss echo

Live Action was suspended from the short-form video app TikTok on Jan. 30, 2020, after posting a video with the captions: “Be pro-abortion” or “Be pro-life and help save babies.” Following a popular TikTok trend, the video shows a young woman eating a jelly bean next to the pro-life caption.

This is the video that TikTok says violated their “Community Guidelines” and banned us for.

In it, we share the beautiful personal stories that some of our followers have shared with us about choosing life for their babies. pic.twitter.com/EBADFmxUEW

— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) January 31, 2020

According to TikTok, this video, which also included pictures of smiling infants, violated “multiple Community Guidelines.” Within 24 hours, TikTok apologized and reinstated the account, citing “human error.” TikTok never told Live Action which guidelines it suspected us of violating.

The initial decision to remove our video of smiling babies was even more confusing, since TikTok appears to be fine with videos that simulate harm to children, including one video of a young man violently beating a realistic-looking baby doll against a desk, laughing and calling it a “DIY” abortion as the doll flails. That video, which currently has almost 1.2 million views, 120,000 likes, and more than 2,000 comments, uses the hashtag “#plannedparenthood.” Another shocking TikTok video shows a young man “explaining to the boys how to conduct a coat hanger abortion in the garage,” waving a coat hanger and joking that it “just works.”

TikTok’s community guidelines prohibit “violent and graphic” content, including videos that are “gratuitously shocking, sadistic, or excessively graphic,” or which depict “severe physical violence,” yet neither of these videos has been removed.

Advertisement

Live Action’s Ongoing Censorship from Big Tech

The popularity of the Beijing-based social media platform has exploded among the next generation in the United States, with 41 percent of its more than 800 million users between the ages of 16 and 24. Live Action is a nonprofit pro-life organization that advocates for the human rights and dignity of preborn children, and seeks to expose the fraudulent and dangerous practices of the abortion industry.

One of the key audiences for Live Action’s life-saving message is young, pregnant women who are considering abortion. At the time of its removal, and now with its account reinstated, Live Action has become the largest pro-life voice on TikTok with more than 21,000 followers.

This is not Live Action’s first encounter with Big Tech censorship on social media. In 2015, Twitter banned Live Action and my personal account from running paid advertisements, pointing to our use of ultrasound images, criticism of abortion facilities, and fight to end their taxpayer funding. Twitter told us we needed to remove all our “secret recordings” and “sensitive content,” which included ultrasound images of preborn children and quotes such as, “A person’s a person no matter how small,” from both our Twitter feeds and scrub them from our website if we wanted to continue advertising.

Incredibly, although the “secret recordings” we shared exposed Planned Parenthood officials engaging in trafficking body parts of aborted babies, the company and its lobbying arm continue to run paid ads on Twitter.

In 2018, YouTube demonetized Live Action and banned our paid ads. In June 2019, Pinterest banned and removed Live Action after a whistleblower employee exposed the platform’s decision to place Live Action on its blocked “pornography” list. Also in 2019, Facebook’s partner “fact-checkers” deemed Live Action content “false” for saying abortion is not medically necessary, a position shared by thousands of board-certified OB-GYNs.

Social Media Is the New Town Square

Whether we like it or not, social media has become America’s town square. We go there for news, information, and public debate. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter represent themselves as open forums. The Supreme Court has even called social media the “modern public square,” and lower federal courts are now telling public officials that blocking their social media critics is “viewpoint discrimination” that violates the First Amendment. Former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo personally called the platform the “global town square.”

Advertisement

But these companies openly engage in viewpoint discrimination, which, if done by government entities in the traditional “town squares” of America, would be brazenly unconstitutional. Big Tech routinely steps into the abortion debate, censors the pro-life side, favors the pro-abortion side, and then laughably claims to be enforcing neutral policies.

Just last year, Twitter restricted an image of the late Nobel Prize-winner Mother Theresa, posted by the president of Susan B. Anthony List. The image included a quote that supposedly violated Twitter’s “health and pharmaceutical products and services policy.” The quote read, “Abortion is profoundly anti-woman. Three quarters of its victims are women: Half the babies and all the mothers.”

Absurd as it is to claim decisions like this are neutral, Silicon Valley’s escape hatch is that these companies are private corporations, not government entities. Therefore, the First Amendment does not apply to their enforcement of their rules.

What Should We Do About Censorship?

But with these companies acting as gatekeepers to news and information, operating under clear biases against organizations such as Live Action, is our digital town square truly a forum for free speech and open debate?

Some argue that social media companies censoring conservative and pro-life organizations should be held to the same standards as other news publications exercising editorial decisions. If I can sue the New York Times for defamation, perhaps the same liability should apply to Facebook for every post it decides not to censor.

Others have wondered if social media companies should be treated like public utilities and therefore essential public services the federal government can regulate and break up. Perhaps the Federal Communications Commission needs to check their unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices, just like it does with broadcast media companies and electricity providers.

Advertisement

It is also worth mentioning the Supreme Court upheld California’s ability to expand free speech protections to citizens who picket and demonstrate in privately owned shopping centers, deemed “public forums” in California. Where is Silicon Valley located again?

What about TikTok? The app is owned by a Beijing-based company subject to Chinese government censorship policies, not U.S. constitutional free speech rights. The company, ByteDance, has been caught repeatedly censoring political content globally.

As if the titans of Silicon Valley were not bad enough, should we now be concerned that some corners of our global town square will be subject to the censorship policies of an authoritarian regime? If so, don’t expect pro-lifers to be welcomed in those corners, monitored by the same government that enforced a brutal one-child policy and untold millions of forced abortions, primarily targeting female babies. No wonder TikTok has not flagged or removed “DIY” abortion videos.

Is that the brave, new global town square we want? Or maybe, since TikTok has servers and headquarters located in the United States, it should be no easier for the platform to get away with censorship than it should be for Silicon Valley.

Whatever we decide as a representative republic, these looming questions are ripe for debate now that social media has become our undisputed public square. As Americans, we must demand that Big Tech respect our rights to free speech and open debate.

Lila Rose is the founder and president of the national pro-life organization Live Action. Follow her on Twitter: @LilaGraceRose.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2020 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

Read More

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

SOCIAL

Snapchat Explores New Messaging Retention Feature: A Game-Changer or Risky Move?

Published

on

By

Snapchat Explores New Messaging Retention Feature: A Game-Changer or Risky Move?

In a recent announcement, Snapchat revealed a groundbreaking update that challenges its traditional design ethos. The platform is experimenting with an option that allows users to defy the 24-hour auto-delete rule, a feature synonymous with Snapchat’s ephemeral messaging model.

The proposed change aims to introduce a “Never delete” option in messaging retention settings, aligning Snapchat more closely with conventional messaging apps. While this move may blur Snapchat’s distinctive selling point, Snap appears convinced of its necessity.

According to Snap, the decision stems from user feedback and a commitment to innovation based on user needs. The company aims to provide greater flexibility and control over conversations, catering to the preferences of its community.

Currently undergoing trials in select markets, the new feature empowers users to adjust retention settings on a conversation-by-conversation basis. Flexibility remains paramount, with participants able to modify settings within chats and receive in-chat notifications to ensure transparency.

Snapchat underscores that the default auto-delete feature will persist, reinforcing its design philosophy centered on ephemerality. However, with the app gaining traction as a primary messaging platform, the option offers users a means to preserve longer chat histories.

The update marks a pivotal moment for Snapchat, renowned for its disappearing message premise, especially popular among younger demographics. Retaining this focus has been pivotal to Snapchat’s identity, but the shift suggests a broader strategy aimed at diversifying its user base.

Advertisement

This strategy may appeal particularly to older demographics, potentially extending Snapchat’s relevance as users age. By emulating features of conventional messaging platforms, Snapchat seeks to enhance its appeal and broaden its reach.

Yet, the introduction of message retention poses questions about Snapchat’s uniqueness. While addressing user demands, the risk of diluting Snapchat’s distinctiveness looms large.

As Snapchat ventures into uncharted territory, the outcome of this experiment remains uncertain. Will message retention propel Snapchat to new heights, or will it compromise the platform’s uniqueness?

Only time will tell.

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Catering to specific audience boosts your business, says accountant turned coach

Published

on

Catering to specific audience boosts your business, says accountant turned coach

While it is tempting to try to appeal to a broad audience, the founder of alcohol-free coaching service Just the Tonic, Sandra Parker, believes the best thing you can do for your business is focus on your niche. Here’s how she did just that.

When running a business, reaching out to as many clients as possible can be tempting. But it also risks making your marketing “too generic,” warns Sandra Parker, the founder of Just The Tonic Coaching.

“From the very start of my business, I knew exactly who I could help and who I couldn’t,” Parker told My Biggest Lessons.

Parker struggled with alcohol dependence as a young professional. Today, her business targets high-achieving individuals who face challenges similar to those she had early in her career.

“I understand their frustrations, I understand their fears, and I understand their coping mechanisms and the stories they’re telling themselves,” Parker said. “Because of that, I’m able to market very effectively, to speak in a language that they understand, and am able to reach them.” 

“I believe that it’s really important that you know exactly who your customer or your client is, and you target them, and you resist the temptation to make your marketing too generic to try and reach everyone,” she explained.

Advertisement



“If you speak specifically to your target clients, you will reach them, and I believe that’s the way that you’re going to be more successful.

Watch the video for more of Sandra Parker’s biggest lessons.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Instagram Tests Live-Stream Games to Enhance Engagement

Published

on

Instagram Tests Live-Stream Games to Enhance Engagement

Instagram’s testing out some new options to help spice up your live-streams in the app, with some live broadcasters now able to select a game that they can play with viewers in-stream.

As you can see in these example screens, posted by Ahmed Ghanem, some creators now have the option to play either “This or That”, a question and answer prompt that you can share with your viewers, or “Trivia”, to generate more engagement within your IG live-streams.

That could be a simple way to spark more conversation and interaction, which could then lead into further engagement opportunities from your live audience.

Meta’s been exploring more ways to make live-streaming a bigger consideration for IG creators, with a view to live-streams potentially catching on with more users.

That includes the gradual expansion of its “Stars” live-stream donation program, giving more creators in more regions a means to accept donations from live-stream viewers, while back in December, Instagram also added some new options to make it easier to go live using third-party tools via desktop PCs.

Live streaming has been a major shift in China, where shopping live-streams, in particular, have led to massive opportunities for streaming platforms. They haven’t caught on in the same way in Western regions, but as TikTok and YouTube look to push live-stream adoption, there is still a chance that they will become a much bigger element in future.

Advertisement



Which is why IG is also trying to stay in touch, and add more ways for its creators to engage via streams. Live-stream games is another element within this, which could make this a better community-building, and potentially sales-driving option.

We’ve asked Instagram for more information on this test, and we’ll update this post if/when we hear back.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

Trending

Follow by Email
RSS