‘Big Tech’ plays a huge and ever-expanding role in our lives. Without a thought, we now trust platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter to inform us about the latest trends in culture, the products we want, and the news stories that matter.
But over the last year or so, evidence has been mounting that big tech is biased. Disgruntled employees are leaving Silicon Valley with stories of systemic prejudice. Organisations have formed, claiming that the companies we trust are using their power to silence conservative viewpoints and favour progressive ones.
Could it all be true?
I first became aware of this issue not through news stories but through my own experience. I began a blog back in 2014. Like many bloggers, I’ve since worked hard to increase my readership and visibility, relying mostly on Facebook for traffic. I’d been seeing great progress—until around a year ago, when my stats began to stagnate.
Maybe the explanation is simple: I’ve become irrelevant. As I’ve pondered this, it seems an unlikely reason, given that in the same period I’ve had many articles published by websites with readership in the tens of thousands.
Ultimately I can only speculate about causes, since big tech companies are tight-lipped about their techniques. But in May this year, something ominous happened.
A close friend shared one of my articles, only to be told by one of his Facebook friends, “I just posted this to a Christian Group Page I am a member of and received a warning from the Facebook Admin for posting inappropriate content.”
What was so evil about my article that it violated Facebook’s ‘community standards’? Well, in advance of Australia’s federal election, I explained that Christian values can be found on both sides of politics—but given Labor’s policy platform this year, I couldn’t in good conscience vote for them. That’s all. Read it here.
This wasn’t the first time I’d heard of ‘conservative’ content being censored, so I decided to do some research. What I discovered about big tech’s track record was worse than I’d imagined.
1. Google fires its first whistleblower
The first story of substance begins in July 2017, and it centres around Google employee James Damore who sent an internal memo highlighting what he called Google’s ‘ideological echo chamber’.
The company, he complained, was guilty of ‘reverse discrimination’ against conservatives, white people, and men. In response to his complaint, Google fired him.
Damore is currently pursuing legal action against the big tech giant.
2. Twitter allegedly ‘shadow-bans’ Republicans
A year later—in July last year—it came to light that Twitter was using a technique called ‘shadow-banning’ to make prominent Republicans less visible on their platform. When this blatant bias was exposed by VICE News, Twitter adjusted their platform overnight.
3. Facebook whistleblower quits
The next company to show cracks was Facebook. The following month, Brian Amerige, a senior Facebook engineer, made a post on the company’s internal message board with the title, “We Have a Problem With Political Diversity”. He wrote:
“We are a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views. We claim to welcome all perspectives, but are quick to attack—often in mobs—anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”
PragerU’s videos focus on America’s founding values, and they’ve been viewed online over 2.3 billion times. But currently over 100 of their videos—or a full 10 percent of their video library—are flagged as ‘restricted’ on YouTube, making them difficult for young people to access.
In February of this year, another Facebook employee became a whistleblower in a bid to expose the company’s bias.
According to the anonymous source, Facebook’s political bias isn’t just the result of human action—it’s built into the very code of the website. The programmed feature is known as “deboosting” and is reportedly used to make conservative figures less visible on the platform.
6. Twitter and Google censor pro-life movie
In April, the highly successful pro-life movie Unplanned had its Twitter account suspended. After public outcry, Twitter restored the account, but with almost all of its 200,000 followers removed, and other users unable to follow it.
When Owens made this news public on Twitter, Facebook was quick to restore her account, apologising for what it called a misunderstanding.
But the same week, a company insider claimed that Facebook keeps a list of what it calls ‘hate agents’, which included Owens before her account was shut down. A Facebook spokeswoman later confirmed the existence of the list.
In May again, Facebook censored the advertisement of a pro-life foundation in Ireland. The image was blocked with a caption that read, “this photo may be sensitive to some people”—but what was in fact blocked was an animation of a healthy pre-born baby inside the womb.
Facebook later removed the filter, explaining that there had been a misunderstanding.
9. Facebook censors author for protesting censorship
Yet more happened in May of this year. In an ironic twist, Michelle Malkin, a high-profile author and commentator, was censored on Facebook for protesting the censorship of two other conservative figures, Laura Loomer and Gavin McInnes.
In her post, she wrote, “They are banned from Facebook and Instagram for exercising their free speech—while violent jihad groups are allowed on these platforms to spread their murderous poison… I do not know how much longer it will be before I am next.”
She was next. Facebook removed her post, saying that it was a violation of their ‘community standards.’
10. Twitter suspends user for claiming men and women are different
Also in May, the director of Heritage Foundation Media, Greg Scott, had his Twitter account suspended for engaging in ‘hateful conduct’. What the prominent figure had in fact done was criticise men who identify as women and compete in women’s sport with unfair biological advantage.
Only a week earlier, Twitter had done the same thing to Ray Blanchard, a Ph.D. psychologist from University of Toronto, for calling transgenderism a “mental disorder”. In Blanchard’s case, Twitter reinstated his account, apologising for their error.
11. University study reveals Google political bias
In May this year again, a study conducted by Northwestern University found that 86 percent of Google’s top news stories over the course of a month came from a narrow band of left-leaning news sites. CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post appeared most often in these searches.
This came after a separate study revealed that 90 percent of political donations by Google employees had gone to Democratic candidates.
12. Google fires a second whistleblower
Just last month, Google software engineer Mike Wacker was fired after he criticised the company’s anti-conservative bias in a cable news interview.
He’d previously written a controversial open letter describing ‘outrage mobs’ at the company who “will hunt down any conservative, any Christian, and any independent free thinker at Google who does not bow down to their agenda.”
13. Pinterest bans prominent pro-life group
Also in June this year, Pinterest permanently banned the pro-life organisation Live Action from their platform. Incredibly, Pinterest claimed that Live Action disseminates “medical misinformation and conspiracies that turn individuals and facilities into targets for harassment and violence”.
Earlier in the year, users on Pinterest had been complaining of difficulty pinning Live Action’s content on their pinboards. The reason for this became clear when Eric Cochran, a software engineer from Pinterest, blew the whistle on his own company. He revealed that Pinterest had secretly placed the pro-life group on a list of banned pornography websites.
When Pinterest learned of this, they responded in the most inglorious of ways, by having security escort him from the building—making it clear that he’d been fired.
14. Google executive filmed hoping to prevent Trump’s re-election
In what has been the most widely-reported revelation of big tech bias, last month a senior Google executive was caught on an undercover video. In the video, she suggests that the search engine giant hopes to stop “the next Trump situation” in the upcoming election.
Jen Gennai, Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation, was responding to the idea that Google should be broken up into smaller, less powerful, companies. She was filmed saying,
“Smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation… a small company cannot do that.”
She went on:
“We all got screwed over in 2016… the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like everybody got screwed over so we’ve rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”
The footage, uploaded to YouTube, was quickly removed, with YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, citing its privacy guidelines.
Following the revelation, Google of course denied that they are working to alter the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
Among those labeled in this way were Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager. Ironically, the latter two are in fact Jewish. The document also suggested that their content should be removed from the suggestion feature—the dropdown box that appears as a user begins to type in the search engine.
Who Will Be Next?
Perhaps some of the whistleblowers who’ve come forward exaggerate their case, or have even indulged in outright dishonesty. And maybe some of the censorship that took place in these stories was genuinely mistaken.
But it seems unlikely that all of these situations can be explained in such a way. As many have pointed out, these ‘mistakes’ continue to happen almost exclusively to conservative personalities and ideas.
What’s concerning is that the stories I’ve retold here have only come to light because the people affected were high-profile enough to matter to the media. My story was untold until now: doubtless there are many more everyday people like me affected.
This leaves us with one lingering question: who will be next? Based on how quickly big tech bias has accelerated in the last year, it seems to be a question of when and who, not if.
Many who discuss this issue contend that since social media and search engine companies are private enterprises, they can choose who and what takes up space on their platforms—so this isn’t really an issue of free speech.
There is merit to this perspective. But it’s also true that these companies now function in a very similar way to the utilities we use daily, like electricity, roads and gas. Intended or not, Facebook, Google and Twitter are now significant gatekeepers of the internet and therefore, culture.
As such, when these companies draw lines as they surely are entitled to do, they should apply rules consistently, regardless of politics—and they should do so with the lightest possible touch.
Surely people are best served when public spaces, including online ones, are a battleground of ideas, not a battleground against ideas.
Until something changes, it’s likely that many progressive voices, unaffected by big tech bias, will deny that any bias exists, and that free speech isn’t under threat.
When I hear this, I will simply recall the mantra I’ve heard from progressive circles for years now: privilege is invisible to those who have it.
We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.
Fake news and big-tech censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate today.
Journey to Bethlehem takes the story of Jesus' birth and repackages it as an upbeat and joy-filled family-fun musical adventure. Support this film so that more quality Christian movies hit the big screen!
Activists within the pro-LGBT Methodist Church claimed Edwards’ words “distressed” co-workers. They accused the father of five of engaging in behaviour that “was extremely damaging”, arguing that he was also potentially hurting the organisation’s “business plan”.