Conservatives Banned From Social Media? Here's What They Can Do About It

Authored by Brandon Smith via,

The past two years have seen a rather aggressive change in corporate policies toward the very customers they used to covet. Not long ago, CEOs tended to keep their political views mostly in the closet. Companies remained publicly neutral because their goal was first and foremost to make money. When they wanted to influence politics or social norms, they bought politicians - you know, the good old-fashioned way. The big banks still do this by funneling cash to both Republicans and Democrats alike.

However, in the wake of the social justice cult frenzy some companies have decided that ideology is more important than profit, and most of these companies are deeply involved in various forms of media.

Some people will argue that the media has always been leftist in its orientation and that this trend is nothing new. But, I think it is clear to anyone who has worked in countering mainstream media disinformation that something is very different today. Conservatives are being “cleansed” from participation in these communications platforms, and conservative ideals are being erased or misrepresented on a massive scale. Not long ago, media companies at least pretended to be “fair and balanced” by tolerating a certain level of participation by conservatives. No longer.

With the advent of the internet and social media, participation in political discussion has become more open to the common citizen than ever before. This is apparently an intolerable side effect that corporate elites would like to do away with.

It is a slightly complex problem, so I’ll try to break it down point by point:

First, companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter are not honest in the presentation of their own image. They initially depicted themselves as bastions of social commerce without any interest in ideological battles. If they had come right out in the open from the beginning and admitted they are running their platforms based on social justice lunacy, then perhaps conservatives would not have bothered to join in the first place. Then Facebook and others could keep their forums “ideologically pure” without misleading people.

Second, while these companies do have standards of behavior and rules for participants, the rules are deliberately broad and vaporous. They claim their rules focus on more abhorrent behaviors like overt racism, but then go on to define almost EVERYTHING that they disagree with as “racist.” This includes most conservative viewpoints and arguments. Therefore, it appears that social media corporations want to fool as many people as possible into joining their platforms, getting them addicted to participation, and then these companies want to have the option of controlling those people’s behavior through the fear of losing access.

Third, while this is clearly ideological zealotry, social media websites are also private property.  They are not "free speech zones". They can invite people in, and they can demand people leave anytime they wish. If conservatives are going to argue in favor of private property rights and voluntary participation rights, then they must include private websites in this.

So then, what is the solution?

Some will claim that social media giants represent a public utility rather than private property and that they should be subjected to regulation by government in terms of political discrimination. I disagree.

Giving government EVEN MORE intrusive powers into how businesses function from day to day is not the answer. Allowing government to indiscriminately label a business or website a “public utility” is essentially nationalization of private property; something very common in communist countries but a habit that should be avoided in America. We need less government and less bureaucracy, not more, and conservatives need to remember that while leftists present a constant annoyance, it is big government that remains the ultimate threat to individual freedom.

They may start with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., but where does it stop?  How long before government is enforcing participation rules on all websites?  How long before conservative websites are required to allow leftist trolls and disinformation agents of every stripe the freedom to rampage through their forums without any recourse to remove them?  How long before government shifts over to the other side of the aisle and conservatives start kicking themselves for passing laws that are then used against them?

That said, there are some issues with corporations in general that need to be addressed when considering this conundrum. For example, many corporations are not normal businesses in the free market sense. Corporations only exist because of government charter and protections like limited liability. This is where many hardcore Anarcho-capitalists I have dealt with in the past tend to go wrong in their rabid defense of corporations and monopolies. The reality is that corporations are a product of government and are not a natural function of free markets.

Facebook has received considerable government aid. For years Facebook has been offered special tax breaks to the extent that in some cases they have avoided taxes to the IRS altogether. Show me how many small-business owners get that kind of treatment from the government!

Facebook has also allowed intrusive data mining operations including government operations and corporate operations to spy on its users and has so far suffered little consequences beyond a slap on the wrist. Facebook has even maintained partnerships with foreign entities considered national security threats to the U.S.

This does not mean that companies like Facebook should be nationalized and turned into public utilities in a socialist free-for-all. But it does mean that corporations should not exist in the form they do today if we are to ever find balance.

I would first advocate for the end of the legal protections afforded under “corporate personhood.”  When a company like Facebook is sued or prosecuted for its trespasses and criminality, the company itself is treated as if it is a legal person. Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk are not punished: the company is punished.  This usually ends in fines which amount to nothing more than pocket change.

Under Adam Smith’s model of free markets, corporations (or joint stock companies as they were called in his day), were not acceptable. As mentioned, they are not a function of free markets. Partnerships are, though. Reducing corporations down to partnerships and removing corporate welfare and government protections would go a long way in solving the dangers of business elites and their control of entire swaths of public communication (among many other sectors).

This is why I am also a proponent of the breakup of corporate monopolies. If a corporation, unfairly aided by government in numerous ways, becomes so large and influential that free market competition with that company is impossible, then it should be broken up into separate competing companies so that there is more incentive to keep customers rather than discriminate against them. This is just one solution to the problem of social media outlets that are attempting to cut out one-half of the American public.

If the breakup of monopolies is not possible, or if one company is separated into competing parts and these parts STILL cling to ideological zealotry rather than pursuing sound business practices, then it is up to conservatives themselves to create an alternative.

That’s right — I’m saying it’s time for a conservative (or truly neutral) Facebook, a conservative Twitter, a conservative YouTube, etc.

More government domination of business is not an option, and it’s certainly not conservative in spirit. What is conservative in spirit is industry and self-reliance. I see no reason why a conservative or neutral social media outlet would not be financially successful, as long as it is not interfered with by government.

If the system is not offering a necessity or service, or it is restricting a necessity or service, then it is up to free people to provide that necessity or service for themselves instead of relying on others to do it for them.

I do fear that that the social justice aggression within corporations against conservatives is part of a larger and more subversive plan. If one studies the leftist tactics of socialist gatekeeper Saul Alinsky, one would discover that they often use the strategy of harassing their enemies to illicit a vicious overreaction. Meaning, it may be the goal of the leftists or globalists (who have no loyalty to either side) to manipulate conservatives through their own anger.

Conservatives are portrayed as evil and monstrous tyrants, or as dumb bumbling bigots in most current media. The social justice ideology is placed on a pedestal as unassailable and untouchable in movies, television shows and even commercials. It is treated as absolute truth that cannot be questioned or debated. In the meantime, social media companies seek to gain vast market share of communications spaces and then reduce conservative presence there so that we cannot argue our side of the issues.

I get it. There is every reason for conservatives to be pissed off. But, we need to look at the bigger picture.

It is possible that the goal on the part of these companies is not necessarily to merely silence conservative voices on their forums or to slander us in ridiculous misrepresentations. It could be that they hope we will become enraged, and that we will respond by abandoning our own principles to attack them back. They want us to become the monsters that they are portraying us as. Even if we win, we lose.

I have already outlined examples of how we can fight back without breaking our own ideals and morals; moving to expand government power in this area is completely unnecessary.   The fight is not just over modes of communication, it is over conscience and identity. The latter must not be sacrificed to obtain the former.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.


Masher1 Wed, 08/01/2018 - 23:51 Permalink

What is it with the obsession with using these stupid social networking systems THEY own and control?\


Keep expecting them to play fair is to not think about the futility of this situation.


Social media is to control your danger. TO lock you in their dungeon and control your entire narrative and others access to it.



Skateboarder ExplodingEntropy Thu, 08/02/2018 - 00:36 Permalink

Let us first define "conservative" well, to make it clear to people it is not based on color of skin or religion or anything of that sort.

That is about the most important thing "conservative" people can do in these times. While the "liberal" definition is ever shape shifting, I think the "conservative" side is pretty solid in their belief system.

p.s. the definitions have always been ever changing, and "liberal" once upon a time meant something as restricted as that you were willing to entertain another faith or creed or tribe at all, etc.

In reply to by ExplodingEntropy

Last of the Mi… HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Thu, 08/02/2018 - 07:12 Permalink

Shut down your social media entirely for 6 months or so. Listen to some serious talk radio every day, read news (Do NOT watch talking heads) not produced by the MSM on a daily basis, read a book and learn some of the history of our great country especially as it relates to the formation of our constitutional society then in 6 months go back to your social media site and take a look.

I did, and I see the SM sites with new eyes. They are nothing short of banal. 

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

jin187 Last of the Mi… Thu, 08/02/2018 - 07:50 Permalink

Indeed.  What one really needs to be informed is not talking heads giving their take on current events.  That's almost always skewed in favor of whoever reports it, on both sides of the aisle.  Knowing about human nature, how it affected history, and how language is used to distort information, makes you fairly immune to biased info, and gives you the ability to sort the truth from the lies and exaggerations.

Take last night for example.  I was listening to Michael Savage.  One of the most solid conservatives you'll ever hear, but he dropped the ball big time last night.  He starts off his show explaining why Trump can just blow off any legal troubles he has by ignoring it, ala Andrew Jackson.  He literally says Jackson did "things", and how he told the SCOTUS to "shove it" when they ruled against him.  Never once mentioning that the "things" he did were outright theft and war crimes.  He also never mentioned how Jackson rightfully became the closest president in our history to being successfully impeached because of what he did, barely squeaking out a victory purely due to the support of most of his own party.  No mention of what that party was either.  The party of the Trail of Tears, slavery, Bloody Kansas, Jim Crow, poll taxes, segregation, and the Ku Klux Klan, the Democrats.

Hell, the night before, he was talking about how he had the smartest listeners in all of media.  I'm sure there were millions of geniuses listening to that shit, clinging to their guns and Bibles, saying "Murica, fuck yeah, git'r'dun Trump!", judging by the callers after he said it.  All the while not knowing their favorite conservative just supported one of the most disgraceful moments in American history, courtesy of our first "pen and a phone" lawless Democrat president.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was telling his screeners not to let anyone on the show that actually knew what he was talking about.  If the MSM liberals, or any of their viewers actually knew their history, they'd be playing that audio all up and down MSLSD and SeeBS all day today to make us look bad.  Luckily, they're as stupid as Michael Savage thinks his listeners are.

In reply to by Last of the Mi…

HopefulCynical jin187 Thu, 08/02/2018 - 08:00 Permalink

Third, while this is clearly ideological zealotry, social media websites are also private property.  They are not "free speech zones". They can invite people in, and they can demand people leave anytime they wish. If conservatives are going to argue in favor of private property rights and voluntary participation rights, then they must include private websites in this.

NOPE. Here's Styxhexenhammer, calling bullshit on the idea that big tech firms, in collusion with NGOs, both co-opted by the fucking government, represent "private property."


However, this is right on target - I would agree with ideals of the quote posted above, ONLY after this is FULLY EXECUTED...not one second before:

I would first advocate for the end of the legal protections afforded under “corporate personhood.”  When a company like Facebook is sued or prosecuted for its trespasses and criminality, the company itself is treated as if it is a legal person. Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk are not punished: the company is punished.  This usually ends in fines which amount to nothing more than pocket change.

Under Adam Smith’s model of free markets, corporations (or joint stock companies as they were called in his day), were not acceptable. As mentioned, they are not a function of free markets. Partnerships are, though. Reducing corporations down to partnerships and removing corporate welfare and government protections would go a long way in solving the dangers of business elites and their control of entire swaths of public communication (among many other sectors).

In reply to by jin187

brushhog Last of the Mi… Thu, 08/02/2018 - 08:05 Permalink

Every conservative, libertarian, or free speech advocate should at least TRY to open an account on bitchute, gab, or one of the other alternative free speech platforms. They are out there fighting to compete and trying to offer you an alternative. Personally I have found bitchute to be very similar to youtube in its format and ease of use.

There are many guys on youtube that are also now on bitchute and I'll always choose to watch them on the bitchute site. Every view, every comment, every sign up, every click helps them.

In reply to by Last of the Mi…

PT Skateboarder Thu, 08/02/2018 - 03:31 Permalink

For a while now I have been asking, "Why is there only ONE Facebook / Google / Twitter / YouTube" and then following up with the assertion that there should be billions of them.

The closest, "smartest" response I have received can basically be summarised as the "tyranny of network effects" and the closest reply I have given is that the whole model is wrong.  Right if you want monopoly power but wrong for every other reason.  It appears I should have fleshed out a few more details.

For those of you who are old enough, try and remember before the internet went mainstream.  Try and remember before anyone ever muttered the phrase, "Information Superhighway."  Back in those days, geeks could buy computers and then they would buy modems and then they would ring each other up and send information directly between each other, for the price of a phone call.  Yes, not many people knew how to do that BUT IT WAS NOT HARD!!!  The hardest part was always getting the page or so of information that you needed so you could work out how to do that.  And if any non-geeks had ever been interested, a geek could have GIVEN (or sold, depending on the details) some code, a few hundred bytes at most, to a non-geek and then the non-geek would also be able to get in on the fun.
THIS IS THE FIRST STEP TO BREAKING NET-MONOPOLY POWER / CENSORSHIP.  IT IS NOT FUCKING HARD.  The hardest part is getting access to some very basic, simple information.  Why is that?

Fast forward a few years.

For how long have we had email now?  And guess what?  With a simple "cc" we can send information to multiple recipients.  But why do we have to rely on a third party to collect all our emails?  Well, sometimes we like to turn our computers off.  But we now live in an age where computers are cheap.  We can easily have a second computer connected to the net permanently.  Hard drives are also cheap, even for ONE TERABYTE or more.  How many tweets can you fit on a terabyte hard drive?  Okay, you lose a few more with longer text, a lot more space with pictures, and you lose a hellofalot more space with videos, but you can work around those problems and you can still achieve quite a lot with one terabyte.
Okay, but you might lose power.  Uninterruptible Power Supplies and back-up batteries are cheap but they are still "annoyingly expensive" for the average yob who can't be bothered with such things.  Still, for anyone who wants to, there is absolutely no reason to rely on a third party for your emails.  Chuck it on a dedicated computer and hard drive/s with UPS back-up and away you go.
What about your own website?  Not much of a step now, is it?  Oh, but no-one will know the address to go to to look at your stuff.  This is a problem but hardly a big problem. 

What about if your website is really popular and you have a million people trying to view your stuff all at once?  Well, now this bit MAY actually be a problem and may also be the reason why the internet exists in the first place.  Someone who knows more than me will have to tell us if this is a small problem or a big problem and how hard it would be to overcome or work around this problem.  I get a feeling that Bit-Torrent users will have some useful information to say about that.

So I still assert that YouTwitFaceGooglebookTube has no reason to exist in it's current form.  A billion computer programmers should have worked their way around it before any of it ever got off the ground.  (Re Google:  Google as a search engine is not so fantastically great that you can't live without it.  Even if a home-brew search engine is not quite as good, I'd bet that home-brewers tweaking their own parameters could get superior results for whatever project they were working on at the time.)  The crime of the millennium is that most computer programmers do not appear to understand how much they have lost over the last 30 years and if the programmers can't see it then the average guy in the street has no chance.  Smash it into a billion pieces and scatter it into the winds.  It is as if four billion car drivers don't know how to change the oil and so instead take the mechanic's advice of replacing the engine.

Little side note:  Remember those "Information Super Highway" days?  "Communicate with people on the other side of the world for the price of a local phone call."  And the public went ahead and paid those ISP fees while chanting, "It's free!"  MSM was panicking, "gotta have timed local calls or else the telephone company will go broke ..." ... and now here we are in the paradigm, "Oh noes!  YouTwitFace censorship and we don't know what to dooooooooooo!!!!"  Any computer programmer with half a functioning brain knows what needs to be done.  Why can't  / won't they do it???

EDIT:  After all that, I forgot to spell out another little detail.  What does YouTwitFace actually give the end user THAT IS NOT ALREADY AVAILABLE TO THEM THROUGH EMAIL?  Text, pictures, AV can all be attached and sent via email.  Bulk send can also be used via email.  Public forum?  That's what you get, a public forum.  User Interface?  I'd say the biggest thing is the "pleasant" user interface.  Everything about YouTwitFace can be bypassed.  It only takes a little effort.

In reply to by Skateboarder

css1971 PT Thu, 08/02/2018 - 04:36 Permalink

All networks collapse to hub/spoke. and Hub Spoke is a Pareto Distribution.


Forget models. Its numbers. You cant get away from them.


if you want peer to peer, then you have to manage the connections.

This means every node in the network has to manage the details of every other node. With 4 nodes that"s fine, each talks to 3 others it's 12. But the time you get to just 150, you're talking tens of thousands of relationships you've got to manage. A million nodes, and you now have 1,000,000,000,000 relationships...


This is why you get 1 organisation, company dominating any market. They are the hub, and they are managing the complexity of dealing with other people for you. This power lets them skim a little wealth and power from everyone who uses them.


It's all about complexity.

In reply to by PT

Singelguy PT Thu, 08/02/2018 - 05:07 Permalink

I think you focus too much on the nuts and bolts of the machine. The primary reason there is only one Twitter, Google, and Facebook, is that they were all funded by front companies for the CIA and the NSA. It was all about getting the sheeple to freely volunteer their personal information for them to collect. I am sure those front companies still own signficant amount of stock and as such have alot of influence.

The author is correct in that the only way to win is to compete. Competing companies have already been set up and they are growing but are not large enough or well known enough to effectively compete. Give it some time. In the meantime, no conservative should be participating in any of the leftist social media other than to inform of alternatives. As competition grows, the current social media behemoths will wither and die and MSM will become irrelevant. I would bet there are far more conservatives or conservative leaning people than left wing nut jobs.

In reply to by PT

PT Singelguy Thu, 08/02/2018 - 07:16 Permalink

Both of your explanations still require ALL computer programmers to be "dumb-asses".  Personally, I am out of date and have trouble catching up but I am still amazed that there is no-one out there to do as I have outlined.  Trying to keep TwitFace going should be as difficult as standing on a hill of marbles.

In reply to by Singelguy

jin187 PT Thu, 08/02/2018 - 08:04 Permalink

Social media is simply taking advantage of pack mentality.  They get a few people to join, then get them addicted, or used to the product.  Once you've got that in, you get them to recruit their friends.  Eventually, it reaches critical mass, and people start joining just because "everyone" is joining.  It's no different than drugs, MS Windows, cars, clothes, and restaurants.

I'm sure there actually are tons of competing products one can use that are comparable to the social media giants in terms of interface and features.  It's just that no one uses them, because no one uses them.  Look at Google+.  No one uses Google+, despite Google doing their damnedest to force anyone using any other Google service to use it as well.  If Google can't compete with Facebook, then no one can.

Having reached that critical mass, Facebook now also has the ability to just buy anything that looks threatening.  It's kinda hard to say no when you're starting up a media company, and the moment you hit that magic number of users to catch peoples' eye, here comes Facebook with a buyout offer for ten, or even a hundred times what your company is worth.

In reply to by PT

kellys_eye IntercoursetheEU Thu, 08/02/2018 - 03:59 Permalink

The bottom line is the wealth these companies 'own' and the people they can manipulate with it as a result.

We need to tackle these problems at source - the politicians.  Those that we empower to look after OUR interests are corrupted by those we need to control.

Politicians need to be impartial, well paid, independent and wholly LIABLE for any indiscretions or associations that are outside their remit of 'looking after OUR interests'.

Committees of 'over-seers' made from ordinary members of the public could do this - fixed (short) term positions much like jury duty.

Idealistically we then have control over the corporate behemoths and an end to Globalism as we are now the organ grinder, not the monkey.

In reply to by IntercoursetheEU

rosiescenario IntercoursetheEU Thu, 08/02/2018 - 10:44 Permalink

What I have been saying all along.....shareholder class actions against management and cannot run a publicly traded company as though it is your own "piggy bank" dispensing a political agenda at the cost of the shareholders.

It may even be that their D&O insurance doesn't cover this which would really put the heat on those running these companies.

In reply to by IntercoursetheEU

Skateboarder HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Thu, 08/02/2018 - 01:57 Permalink

I absolutely dislike the idea of any advocacy group of any color of skin or religion at all. Fvck all that shit. Whatever skin you are born with, you are born with. You are born with your parents telling you to follow a religion, perhaps, but you are always free to choose another or none at all. You don't need religion - god loves you just the same. But you are absolutely correct. For an NAACP to exist for "colored" people and be something, there should also be an NAACP on the other side "non-colored" people. Otherwise, you are looking at a farce, and we don't like farces.

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Skateboarder Thu, 08/02/2018 - 02:04 Permalink

I have no problem with advocacy groups. But if it is okay to have one for colored people it should also be okay to have one for Caucasian people. Plenty of fag advocacy groups that support every form of perversion ever known. FFS it is okay for NAMBLA to exist but it isn't okay for the National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People to exist? For those that don't know, NAMBLA stands for the North Amercian Man Boy Love Association. I shit you not. Of course there is a wiki page:

But any white group is instantly suspect and accused of being racist. I call bullshit. LIke Lauren Southern said, "it's okay to be white." I would add it's okay to be Christian, too. WASP, here, and proud of it!

In reply to by Skateboarder

Skateboarder HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Thu, 08/02/2018 - 03:12 Permalink

I think you are missing my point... none of that shit is okay. In a more ideal setting we have true and isolated thriving cultures and real immigration and that kind of stuff. There would be no need for advocacy groups. That is not our world - we live in nations of all kinds of people and ideas coming in, welcomed or not.

The current trend toward diminishing whites through all forms of advertisement and media and actual people of power trying to convince others of "white privilege" and shit... fvck that bullshit.

Negative infinity to 1800 might have been one era, but we every enjoy every goddamn thing we do today because of white males who labored their fvcking asses through the ages. Respect your heritage, regardless of where you come from, or be eaten by nature!

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

hardmedicine Ahmeexnal Thu, 08/02/2018 - 01:57 Permalink

"Third, while this is clearly ideological zealotry, social media websites are also private property.  They are not "free speech zones". They can invite people in, and they can demand people leave anytime they wish. If conservatives are going to argue in favor of private property rights and voluntary participation rights, then they must include private websites in this."


Private property rights haven't been in force since Jim Crow in the 1800's  Meantime, conservatives have had to put up with one incursion after another into our right to conservative ideals and our freedom to associate with those who share our values   Do you think a business, a PRIVATE BUSINESS, gets to refuse people service because they do not conform to the business owners ideals? or because the business owner doesn't like their particular politics or anything else. No. The private business has to serve the public regardless of race, religion, sexual identity, and any other thing that has been foisted upon the "PRIVATE BUSINESS" that the government deems necessary.  I understand where you are going with this line of thinking but I guess I need someone to explain to me how the conservative viewpoint is going to put this all back into the bottle.


Excuse me Gov'ner but it appears the conservatives are finally and completely fucked!

In reply to by Ahmeexnal

The First Rule Free This Thu, 08/02/2018 - 00:05 Permalink

BTW...for those not familiar - Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects these Liberal companies from Liable as long as they are Neutral Third Parties. 


Once they violate this, which they have NUMEROUS TIMES, they lose protection and can be sued for Liable.

Conservatives need to start bringing lawsuits targeting their 230 status.

In reply to by Free This

VideoEng_NC Free This Thu, 08/02/2018 - 07:53 Permalink

When it was allowed for companies to own more than one type of media is when this bigger problem started.  Sure, papers & earlier forms of media all had a spin but it wasn't until companies who owned radio stations could buy newspapers or entertainment entities could own TV stations that we see the gap closing on what we "perceive" as neutral bias in media. 

That one graphic where you have the Bilderberg Meetings, Council of Foreign Relations & The Trilateral Commission having all of the heads of U.S. media boils it down concisely.  And of course we all know the thick relationship with banking & other means of monetary policy (The Fed).

Think is was sometime last year when it hit me we're in a true life or death battle.  Don't think it's changed as this article helps prove that point.

In reply to by Free This