Big Tech Lacks Transparency in InfoWars Purge

Despite the fact that most large technology services banned InfoWars from their platforms this week, they still refuse to cite what caused the bans.

Some companies cited “hate speech” or “hateful content” as the reason to ban the organization, but they refused to specify exactly what content had fallen under these terms.

As reported by the New York Times, Facebook “has outright bans against violent content, nudity and terrorist recruitment propaganda,” however, the “rules on other types of content, including hate speech and false news, are more ambiguous.”

In April, while testifying before the Senate, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg refused to define “hate speech.”

Despite frequently using the term, Facebook has avoided revealing their definition time after time again, and their policies on what content is acceptable are vague, to say the least.

Facebook’s suspension of Infowars is further complicated by the fact that the company’s Head of News claimed in February that “not all news is created equal,” before Facebook revealed they would be funding news shows on the platform from CNN and far-left Mic.

Infowars is banned from Facebook, yet Antifa accounts, black supremacist organizations, and anti-Semitic leader Louis Farrakhan are allowed to remain on the platform.

A video about the crimes of communism created by a Republican congressional candidate was recently banned for “shocking, disrespectful, or sensational content,” before being reinstated, while a music video produced by the group Zion’s Joy was censored as “political content.”

The same applies to most other large technology companies, who often engage in censorship against conservatives and libertarians, but allow examples of racism, hate, and abuse to remain on the platform if it’s directed at the right people.

The only thing that is clear about the Masters of the Universe in Silicon Valley is their complete and utter lack of transparency.