What Exactly Does Big Tech Consider “Dangerous?”

Unless you’ve been camping in the wilderness for the past week or so, you probably already know about the latest Silly-Con Valley crackdown on “problematic” right wing voices. This time it was spearheaded by Facebook (along with its wholly-owned subsidiary, Instagram) who not only handed out the Big Zucc to Alex Jones, Milo, Laura Loomer, and Paul Joseph Watson, but demonetized and “deboosted” several conservative facebook pages, including this one.

The sudden deplatforming was bad enough, but the arbitrary and capricious (and quite frankly nakedly partisan) nature of these latest cases was only more starkly illuminated by the fact Facebook couldn’t even cite any objective, articulable standards or discrete examples of clear violations from their latest victims. Instead, they made an oblique, handwaving reference to an “extensive process of evaluation” that left many (including some on the Left) with more questions than answers.

Top. Men.

Even Slate’s April Glaser found herself disconcerted enough to pause momentarily in an otherwise smugly celebratory piece to ponder the downsides of abstruse moderation policies:


Pay special attention to that last sentence: don’t you just LOVE secret rules and unpredictable enforcement?

So then, what exactly does “dangerous” mean to the pussy-hatted soyboys running social media? Does encouraging and coordinating targeted, real-world violence and harassment against someone count?

Huh, guess not.

How about HuffingPaintPost harassing Amy Mek’s spouse’s employer until they fired him while whipping up a hate mob against her brother’s restaurant, simply because they didn’t like her tweets?

HuffPo still seems to have a blue check facebook page, so I guess that is just peachy keen to the bigwigs at Facebook’s Menlo Park HQ.

Lest we forget this is more than just a culture problem solely at Facebook, let’s close by comparing these two examples from Twitter: the first being the tweet that currently has based James Woods locked out of his account (for context, remember treason is the only crime so serious it’s specifically listed in the Constitution with the death penalty) and the second, a still-posted tweet glorifying assault on a child (if you don’t believe me, just click the link to see the original tweet in all its glory)


The German political theorist Carl Schmitt once described the sovereign as “he who decides the exception.” I think when you compare these particular exceptions, it becomes abundantly clear our Tech overlords actually define “dangerous” as anyone that pushes back, too hard or too skillfully, against the Leftist narrative.

Erin Sith

If you like my stuff, check me out on my various social media accounts (at least until we all get unpersoned)

Facebook profile/page:



Twitter: @scrabblebag

Instagram: therealerinsith

Follow the site’s stuff while it’s still up:



Twitter/Instagram @iHeartMindy

If you’d like to donate to help keep the site and show Red, White, and F You: Unapologetically Patriotic going…you can donate to PayPal at [email protected]

1 Comment

  1. Good article. Linking all your social media accounts is a good way to get them shoah’d unfortunately.

    Keep fighting the good fight.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Burger King Promotes Violence on Conservatives in Tweet | Red, White, and F You

Comments are closed.