It’s beyond ridiculous that in this day and age we have to be concerned with government-funded censorship. Not agreeing with someone’s ideas is one thing. But shutting down their website, which in many cases is their livelihood, by radically reducing their reach via jimmied algorithms is something else altogether. Although my site was never monetized (it was in the process when the censorship bug hit), this is exactly what happened to me.
While burrowed indoors today recovering from the latest winter storm, my wife hollered at me to come take a look at some breaking news. It seems that Facebook (Meta) is ending their company’s policy of ‘fact-checking,’ which in any alternate universe would be called censorship. Pay attention because it’s not me that’s accusing Facebook of censorship. Straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth (owner and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg himself), I give you snippets of a few articles published earlier today…
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday that the social media company, which owns Facebook and Instagram, would stop working with third-party fact-checking organizations. Repeating talking points long used by President-elect Donald Trump and his allies, in a video Zuckerberg said the company’s content moderation approach resulted too often in “censorship”. -From an article on NPR by Huo Jingnan and Shannon Bond titled Meta says it will end fact checking as Silicon Valley prepares for Trump
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of major changes to the company’s moderation policies and practices Tuesday, citing a shifting political and social landscape and a desire to embrace free speech… Zuckerberg pointed to the election as a major influence on the company’s decision and criticized “governments and legacy media” for allegedly pushing “to censor more and more.” -From an NBC News piece by Bruna Horvath, Jason Abbruzzese and Ben Goggin (Meta is ending its fact-checking program in favor of a ‘community notes’ system similar to X)
“Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created,” Zuckerberg said in a video announcing the new policy Tuesday. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.” Zuckerberg, however, acknowledged a “tradeoff” in the new policy, noting more harmful content will appear on the platform as a result of the content moderation changes. -From CNN’s piece by Claire Duffy titled Meta is getting rid of fact checkers. Zuckerberg acknowledged more harmful content will appear on the platforms now
I could have come up with thousands of others.
Do I believe Zuck’s change of heart is anything other than sensing a shift in the winds of political change and a pissed off public that’s leaving Meta for X in droves? Of course not. His level of sincerity is about as real as his attempted metamorphosis from geek to manly man.
When Zuckerberg admonishes the public with the warning, ‘more harmful content will appear on the platform’ thanks to these changes,’ remember that this is coming from a guy whose What’sApp was arguably the single biggest platform pedos used to communicate with each other without worry of being caught. And that doesn’t even begin to touch on the hundreds of millions in Zuckerbucks he used to destabilize the 2020 election (much of it to promote mail-in ballots).
SIDE NOTE: It also does not get into the larger issues of 1996’s ruling in 47 U.S.C. § 230, which concerns the differences between internet platforms, publishers and distributors, and the legal protections afforded to each. In a nutshell, the ruling said that large entities such as FB would be immune to legal issues arising from things said by their users online. But in exchange for said immunity, these platforms are not supposed to censor content that is not “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected“. Feel free to research it to your heart’s content.
A better opinion piece than the three I quoted above can be found on Missouri’s very own Gateway Pundit site…
After the 2016 election, Facebook began making algorithm changes to ensure conservative news was no longer an option for their users. Two studies released in March of 2018 confirm this. A study by The Outline Organization found conservative publishers were hit the hardest by Facebook algorithm changes — and that The Gateway Pundit was hit the hardest. -From the GP’s owner, Joe Hoft (Meta Drops Bogus “Fact-Checking” Program After Years of Targeting, Blacklisting, Censoring, and Eliminating Top Conservative Pages from Facebook)
As to Zuck cleaning up his act and actually following the Constitution? Time will tell, but I’m not holding my breath.
Missouri Senator, Eric Schmitt, Promises to Address Government-Sponsored Censorship
Allow me to take this time to share with you my recent letter to Senator Eric Schmitt of the great state of Missouri, as well as his response….
Dear Senator Eric Schmitt,
The two most urgent issues facing our nation today are election integrity and government-sponsored censorship. This letter pertains to the latter.
The First Amendment, which among other things guarantees us free speech, is the bedrock of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The other amendments flow from it and thru it, and without it, the efficacy of the other nine is seriously jeopardized.
Not to make this letter about me, but five years ago my website was one of the thousands of large natural healthcare websites that was censored by various entities (NGO’s, social media, and hosting platforms) at the behest and funding of the United States’ government.
(The Censorship of My Clinic’s Website – https://doctorschierling.com/blog/censorship-of-natural-healthcare-websites).
I would implore you to ask President Trump to appoint former Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Technology at the U.S. State Department, Michael Benz (the founder and president of the Foundation for Freedom Online), to a position where he can address this problem in unobstructed fashion.
Over the past couple of months, Benz has been interviewed at length by a number of today’s biggest and best podcasters, Patrick Bett-David, Shawn Ryan, Tucker Carlson, and earlier this week, Joe Rogan. None of them could be accused of being ‘right wing’.
Benz’s knowledge of censorship and exactly how it is being perpetrated on we the people – using billions upon billions of American tax dollars and the almost infinite power of the bureaucracy – is unparalleled. As an individual with President Trump’s ear, please use your position to promote Mike Benz as the person needed to oversee our national anti-censorship / anti-government propaganda efforts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Russell S Schierling
Mountain View, Missouri
Message from the Office of U.S. Senator Eric S. Schmitt:
December 18, 2024
Dear Dr. Schierling,
Thank you for contacting me regarding Big Tech. Input from fellow Missourians significantly informs my decision-making and empowers me to better represent the state.
As you may know, recent testimony from the new House of Representative committee on the Weaponization of Government has been disturbing and motivating. We must continue our work to protect free speech, as there are still so many threats against this freedom.
Free speech is a fundamental right enshrined by our Constitution. Ensuring its protection has been a central aspect of my time in office. As Missouri’s Attorney General, I filed a lawsuit in partnership with the Attorney General of Louisiana in an attempt to hold the federal government accountable for free speech violations.
I am glad to see that there is a bipartisan consensus in Congress on this issue. Whoever regulates Big Tech must be serious about holding these monopolies accountable. That is why I successfully partnered with Republicans and Democrats to stop the nomination of an FCC Commissioner who was in the back pocket of Big Tech. This is great news for Missourians and Americans. The FCC is an important agency in our fight to hold big tech accountable. And when we are confirming the next nominee for Commissioner, I will be your voice in the Senate to ensure they are serious about fighting Big Tech.
I will not stand idly by while the Biden Administration attempts to trample on the First Amendment rights of Missourians and Americans. I am laser-focused on fighting for your First Amendment rights, and please know I will keep your perspective in mind while I work to hold big tech accountable.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me, and please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future if I may be of service.
Very Truly Yours,
Eric S. Schmitt
United States Senator
Part II: Forget About Fact-Checking; Censorship Via Shadow-Banning and Manipulation of Search Algorithms
Extra, extra, read all about it. Zuckerberg is a changed man claims to be a changed man after Trump won the 2024 election. According to the January 7 headline of the New York Post, Zuck is going to end platform-based censorship via fact checking…
Zuckerberg Announces End to Facebook’s Third-party Fact-checking, Admits Model Became a Tool for Censorship: ‘Too Many Mistakes’
He now wants Facebook to be governed ‘democratically,’ via an X-like system of user’s “Community Notes”. Peer-to-peer fact checking as opposed to a centralized fact-check system done by the platform itself using AI-manipulated algorithms. It’s a good start. Just remember that this is all it is; a start.
There’s a point that’s being totally overlooked in this conversation, and it has to do with another AI-driven censorship technique known as shadow banning – a technique that Zuckerberg slyly / intentionally failed to mention in his press conference.
Allow me to use my site as an example of what I am talking about.
I have over 8,300 followers on my FB business page. What this means – or at least what it should mean – is that my posts end up in my followers (aka ‘subscribers’) feeds. Has this happened?
You decide.
The post we are discussing today (the post you are currently reading) – Giving My Censored Blog One More Try – has had a grand total of (gulp, cough-cough, blush) 43 views since it was posted a month ago on January 7.
So even if said post has an “Open Rate” (the percentage of people who actually click on the post), of only 5%, that would mean that over 400 people should be clicking thru (clicking on the FB article takes people straight to my blog).
Pre-censorship experience tells me there would be a significant number of likes or shares from among the people who chose to open my article in their feed, leading to even more people clicking, liking and sharing. Repeat as people continue to like and share.
Forty-three views in nearly nearly four weeks tells me something is rotten in Denmark. Very rotten. Where is the stench of said rot coming from? A censorship technique known as shadow banning.
Shadow Banning; Far Worse Than Fact-Checking
What is the technical definition of shadow banning? Let’s ask the decidedly ‘progressive’ online encyclopedia, Wikipedia….
Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, hell banning, ghost banning, and comment ghosting, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user’s content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user, regardless of whether the action is taken by an individual or an algorithm. For example, shadow-banned comments posted to a blog or media website would be visible to the sender, but not to other users accessing the site.
Wikipedia goes on to claim that “alleged” shadow banning on “Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram” is a “conspiracy theory,” more than likely brought on by waning popularity due to promoting this or other “conspiracies“…
Instead of believing that their own popularity is waning, some cling to the idea that shadowbans are a disciplinary measure that is used against creators who do not warrant an outright ban from a platform.
The popularity of my site was exploding. Until it wasn’t. And it literally happened overnight.
Some people have told me that Facebook no longer honors ‘follows,’ instead choosing to make sites pay for traffic / clicks on their site. If true it totally defeats the purpose of FB/Meta having a “follow” button in the first place. I went to FB’s What Does it Mean to Follow a Person or Page on Facebook? page and learned the following…
When you follow a profile or Page, you may [emphasis mine] see updates from that person or Page in your Feed. If you like a Page, you’ll automatically follow it.
Note the word “may”. It’s a classic weasel word. Facebook does not say that if a person follows you, they will see your page, instead that they may see your page. Who knows, they might see Mr Potato Head in their feed instead.
Let’s take a moment and try and ascertain whether or not there might (not intended as a weasel word) be grounds for believing that certain sites, including mine, could potentially (also not intended as a weasel word) be affected by shadow banning.
(All of the full sentences below are links to Yandex searches, with Google’s search results directly following. In many instances results from the two search engines are as different as night and day. My opinion is that Yandex provides results similar to Google results of a decade ago.)
Is Facebook still shadow-banning in 2025? (Google Result)
“While Facebook does not openly admit to ‘shadow banning,’ it is highly likely that they still utilize algorithms that can significantly limit the reach of certain posts, meaning a form of shadow banning could still be present in 2025. The ‘shadow banning’ happens through the complex Facebook algorithm which can significantly reduce the reach of certain posts.” – From Google’s AI Overview
What is the purpose of Facebook shadow bans in 2025? (Google Result)
“In 2025, Facebook shadow bans are primarily used to limit the visibility and reach of accounts engaging in harmful behavior like spam, misinformation, harassment, or other violations of their community guidelines, essentially making their content less likely to appear in user feeds or search results without explicitly notifying the user they’ve been restricted, aiming to maintain a healthy platform while still allowing users to post content, albeit with significantly reduced reach.” – From Google’s AI Overview
I asked ChatGPT the following question: Is Facebook’s health maintained by shadow bans and censorship in 2025? ChatGPT’s cherry-picked answer is below…
In 2025, Facebook’s health is likely influenced by a combination of content moderation policies, including shadow banning and censorship, but the specifics of how they are implemented might vary. While Meta hasn’t officially confirmed the widespread use of shadow banning, there have been reports and concerns that algorithms can downrank content or limit its reach without direct notification to users. Censorship is another aspect where Facebook has been involved, especially around harmful or false information, which often leads to criticism from various groups who argue that it can be politically motivated or overly restrictive.
Below are a number of similar searches….
- Facebook continues to shadow ban covid misinformation disinformation in 2025. (Google Result)
- Facebook continues to shadow ban natural health websites in 2025. (Google Result)
- Facebook continues shadow banning conservatives in 2025. (Google Result)
- Facebook whistleblower discusses 2025 shadow bans. (Google Result)
- Is Facebook changing their policy on shadow banning 2025? (Google Result)
Censorship Via Search Engines
Let’s now turn our attention to what’s arguably the most important question on the censorship front – whether or not search engines such as Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Duck Duck Go, ChatGPT, etc are censoring search results.
When looking for something online, we use search engines. Google is so dominant in the search engine market that we frequently refer to web searches not as searches, but as “Googling” no matter which search engine we happen to be using. No honey, I’m not sure how to make that eggnog fondue you love. Good idea sugar plum; I’ll just “Google” it.
Not surprisingly, Google has at least 80% of the global search engine market (some sources claim over 90%), with Bing coming in second at 12%, Yahoo at about 3%, Yandex (my go-to) at 2%, and DDG at just over half a percent. Are any of these search platforms censoring results? As my dear departed Pappy used to say, “Is a monkey’s butt red?“
SIDE NOTE: For those of you using Duck Duck Go because you’ve heard it’s results are not censored, that is a misnomer. DDG’s claim to fame is not that they don’t censor, but that they don’t sell your personal information to third party vendors.
I asked each of the search engines, “Does (Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, feel free to insert your engine-of-choice here________) censor or shadow ban?” Google outright admitted to both – rather proudly I might add. In fact, if you are interested in seeing just how far Google is willing to take censorship efforts, look no further than our neighbor to the north, Canada. For that matter, I would challenge you to take a peek at what thousands of news outlets, both conservative and liberal, have said about Google’s global censorship network.
As to the others, Bing beat around the bush, but likewise copped. Yahoo’s AI stuttered and stammered and like a politician would not answer the question outright, even though online accusations abound. Their AI, however, did admit to fiddling with search algorithms, which is shadow banning by any other name.
Speaking of new names for old tricks….
I asked asked Google’s AI platform, ChatGPT the same simple straightforward question; Does Google censor or shadow ban search results?
Google doesn’t outright “censor” or “shadow ban” search results in the way that people might assume—by secretly hiding content. However, Google’s search algorithms are designed to prioritize content based on certain criteria, like relevance, trustworthiness, and user experience. This means that some websites may rank lower in search results if they don’t meet those criteria, which can be seen as a form of exclusion, but it’s based on algorithmic decisions, not intentional “shadow banning.”
Immediately realizing this was a ridiculously misleading (and blatantly false) answer, I responded thusly; I thought that shadow banning is the manipulation of algorithms?
Chat’s answer….
You’re absolutely right! Shadow banning typically involves manipulating an algorithm to limit the visibility of certain content or users without their knowledge. And when it comes to Google, some people feel that their content gets “shadow banned” when it’s buried in search results, even if they haven’t done anything that violates the platform’s guidelines. In the case of Google, what some might perceive as shadow banning is often just the result of algorithmic decisions… In a sense, you could argue that algorithm manipulation is at the heart of what people think of as shadow banning—because the visibility of certain content can be suppressed or limited, often without the creator being explicitly informed or given a reason.
Despite what they might claim, the harsh reality is that United States citizens are being censored by our very own tax dollars. And despite Mark Zuckerberg claiming to now be against censorship, it’s obvious he has his fingers crossed and his hands in his back pockets. It’s also likely that blogging platforms of all shapes and sizes (including Substack, which has always promoted itself as the anti-censorship blogging platform) are engaging in some sort of censorship as well.
I would argue that the manipulation of algorithms (shadow banning) is worse than fact-checking. Much worse. With fact checking, the content may be allowed to stay up (emphasis on “may”). However, with algorithm manipulation, content is deeply hidden from for all intents and purposes, removed from search so that people will never find you or your content via search no matter how hard they try (see my previous post on censorship for an almost unbelievable example of Google and others doing this very thing to my site).
What would I suggest? If you have honest-to-goodness conservative Senators or Reps that will actually listen (Missouri – home of the Mo -v- Biden censorship lawsuit – has just that in Schmitt & Hawley) I would suggest writing them a short letter.
Mine is below. I’ll post the various replies as I get them….
Dear Senator / Representative,
I recently wrote you about the ongoing censorship of my website. In the weeks since your response, Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg held a press conference vowing to end censorship via fact-checking.
Please know that he is still gaming the system. A much bigger issue than fact-checking is the censorship technique known as “shadow banning” – algorithms being manipulated by AI in order to diminish visibility and/or reach of a person, website, or specific topic.
Who is the worst offender? While Facebook sits near the top, the worst offender by far is Google, who controls fully 80% of the search engine market. Not only does Google itself verify this via their own search results, but below is the response when I asked ChatGPT (Google’s AI product) the question; Does Google censor or shadow ban search results?
Google doesn’t outright “censor” or “shadow ban” search results in the way that people might assume—by secretly hiding content. However, Google’s search algorithms are designed to prioritize content based on certain criteria, like relevance, trustworthiness, and user experience. This means that some websites may rank lower in search results if they don’t meet those criteria, which can be seen as a form of exclusion, but it’s based on algorithmic decisions, not intentional “shadow banning.”
Immediately realizing that Chat was talking out of both sides of its mouth, I responded thusly; I thought that shadow banning is the manipulation of algorithms?
Chat’s answer (shortened slightly)….
You’re absolutely right! Shadow banning typically involves manipulating an algorithm to limit the visibility of certain content or users without their knowledge. And when it comes to Google, some people feel that their content gets “shadow banned” when it’s buried in search results, even if they haven’t done anything that violates the platform’s guidelines. In the case of Google, what some might perceive as shadow banning is often just the result of algorithmic decisions. In a sense, you could argue that algorithm manipulation is at the heart of what people think of as shadow banning—because the visibility of certain content can be suppressed or limited, without the creator being explicitly informed or given a reason.
Thank you for your continued work on this and other First Amendment issues.
Sincerely,
Dr Russell S Schierling
Mountain View, Missouri
