By Joe Bartozzi, NSSF
In recent years, Big Tech has expanded its control over public discourse with platforms like YouTube and Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram), imposing draconian restrictions on firearm-related content. This isn’t just about policy – it’s a blatant affront to our First and Second Amendment rights. A glaring example is McKenna Geer, a Paralympic shooter poised to represent Team USA in Paris.
McKenna’s story is inspirational. Born with congenital amyoplasia arthrogryposis, she has overcome enormous obstacles to compete at the highest levels in shooting sports.
Silencing Competitors
Photo courtesy of Team USA
However, instead of celebrating these triumphs, Meta chose to shadow-ban her for simply sharing sports-related content. Earlier this month, McKenna posted a photo on Instagram of the air rifle she uses to qualify for the Paralympic Games. Meta flagged the photo as violating their guidelines, placing her on a censorship list.
This shadow-banning is not some small speed bump on the road to stardom; it is a deliberate attempt to silence her voice, an attack against her and her sport. She is not just any other athlete. She is a Paralympian who won a bronze medal in the 2016 Rio de Janeiro games. A Big Tech giant that cares more about promoting its antigun agenda than embracing an extraordinary athlete will not permit McKenna to share her journey, engage her fans and attract much-needed sponsors.
A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed from Tim Rupli of USA Shooting explained McKenna’s frustrating social media woes. He cited the CEO of USA Shooting, Kelly Reisdorf, who said: “By silencing an athlete’s voice, you infringe not only on their freedom of expression but subtly on their right to bear arms as well, as these platforms are critical for educating and sharing the legitimate and safe use of firearms in sport.”
McKenna is not alone in facing such censorship. Recently, Meta has also taken similar actions against other athletes, such as Team USA shotgun athlete Conner Prince. The Facebook page of the West Point Rifle Team at the U.S. Military Academy was “unpublished” by Meta, which stated that the page “goes against our Community Standards.”
Muzzling YouTube Content
Take the case of Hickok45, a popular YouTube channel that provides informative, safety-oriented content on firearms. Notwithstanding its popularity, Hickok45 has suffered under repeated censorship by YouTube. In 2016 and 2018, the channel was suspended on the grounds of violations against firearm content policies. These policies expressly prohibit content for the sale of firearms and accessories, instructions on manufacturing firearms and ammunition or installing firearm accessories. Yet, they were stretched to the point of absurdity in order to deplatform this channel.
The latest incident saw all videos posted starting from June 18, along with much of their older content, deleted by YouTube.
The censorship of McKenna Geer, Hickok45, Conner Prince and the West Point Rifle Team are part of a disturbing pattern. Meta, Google and other Big Tech firms have an outsized role in public discourse but actively choose to exclude content from that discourse that pertains to our Second Amendment. This is not about guideline enforcement but narrative control and infringements on our fundamental rights.
We can protect our rights and ensure a balanced and transparent online community. We simply start by standing up and speaking out against ideological, anti-Second Amendment censorship.
Are you for freedom or not? What you are argyfor is straight out of the Left’s playbook. A for profit business has a policy that you don’t like. Well boo-boo. Go to a competitor.
Defacto public square, crooked digital publishing regs, all kinds of monopolistic issues involved, and generally fuck off for being disingenuous.
In addition to SAFEupstate’s comment on the defacto public square, we have a proven history of government aiding, abetting, requesting, and even ordering censorship on these platforms. If we can find a government official who has input into the censorship, then we can take everyone involved to court. Take them to court, and WIN!
With a name like “Gay Cakes”, you’re probably thrilled with bit tech’s censorship policies. They push your gay agenda pretty damned hard, don’t they?
Yeah let’s just entirely ignore the concept of section 230.
Think about all the other loophole whataboutism that actually erodes people’s rights. This absolutely, CLEARLY isn’t a private bakery situation and just saying “private business” is just flat out ignoring the regulatory implications of this.
Let me ask you, if the best place to exercise speech in a meaningful way was online, but literally every website that was predominatly able to cast wide publically was just entirely censoring a specific group of people, all while enjoying govt protections as a platform, would that be ok?
RE: “We can protect our rights and ensure a balanced and transparent online community. We simply start by standing up and speaking out against ideological, anti-Second Amendment censorship.”
Unfortunately there are those obviously without sin on this forum whose idea of Protecting Rights is to broad brush a race with “Usual Suspects.” Then there are those who bark at Defining Gun Control by its History for a Gun Control History illiterate America. And lately there are those who wish to cancel Jennifer’s Free Speech. Bottom line…Gun Control zealots couldn’t ask for better help.
Blacks commit more crime per capita than any other groups and you post retarded shit. What is there to censor?
Freedom IS a two-way street, of course. And private entities are NOT required to abide the Bill of Rights. We all know that the BoR applies to restrict the gov’t from infringing our Rights.
HOWEVER… when a private entity acts on the DIRECTION of the gov’t, it becomes an agent of the gov’t. Now the BoR DOES apply. Both big tech AND the current administration openly admitted to collaborating on censorship. So, yeah… now it’s a 1A issue.
Imagine if AT&T or Verizon began to censor text messages or even voice conversations on the direction of the gov’t. Mind you, they are also considered public utilities, so they can’t censor even WITHOUT the gov’t telling them to do so.
One might (and some have) argue that Facebook, X, and the like are effectively public utilities at this point. But even without that argument, once the gov’t tells Facebook which “misinformation” to censor, FB becomes a gov’t agent. 1A applies.
These aren’t private companies. They are entangled financially (government contracts) and socially (direct censorship requests from White House officials) with the government. As soon as they cut that out, I’ll accept that they are actually private companies.
Sorry if this is a redundant post. Comment didn’t seem to take the first time.
Notice positive portrayals are what get censored while criminal use vids proliferate throughout social media.
Almost as if there’s an intentional effort to make people think about guns in an entirely negative way. I seen to recall Eric Holder taking about doing this very thing.
Exactly! It is entirely an intentional effort to make people think about guns in an entirely negative way. Examples:
News of a mass shooting? Facebook says go ahead, post that far and wide, share, and repost!
News of a US Olympic or Paralympic athlete’s success at her sport? Banned by Facebook.
News of the US Military Academy at West Point and their rifle team? Banned by Facebook.
Reddit is getting in bed with Google to sell their contributors data off to seed AI. Reddit has blocked content off to Microsoft and other people who would likely do otherwise. Reddit always seems at the top while smaller, local forums seem shut out by and large. I can’t imagine how their behavior doesn’t fall under anti trust laws at this point. Betting Google has dirt on lots of pols to be honest and there’s not a lot of interest in going against that kind of money or information. Betting the same on Microsoft too.
LEAKED SECRET SERVICE EMAIL Predicts Another Attempt On Trump!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA-pp9kDS9g
MINNESOTA TRIES TO RUN FROM SCOTUS IN HUGE 2A FIGHT.
Minnesota files a request for en banc review by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses MN’s strategy in the Worth v. Jacobson case involving 18-20 year olds carrying handguns in public for self defense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcYqF4Ltsc0
OK, so, what can WE DO? Is there some channel to Youtube where we can complain, for instance? Or, does it all rely on someone suing Youtube, then waiting for years for it to work it’s way through the court system? How can we lodge a complaint against Facebook for censorship? There must be some method for grass roots efforts to reach the decision makers. Sadly, I don’t know what that method might be.
At some point Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube (including future on-line companies) are going to have to be declared to be a type of public accommodation and have limits with penalties for violations imposed for actions that inhibit free speech. Democrats always seem happy to infringe on someone else’s freedom.
Rusty – Moderated – Chains,
Declaring preeminent social media platforms to be fall under public accommodation is an interesting strategy.
Regardless, the large and much more immediate problem:
— Preeminent social media platforms are claiming immunity for criminal and/or civil actions in response to content on their platforms.
— That immunity only applies if those platforms are open forums without oversight, editing, moderation, or censorship.
— Because those platforms DO exercise control over the content on their forums, they should no longer be immune to criminal and/or civil actions for their content.
If governments will not allow criminal and/or civil actions against the preeminent social media platforms under existing law, why would we expect governments to pass new laws and enforce them to reign-in said platforms?
Let’s be honest: preeminent social media platforms wield too much cash and public influence (e.g. ability to completely control election outcomes) for politicians to take them on.
Guess WordPress is happy to abrogate my speech as well. Clearly they hate it when we pick on their Democrat buddies are called out.
Guess WordPress is happy to abrogate my speech as well. Clearly they hate it when we pick on their Democrat buddies.
You’ve noticed that too?
W0rd,press is more woke than a month long meth binge.
In the past 2 weeks I’ve had more than 5 posts pulled from FB. All of the photos were showing restored classic and antique US and European cars but were pulled by FB due to being “SPAM”, and “just trying to get likes”. Honestly there was nothing else in the photos but the cars. These people are losing their leftist / liberal minds.
Almost want to start an auto and arms publication just to spite the no car + no gun types that are pushing things here in NY. Then I remember I am broke and not suited to writing.
Because automobiles are damaging to the environment?
They want you to use a short-ranged, unreliable, and potentially hazardous EV that will not only report your every journey but also any conversations inside and near outside the vehicle. It will also surveil any locations you drive near and report all wifi services within range. Big tech and the CCP are watching.
Do you one better it is the arresting officer that you paid for. Auto drive and electric locks you cannot override at the flip of a switch to take you to your internment.
A question confused me for a long time. Rifle scope or dot sight, which one is more suitable for AR15 to hunt?I read an article about ar15 scopes. But I am still confused.
https://www.cvlife.com/blogs/news/red-dot-sights-vs-rifle-scope-what-s-the-best-for-ar-16
If the scope is better, how about this kind of LPVO scope? I really want to buy a scope.
https://www.cvlife.com/products/cvlife-1-6×24-lpvo-scope-with-cantilever-mount
Gabe,
Low power variable optic (LPVO) all the way.
Why? Two reasons:
1) Low power variable optics enable magnification (typically at least, what, four-times magnification?) which significantly enhances accuracy at ranges of 100 yards and beyond.
2) Low power variable optics gather light and provide brighter images in low-light and twilight conditions when many game animals present shots. Not only does that increase target discernment, it also helps you to put your point-of-aim in a more precise location. (Your “point of aim” is your cross-hairs when using a rifle scope or your red dot when using a red dot sight.)
On that last point, I have been out hunting when relatively dark deer become visible in relatively dark forest during low light (although still legal light) conditions. It is very hard to determine exactly where the ideal target area (heart/lungs) is in those conditions. And it can be equally hard to align a red dot on the ideal target area. A rifle scope, on the other hand, gathers significantly more light than your eye (and red-dot sights) and actually produces a significantly brighter image of the game animal–including its ideal target area and your scope’s cross-hairs relative to that target area. That enables you to aim exactly where you should be aiming in those low light conditions. (Versus a red dot sight where you are kind of guessing where the ideal target area is in low light.)
At some point I will need to pick one up and see how it compares to an acog in various conditions. For my area 4-6x is about all that is needed for “distance” shooting but always neat to learn about newer options.
SAFEupstateFML,
Most (if not all) low-power variable optics (LPVO) available these days go at least to 6x magnification which is plenty for reasonably accurate shots out to at least 200 yards–and I would argue that is good enough for accurate shots out to 300+ yards.
Low-power variable optics really shine, though, at 1x magnification in close-quarters combat situations because you have an incredibly wide field of view and you can keep both eyes wide open. In that application the optic simply superimposes the reticle (cross-hairs) onto your vision and you see normally except that your reticle is on top of everything that you see. (Even though there is no reticle in front of your other eye, our brains do not seem to have any problem and it almost feels like the reticle is in front of both eyes.)
Needless to say, your entire field of view is ginormous when you can keep both eyes wide open. And yet you can close one eye and use magnification for accurate distance shooting. These things really are the bee’s knees.
SAFEupstateFML,
An important F.Y.I. with respect to low-power variable optics: their exit pupil starts to shrink at 4x magnification and higher. A child’s eye (pupil) fully dilates to 7mm on average and a healthy adult’s pupil fully dilates to anywhere from 5mm to 6mm on average. When your optic’s exit pupil starts to shrink below 5mm to 6mm, you start to lose image brightness and it becomes more difficult to keep your eye (pupil) aligned with the image such that you can see the full field of view.
For reference the exit pupil is simply the diameter of the objective lens divided by the magnification. For example, if your scope’s objective lens is 25mm (1-inch) and you set your magnification to 5x, your exit pupil is 25mm / 5 == 5mm. Similarly, if your scope’s objective lens is 30mm and you set your magnification to 5x, your exit pupil is 30mm / 5 == 6mm.
So, even if your low-power variable optic goes as high as 6x magnification with a 25mm objective lens, you may want to limit yourself to no more than 4x magnification since that results in an exit pupil of 25mm / 4 == 6.25mm. (I recommend trying to maintain at least a 6mm exit pupil in most situations.)
Similarly, if your low-power variable optic goes as high as 8x magnification with a 30mm objective lens, I recommend limiting yourself to no more than 5x magnification since that results in an exit pupil of 30mm / 5 == 6mm.
So marginally heavier than what I am used to but probably easier to look through while being adjustable.
I estimate that low-power variable optic scopes are typically about 10 to 12 ounces heavier than ACOG sights.
On the one hand, 12 ounces doesn’t sound like much. On the other hand, 12 ounces corresponds to a can of soda or beer which, while not exactly heavy per se, is not insignificant either.
In my humble opinion, the pros of a low-power variable optic scope outweigh its only con (several ounces heavier than an ACOG or reflex sight).
Well no reason to not have both as options especially when they are comparitively cheap when you look at optics options from a decade plus ago and factor in inflation. Probably will check that out after something in the gen 3 area night vision section is taken care of.
Comments are closed.