The Puritans Are Back!

Data from CrowdTangle, a public insights tool owned by Facebook, puts together the most popular posts for each day on Facebook. On any given day the top 10 most popular political posts are dominated by right-leaning commentators like Dan Bongino and Ben Shapiro, along with posts by Fox News and President Trump.

Mr Trump's Facebook page has 32 million followers, nearly 10 times more than his Democratic challenger in next month's election, Joe Biden.

If the accusation is Facebook suppresses right-wing content, it doesn't seem to do it very well.

So is right-wing content in fact being favoured over left-wing content?

It's quite not as simple as that.

"I think it's a mistake to look at it as a right-wing versus left-wing bias," says Siva Vaidhyanathan, a media studies professor at the University of Virginia.

"The bias is toward content that generates strong emotions."

He says that while "some pretty extreme right-wing" posts have spread widely on social media in the US, their popularity isn't proof of the platforms suffering from structural bias.

"In Mexico, you might see a completely different arrangement of what gets promoted," he adds.

But, if you look at what is clamped down on, you can see why more people from the right might get tangled up in moderation than those from the left.

For example, few Democrats claim postal voting is rigged.

President Trump and many Republicans do.

Facebook has a policy to label claims about voter fraud. It argues it is trying to tackle disinformation that could erode faith in the US electoral system.

Even so, Republicans are disproportionately affected.

This makes Twitter appear to be a more liberal place, but once again it's hard to prove it's biased against conservatives.

Let's take Covid-19 as an example.

It's true that Twitter has acted on Mr Trump's tweets more than Mr Biden's. For example, it blocked a Trump post suggesting that the flu was more dangerous than Covid.

But at the same time, studies suggest Mr Trump is far more likely to spread disinformation around Covid.

In fact, one from Cornell University suggested the president was the largest single driver of Covid disinformation.

So it's perhaps not surprising that he is targeted disproportionately by Twitter moderators.

To be clear, the Justice Department did not label parents “domestic terrorists.” As we said, the use of the phrase originated with a Sept. 29, 2021, letter sent by the National School Boards Association, a federation of state associations that represent locally elected school board officials, to the White House seeking federal assistance to stop what it said was a growing number of threats and acts of violence against public school board members and other public school district officials — mainly over the issues of mask mandates and “propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and curricula.”

“I want to be clear, the Justice Department supports and defends the First Amendment right of parents to complain as vociferously as they wish about the education of their children, about the curriculum taught in the schools,” Garland said. “That is not what the memorandum is about at all, nor does it use the words domestic terrorism or Patriot Act. Like you, I can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.”

Later in the hearing, Garland was asked if he agreed with the NSBA “that parents who attend school board meetings and speak passionately against the inclusion of divisive programs like critical race theory should be characterized as domestic terrorists?”

“I do not believe that parents who testify, speak, argue with, complain about school boards and schools should be classified as domestic terrorists or any kind of criminals,” Garland said. “Parents have been complaining about the education of their children and about school boards since there were such things as school boards and public education. This is totally protected by the First Amendment. I take your point that true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. Those are the things we’re worried about here"

To be clear, the Justice Department did not label parents “domestic terrorists.” As we said, the use of the phrase originated with a Sept. 29, 2021, letter sent by the National School Boards Association, a federation of state associations that represent locally elected school board officials, to the White House seeking federal assistance to stop what it said was a growing number of threats and acts of violence against public school board members and other public school district officials — mainly over the issues of mask mandates and “propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and curricula.”

“I want to be clear, the Justice Department supports and defends the First Amendment right of parents to complain as vociferously as they wish about the education of their children, about the curriculum taught in the schools,” Garland said. “That is not what the memorandum is about at all, nor does it use the words domestic terrorism or Patriot Act. Like you, I can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.”

Later in the hearing, Garland was asked if he agreed with the NSBA “that parents who attend school board meetings and speak passionately against the inclusion of divisive programs like critical race theory should be characterized as domestic terrorists?”

“I do not believe that parents who testify, speak, argue with, complain about school boards and schools should be classified as domestic terrorists or any kind of criminals,” Garland said. “Parents have been complaining about the education of their children and about school boards since there were such things as school boards and public education. This is totally protected by the First Amendment. I take your point that true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. Those are the things we’re worried about here"

To be clear, the Justice Department did not label parents “domestic terrorists.” As we said, the use of the phrase originated with a Sept. 29, 2021, letter sent by the National School Boards Association, a federation of state associations that represent locally elected school board officials, to the White House seeking federal assistance to stop what it said was a growing number of threats and acts of violence against public school board members and other public school district officials — mainly over the issues of mask mandates and “propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and curricula.”