Today the White House Showed it Is More Interested in Policing Conservative Social Media “Bias” than Hate Speech

“No matter your views, if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online, we want to hear about it!”

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Instead of backing an international effort to curb the rise of hate speech online, the White House opted on Wednesday to focus on alleged bias from tech companies against political conservatives.

The “Christchurch Call” pactā€”supported by 18 other governments, including New Zealand, Canada, Jordan, and the United Kingdomā€”aims to reduce extremist content online by outlining new policies and methods for governments and technology companies to address extremism with. The Trump administration announced its decision not to join its erstwhile allies on Wednesday morning.

Then, just hours later, it unveiled a new online portal asking social media users to submit examples of alleged political bias.

“No matter your views, if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online, we want to hear about it!” the White House’s official Twitter account tweeted, with a link to the survey. In the form, the White House asks complainants for contact information “in case we need to get in touch.”

The move tracks with the GOP’s ongoing political attack on technology companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Prominent internet conservatives, like Jack Posobiec and Donald Trump Jr., and elected Republicans, including President Trump, have attacked tech companies for more than a year for their alleged “discriminatory and illegal practice[s],” in the words of the president.

Despite their accusations, there isn’t firm data supporting the argument that tech companies are partial along ideological lines. Many conservative accounts have been suspended on major tech platforms; so have many accounts on the left. The highest profile examples of so-called bias are often, in fact, a matter of far-right figures egregiously violating the platforms’ terms of service. Trump booster and internet troll Jacob Wohl, for example, was banned from Twitter after creating a set of duplicitous accounts for the purpose of spreading false political information. Infowars creator Alex Jones was banned from all major platforms after a number of violationsā€”spreading hate speech and inciting harassment over the course of years, including spearheading a long-term hoax that the mass shooting victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School were not real. 

Many conservatives also complain of being “shadow banned”ā€”the supposed suppression of conservative content by the platforms as it spreadsā€”but in actuality, right-wing content sometimes outperforms liberal and non-partisan content.  

While conservative bias lacks evidence, statistics do show an increase in the volume of hate speech and hate crime in the USā€”the very things the Christchuch Call pact wants to counter. Hate crime incidents spiked by 20 percent last year alone. While it’s a little more difficult to pinpoint numbers for online hate speech, data suggests that this has increased as well. 

We also know that the shooter who massacred individuals at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March was radicalized online, and he posted his racist manifesto and a link to the livestream of the shooting on 8chan, an American founded imageboard that has become a notorious hub for some of the internet’s worst bigotry. 

Still, in the face of this clear increase in hate, the White House opted to not endorse the New Zealand-led call to action against hate speech. In a tepid statement, the White House said, “The United States stands with the international community in condemning terrorist and violent extremist content online in the strongest terms,” caveating that it is “not currently in a position to join the endorsement” due to free speech concerns. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate