Fox Business reports, “Meta, the company that owns Facebook, has reinstated the ads account of the conservative children’s book publisher, Heroes of Liberty, after it previously told the publisher that its account had been ‘permanently disabled.’

Facebook originally said that Heroes of Liberty – which has published books about Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, former President Ronald Reagan and author Thomas Sowell – violated the company’s rules against ‘Low Quality or Disruptive Content.’ Facebook originally locked the ads account on Dec. 23, and after Heroes of Liberty appealed the ruling, the company permanently disabled the account.

Seriously Facebook? https://t.co/Kj4mbQtntv

— Martha MacCallum (@marthamaccallum) January 4, 2022

‘I wanted to let you know that the ads account was disabled in error and has been restored,’ Drew Pusateri, a spokesperson for Meta, told FOX Business on Monday…

Mandel suggested that Facebook caved to a vocal minority of users who claimed that Heroes of Liberty was disruptive.

‘There was a small but noisy group of responders to our ads who didn’t like the fact we published books about Ronald Reagan, Thomas Sowell and Amy Coney Barret; people we called Heroes of Liberty,’ she told FOX Business. ‘They made nasty comments, especially about Reagan, and about us for publishing these books and even shared their desire to burn them.”

Read the entire story.

The post Why would Facebook ban a conservative children’s book publisher? appeared first on Liberty Tree.

Reason’s Robby Soave writes, “There are many Republicans and Democrats who want to scrap Section 230 entirely: President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump, Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) have all denounced the statute’s protections for Big Tech companies. Getting rid of Section 230 wouldn’t solve the problem of overly aggressive fact-checking and content moderation, though. On the contrary, it could very well exacerbate it. The more liability Facebook is subjected to, the less permissive it is likely to be.

Facebook labelled one of my articles “false information” and threatened to punish @reason because of it. So I contacted the third-party fact checker, Science Feedback. They admitted they screwed up (!) and changed their evaluation. Bizarre.https://t.co/BTuqifokW5

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) December 29, 2021

But that doesn’t mean the status quo is particularly satisfying. It’s good that the fact-checker reversed course in my case, but needless to say, Facebook should revisit its formal, contractual relationship with an organization that routinely misquotes the people it scrutinizes.”

Read the entire column.

The post Facebook ‘fact-checkers’ labeled my article ‘false information’ – and then admitted they were wrong appeared first on Liberty Tree.

John Stossel writes at the New York Post, “Facebook is a private company, so it can censor whomever it wants. But what Facebook is doing lately is just sleazy.

Recently, I sued them because they defamed me. They, along with one of their ‘fact-checkers,’ a group called Science Feedback, lied about me and continue to lie about me.

Who knew facebook ‘fact’ checks are simply opinion. That’s what facebook lawyers are now arguing.https://t.co/jdCnFQ6ldQ

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 14, 2021

Now Facebook has responded to my lawsuit in court.

Amazingly, their lawyers now claim that Facebook’s ‘fact-checks’ are merely ‘opinion’ and therefore immune from defamation.

Wait — Facebook’s fact-checks are just ‘opinion’?! I thought fact-checks are statements of fact.”

Read the entire column.

The post Facebook now claims its ‘fact-checks’ are just opinion? appeared first on Liberty Tree.

Both Democrats & Republicans are after #Section230 & claim it’s for your protection against Big Tech.

But guess who is also lobbying regulations….Big Tech.

You’re being played.

My latest:https://t.co/wtYk1OgcBw

— Hannah Cox (@HannahDCox) October 21, 2021

FEE’s Hannah Cox writes, “Why would Facebook lobby for its own regulation, especially for regulations that enforce what they’re mostly already doing? Easy. Zuckerberg and the rest of his team know that competitors and start-ups would have a much harder time positioning themselves for success under the new regulatory framework. Such systems would be expensive to develop and maintain, after all.”

Read the entire column.

The post Facebook Is trying to look like the good guy on Section 230. Don’t buy it appeared first on Liberty Tree.