The Facebook Heist

Was Facebook Hijacked

We all remember seeing the prompt in our news-feed.  “Lift Black Voices.”  And not only in the news-feed, but across the entire platform, Facebook has continued to show solid support for the movement.  What is the reason for this?  Why is Facebook so committed to “Lifting Black Voices” despite BLM’s declaration stating that the movement is not about “black voices,” but about “defunding the police?  This article takes a closer look at the BLM movement and it’s silent partners, its leaders, and the various lawsuits prosecuted against Facebook by a BLM supporter,  New York State Attorney General, Leticia James.

Every power-grab perpetrating as a socio-political movement needs a great name.  Often, as is the case here, the name of the movement needs to serve a specific purpose — it has to give the movement a public cause, even if that cause has nothing to do with the true agenda of the movement.  Indeed, the name is just a tool used to recruit and retain supporters.  Imagine if the movement was called Defund the Police.  Such a name would not have the same appeal.  The name of the movement must , on its face, exalt an ideal which can be publicly endorsed.  For example, The Nazi party was originally called the German Worker’s Party.

As movements gain momentum and begin to show their true faces, it is important to have a propaganda campaign in place to consistently reaffirm the original idea behind the name.  This is where Facebook comes in.  As Patrisse Khan-Cullors (BLM co-founder) goes on a 3.2-million-dollar real estate shopping-spree while accepting millions of dollars in donations for the movement from ignorant citizens and businesses, and protesters are destroying the property of black business owners all over the country, it is important for the movement that the 14 billion users on Facebook are hand-fed the movement’s deceitful propaganda — “Lift Black Voices” — in order to mask the movements true purpose.

But why was Facebook willing to be the tool for BLM’s propaganda?  Well, it just so happens that BLM had leverage on Mark Zuckerburg and Facebook — very carefully planned leverage.

In July 2020, StopHateForProfit.org, a leftist shadow-entity masking as a civil rights organization, rallied the support of over 200 businesses for a Facebook advertising boycott.  After being humiliated by then-president Donald J. Trump’s overwhelmingly successful social media campaign, the left quickly moved to silence conservative voices on social media, citing right-wing extremism and hate speech as the proverbial dragon.

On another front, multiple leftist attorneys and prosecutors filed a barrage of lawsuits against Facebook, even going so far as to claim Facebook helped cause the death of three Black Lives Matter protesters by allowing their killers to organize on their public Facebook Page.  And to top it all, New York Attorney General Leticia James, who showed her solidarity for BLM by quickly moving to prevent donations meant for BLM from being solicited by another group,  rallied 40 states in a class action anti-trust lawsuit against Facebook for allegedly establishing a monopoly on the social media industry.

In response to the StopHateForProfit campaign, Facebook agreed to publish a section on the platform dedicated to the public idea of the movement: Lift Black Voices.  This helped to perpetuate BLM’s socio-political pretense as a civil rights movement.  Facebook also promised to closely moderate and remove content deemed as hate speech, which turned out to be any content promoting organized conservative events and values.  To top it all, Facebook pledged $200,000.00 to black-0wned businesses and civil rights organizations.

On June 28, 2001, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg dismissed the antitrust lawsuit against Facebook.  The specific reason for the dismissal was that the state’s claims were “legally insufficient and must therefore be dismissed,” saying the government’s case was “light on specific factual allegations.”

The weakness of the state’s complaint calls into question whether the lawsuit was truly filed with the intent of breaking up Facebook.  The complaint relies on facts which occurred many years ago, such as the acquisition of Instagram and WattsApp, events clearly barred by the doctrine of laches, which any lawyer should know.  Although the complaint makes a vague reference to third party apps being suppressed by the Facebook platform, it fails to name any specific injured party.  The Judge ruled that these claims are also “light on specific factual allegations.”

Does a prominent state attorney make it a career practice to prosecute such a half-cooked class-action lawsuit against the most powerful company in the world, or was the entire case merely a way to gain leverage over the Facebook Platform in order to blackmail Facebook into becoming the propaganda machine and top financer of a new communist movement?

I will let you be the Judge.

Resources:

Facebook Donates $200,000 to civil rights organizations and agrees to publish Lift Black Voices Section – The Verge

BLM has not filed IRS Reports on how donations are used – The  Associated Press

See also USA Today’s report on Independent Fact Checkers

AG Leticia James protects BLM Donations – NY OFFICE OF AG

COMPLAINT lacked merit: United States District Court Opinion

 

CALL TO ACTION

Conservatives now support the left’s movement to take over this county every time they open the Facebook Platform.  While it is reasonable to believe your conservative voice needs to be heard on Facebook, the fact is that it will not be heard; and the advertising money you are helping Facebook generate is being donated to a very organized movement to silence you and promote the ideals and agenda of the left.

It is time to organize a permanent boycott of the Facebook Platform — not just by advertisers, but by users.  The social space we have grown to love over the last ten years has become the tool of foolish and dangerous movements to deny your liberty and your country, not to mention your voice.

It will not be difficult for us to build an alternative platform with the same features as Facebook.  And to prevent it from ever becoming a monopoly over any area of social media life, I propose a new business model:  Every user owns the advertising value of their individual space and feed.  In other words, instead of the platform being paid for ads, every user will be paid for the ads displayed under and mixed into their own content.  The ownership of the platform can be divided among the users and creators who contribute to the platform’s value.

If you would like to contribute to this idea, please do.  We need developers and creators.

Sign Up for Wikacy

Download Wikacy App

 

 

P.S.  Ya’ll like apples, right?  How do you like dem apples?

You may also like

Wik Beta
Posted on March 28, 2022 by Daniel
Carmel's Quest
Posted on February 24, 2022 by TheWizard
La Guillotine 2030
Posted on February 7, 2022 by TheWizard
chevron_left
chevron_right

Join the conversation

comment 2 comments
  • Fantasia

    Wow I can’t believe this is not obvious to people. 

Leave a comment