Content Disallowed And Disappeared

by The Webmaster

Content Disallowed And Disappeared

This is a page for us to keep track of the various measures covertly taken by the social media platform Facebook. It should be read as a case study on how Facebook seek to undermine pages on the right. Measures include deleting post content, giving penalties, withdrawing the deletions on appeal and restoring posts but leaving penalty restrictions in place; covertly choking page traffic without justification or notification; adding later-day justifications to offer a semblance of administrative justification and reputation damage limitation; banning us from posting links to the mainstream articles we share, etc., etc. Why stay? We continue to use Facebook solely because over 70% of UK adults use the platform at some time or other and our role is not to live in a political bubble but to interact more widely. 

The institutional bias of this organisation though makes it a clear danger to Western democracies which completely dwarfs the supposed 'Russian threat' which provided the surrogate excuse for all these measures in the first place. If one organisation is absorbing 70% of social media interaction and is a key news and information source, then that makes their provable bias politically dangerous. We call for stout political action against them. To our reckoning, the best methods will come from attacking their weak points in areas of monopolistic behaviour, data privacy and aggregation and to have them listed as a 'publisher' as they seek to manage content so carefully. For background information on how they justified deletion of our previous page for the crime of having a lion logo(!), see here. It's really quite simple. If political organisations on the right do not respond appropriately to these challenges, then their influence will be squashed as social media continues to be a key information sharing and interaction point for the global public. There was much talk about the glorious liberty and freedom of the world wide web, but the promotion of key players as the primary content resources to funnel internet users through is almost as bad as back in the old mainstream media cartel days. Any review of Facebook by our political friends should also consider the inherent bias of it's 'standards', enforcing inclusivity (no criticism of any groups defined by sex, religion, national background, sexual identity etc) which bakes in the bias, institutionally. Our criticisms of Facebook's policies can be found here.

Clear Instances of Facebook bias:

19th September, 2019 (Traditional Britain Group - 'Under Attack' page)

Facebook are rolling over this 7 day penalty (see explanation below this one) on a thrice daily basis so it will never potentially end. A group moderator from a patriotic / immigration page also informs us that she is under a similar ban and exactly the same pushing back of the date is occurring at exactly the same time as us. She's not connected to our page. It's a clearly centrally coordinated reaction of Facebook's to attack populist pages. Here's our latest notification below.

17th September, 2019 (Traditional Britain Group - 'Under Attack' page)

This is a new one for us. No notice, no explanation, but now we can't share links. Our posts have been receiving a lot of shares, that's clearly why. All mainstream news articles. They can't hit us with a community strike, so this is the alternative.


17th September, 2019 (Traditional Britain Group Lifeboat page)

A week after they admitted that restrictions were placed on our page, they just roll it over for another week. No explanation. No response to the appeal made 7 days before. Just blanket exclusion from feeds.

11th September, 2019 (Traditional Britain Group Lifeboat page)

For over a month (September 2019) Facebook has been covertly choking traffic without notice on all three of our Facebook pages including on our Lifeboat page. It became more pronounced after a video of boys cycling through an Asda in Brighton started to be well-shared. Now Facebook has lately come up with a new ruse. They admit restrictions have been placed, they don't tell you why and they say it's 'temporary'. You can 'appeal' and that appeal is not responded to.

Yet as our reports show, these restrictions are much more long-standing and we have continually error reported them. Our reports have been routinely 1) viewed, 2) ignored, 3) case closed. Just two are screenshot below (from weekly reports) proving our point.

Late August 2019 (Facebook Under Attack)

Facebook removed a video post that was being well shared causing a big spike in people following the page for "Community Standards" - it was of a community fight in Gloucester. This was appealed immediately and unusually almost as immediately the appeal was accepted, almost as if they were expecting it. But the restrictions placed on the page stayed and remain at this time almost month later (September). Link to source #

July 2019 (Facebook Under Attack) Global Warming 'fake news'

Facebook's "Independent Fact Checker"device was brought in as an answer to allegations of Russian 'fake news'. Yet in looking both at the background of those authorised to conduct these checks and the kinds of content selected, we again see a skewing against those who disrupt the broad liberal consensus.

In July 2019 the global media shared a story about a Finnish academic paper on the overestimation of man's impact on global warming. It was picked up by Reuters and all the main British newspapers produced articles on the subject. The original paper was shared on an academic site in June and had been covered in various ecology and global warming blogs for a month before being picked up by a publisher called Summit News. The following day several other publications covered it including Zero Hedge. The next day it went viral globally. Our FUA page has 10 admins. Two of them shared an article on following days from separate mainstream publications on the subject. Days after this both of these were deemed 'fake news' (dun, dun, dun) by a CNN journalist now a hired gun for Facebook. Their complaint? ZeroHedge had covered the story (not originated the story) and they hadn't included enough critical scientific mud-slinging in this contentious academic area. Look at the other cherry-picked content on Hoax Stories' page. It's now over two  months later. These two articles have been used as Facebook's excuse to restrict our page reach, effectively making us invisible taking us from a million views per week to a couple of thousand. This is how they work. And more chillingly as Facebook penalises publications that share content with which it disagrees all of the world's media removed the articles in question from their online sites to ensure their pieces would continue to be shared on the platform. Joseph Stalin's Russia had nowhere near as much influence to manage the news.

In line with the recently stated intentions of the Silicon Stasi to hide certain types of content from public view, we decided to create a page to outline what some of this content was for social media watchers.


1: The Shahada

(12th February, 2019 - Facebook) Our first piece is of a man of Muslim faith having a senile old lady recite the Shahada (usually used in a conversion declaration) in what appears to be a hospital bed. Clearly this is a public interest issue in that this gentleman is potentially abusing a position of trust or decency and he has recorded his 'good works' and shared it online.

Clearly also, it does not go against any 'hate speech' standards, it does not make the particular individual case, a general criticism (i.e. of Islam) but Facebook have decided that due to the protected characteristics of the party - his faith -  that it needs to be hidden from public view anyway, at least to our readership.

Consider the cumulative effect of these policies of the Facebook censors on the public culture that are then called upon to make voting or other decisions. Social media is fast headed back towards the attitudes of the old mainstream media in managing consent and restricting content from public view.


Content on the Traditional Britain Blog and Journal does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Traditional Britain Group