Why There Will Never Be Balance or Fairness on Facebook

May 23, 2016

The Glenn Beck Program

Meet the Press this week with George Stephanopoulos asked me to be on yesterday and talk about this Facebook thing. I just want to address it with you today instead.

I never said that there isn't bias on Facebook or that Facebook doesn't lean strongly left as a platform. What I have said is I have not seen any evidence that there is a concerted organized effort from Facebook's leadership, including their algorithms that purposefully skew things or try to suppress conservative topics or stories.

Now, I brought up a few minutes ago, Steven Crowder. Steven Crowder is -- and some other conservatives as well --- claiming that they believe Facebook does willfully and knowingly suppress topics, organizations and users who suppress conservative views. And I believe that they earnestly believe that, that they have been unfairly treated by Facebook on certain products, like trending topics. I'm not saying that they haven't been unfairly treated or that bias from Facebook employees doesn't exist. I'm saying I haven't been presented with that evidence.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Last week, one of the guys said that he has seen his traffic go down 50 percent, and it's because he's a conservative, when they changed the algorithm. But even he admitted that Huffington Post had gone down 70 percent because of the same algorithm change. So it's clearly not a conservative bias.

Facebook is a privately-owned, publicly-traded company a private platform. They aren't under any obligation to share their algorithm, nor should they. This is like going to a drug company and saying, "Hey, we know you have a license for this, we know you invented it, but you should give us the formula." No. They are a private company, publicly traded. It is their rules, not ours. And if we don't like it, we can leave at any time, but I don't suggest it because Facebook is the medium of the future.

What is frightening to me is that so many so-called conservatives, who are actually progressive Republicans -- and note, this does not include Crowder who has openly stated that Facebook is privately owned --- but these conservatives, these progressives that would make claims against Facebook as if they had any right whatsoever to demand or lay claim on something that was invented and owned by someone else. Those who believe they have such a claim should check their premise.

Their premise is wrong. Their premise is not based on anything that is conservative. Facebook --- listen to me, listen to me carefully --- Facebook is by design a social platform. Zuckerberg claims he wants to have a fully open platform where users control the flow, trend and scope of all ideas shared. That means, there will never be balance or fairness on Facebook, no matter what technology and what the technology team does. Any wholly-open platform like that will always tend towards left-leaning ideas and themes getting more attention.

If it is truly open, it will still lead to more left-leaning ideas.

Why? Because this is the psychology of the left. People on the left need to be heard, need to be validated. In order to feel whole, they have to be. They are psychologically addicted to having their ideas validated by others because reality doesn't validate their ideas. Because reality shows them that they are wrong, they must have others validate their ideas. Conservatives don't have a psychological need to be cheered on and validated by others because our ideas are validated in the real world. That's why we're not engaged like the left is. We see it work, so we just go to work and continue to do it.

It's only when the world starts rejecting the real world, and we enter into this upside down world, where nothing is based in reality, that we truly get frustrated.

Conservatives are less likely to be posting, we are less likely to be shrieking to be listened to, whining until someone gives us the thumbs up. In life, correct moral principles applied to situations provide their own validation. It's called success.

A platform like that also gives leftists the consequence-free opportunity to attack others with the three major weapons that they hold: fear, shame and guilt. That's what they have. They can shame others. They can make others feel guilty. They can incite fear by shouting at anyone who disagrees with them and face little opposition or consequence of reprisal by way of debate or by their claims being proven false.

Facebook isn't set up that way. It doesn't use crowdsourcing to fact-check. It uses popularity to push ideas forward to the top of the feed. It's not based on reality. It's based on a constantly flowing stream of consciousness that isn't associated with reality. So nobody should expect parity. Nobody should expect balance. Nobody should expect fairness on a platform like that because it will never exist.

For people on the left, Facebook is a highly addictive thing because it finally gives them exactly what everybody has always needed: Social validation of irrational ideas, disconnecting from the correcting mechanisms of reality.

That means they are far more likely to be the loudest and the most ardent users. Have you ever wondered why conservatives don't use social media? That's why. It's not that we're just busy. We're busy validating the ideas that work in reality.

So there is nothing that Zuckerberg or his employees need to do in order to --- in order for bias to exist or dominate. Because of the psychological needs of the people on the left, they will always rise up and take over when it comes to popularity. They need it more than we do.

Now, here's the thing, people will say, "Well, they use the New York Times, they'll replace things. Let's say Breitbart breaks a story, and then they'll go in and they'll look for that story. Did anybody else report on that story? How about the New York Times?

People do that. That is normal for a mainstream media organization to do. They will use and they will look at the biggest source that they can find on that story because it gives that story more credibility than it would from TheBlaze over the New York Times.

But the progressives in Silicon Valley don't really fully understand that if you've been on the receiving end of the New York Times blasting over and over again, it's not the same to conservatives.

Fox News is more like the New York Times. And if there was really, truly balance --- or if there was really, truly fraud going on, if there was really, truly somebody trying to shut down ideas --- Fox News wouldn't be the biggest source on all of Facebook. It's the biggest news organization. But outside of that, what do you have? The Wall Street Journal? What other big credible news divisions are there? We know what the left has: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times. I could go on.

What do we have? What giant news organization do we have? What giant network do we have?

The news organizations that we were starting have so badly degraded themselves on principles that we're becoming everything we despise. That doesn't lead to credibility. That doesn't lead to a larger voice.

I put a lot of thought into this in the last 18 months and even more in the last eight. But I'm changing TheBlaze entirely for an entirely new world. By the end of the year, it won't be the same Blaze because I don't think it works this way anymore. And I don't think we can be separate organizations anymore. I mean, we can be separate, but we need to start coming together. We need to start working together. We need to stop doubling our efforts.

We need to start finding the people that will actually . . . this has been a great blessing, this last election, because you see who actually will stand by their principles. Who is it that will really, truly stand up?

This meeting with Facebook was really, really informative to me. Now, I'm sure --- and I'm only saying Tucker Carlson because he has quoted me; I didn't quote him, he has quoted me --- but what he is saying about what he said at the meeting is not true. It was quotas that he was talking about --- quotas. Three percent of the population is Mormon. That was his quote --- three percent. So I'm not saying that we go there that far, but shouldn't it be representative of how many conservatives there are? Shouldn't you hire that way? That's a quota. Quotas don't work. Quotas don't work. And the only ones that believe that are progressives on the right and progressives on the left. And they've already exposed themselves. Progressives are who progressives are and they always will be.

The question is, do you want to continue to play the game that the progressive right wants you to play? Will you see the smears for what they are? Will you actually look and say, "I am violating my principles by trying to fix a problem, I would violate my principles, so that can't be the answer."

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

Is there really a spy in the White House?

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

There's a coward in the White House. A spy in the Trump administration wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times yesterday that's not only entirely gutless, but also proves everyone that has ever believed in the Deep State correct.

The spy wants everyone to know that:

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room.

The anonymous senior member of the Trump administration goes on to describe how bad the president is, and that he or she and a group of others from within the White House are trying to subvert him.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

How dare this person talk about preserving democratic institutions while, at the same time, actually admitting to undermining an elected official. I don't care how virtuous their intentions are, these people were never elected! President Trump was. They and a good portion of the country may not like it, but that's how the system works. This person has brazenly admitted to being part of an unelected guerilla movement within the government that's secretly pursuing their own ideology, their own path for the country, and WE - the voters - never gave them our mandate. They operate with zero accountability.

I wonder if it ever occurred to this coward that they aren't just subverting the president, they're also subverting the 63 million Americans that voted for him. They may not like Trump and his policies, but is he really doing anything contrary to what he campaigned for? Everything that Trump has been saying and doing since he was elected is exactly why his supporters voted for him. It's what they want. No one has the right to go behind his back and steer the country in a different direction.

This person, this anonymous senior official, probably feels pretty brave - and maybe even a little famous - this morning.

This person, this anonymous senior official, probably feels pretty brave - and maybe even a little famous - this morning. But they're a coward. If they've witnessed the President doing something unbecoming of the office or counter to what his voters would agree with, it is their responsibility to come forward the proper way. Show your face, make a public accusation and provide evidence. This is a disgrace.

It's a good thing Ol' Blue Eyes isn't around to see what's become of San Francisco

J. Wilds/Keystone/Getty Images

If Frank Sinatra were alive today and had still left his heart in San Francisco, I doubt that he'd go back for it. Or he'd get there, take one whiff of the place and say, "You know what, I'm good. Never mind."

Especially if he found himself in one of the many syringe-and-feces-riddled hives of homeless people openly shooting up and smoking crack and, well, you know. There are plenty of videos online of these places. One, in particular, shows a hallway full of junkies, nodding off and shooting up.

The City of San Francisco, the beacon of progressive values that it is, hands out roughly 400,000 syringes a month for drug users. About 150,000 end up on streets, crosswalks, and playgrounds.

As for the poop problem, which is somehow actually a legitimate problem, San Francisco has designated "poop patrols" to clean up human feces. Something tells me that they're ignoring the actual problem here.

Yes, if poor old Sinatra were alive today, he'd be heartbroken.

Scratch that, he would be horrified. He'd be in a panic. Sweaty, his heart pounding, he'd run. He'd turn onto the sidewalk, but oh no, there are more of them! So he'd duck into a little coffee shop. "Thank God, I'm safe." All that running made him thirsty. So he'd get himself a drink, a nice glass of ice-cold water. But what's this? There's no straw? "You mean to tell me that the city of San Francisco hands out free syringes to junkies, who proceed to take dumps on the sidewalks and puke on public buses, but straws are illegal?"

That's right, Frank. That's right.

The hypocritical feminism of Linda Sarsour

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Ah, Linda Sarsour. The Leftist equivalent of Milo Yiannopoulos. Only, when Linda Sarsour pulls outrageous, logic-defying stunts, her side roars and chants, then pats themselves on the back.

And make no mistake, Linda Sarsour is as bad as Milo. No, she's worse than Milo. Her virulent anti-Semitism, her anti-white Racism, her flagrant disregard for America and Western ideas, her support of Sharia Law, her connections to HAMAS and Louis Farrakhan, her open misogyny—honestly, I could go on, but we just don't have enough time. Oh, she has also called for jihad against President Donald Trump—yes, she's called for the assassination of our President.

Well, on Tuesday, Linda Sarsour got herself arrested. She was one of the dozens of obnoxious protestors that showed their classless outrage at Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing.

Sarsour leapt up and began screaming shortly after the hearing started. Brett Kavanaugh's daughters, age 10 and 13, were rushed out of the room for their safety.

Sarsour took the arrest as a badge of honor. She tweeted:

I will be able to tell my daughters and future grandchildren that I STOOD UP. I was not and will not be silent when our bodies and rights are on the line.

Does anybody else find it a little ironic that a woman in a hijab who believes in Sharia law and has said that of women critics of Islam she wishes she could "take their vaginas away" that she's signaling her virtue for having "STOOD UP" when women's "bodies and rights are on the line?"

I have to side with Candace Owens on this, she just put it so well:

You have to be a special kind of idiot to get arrested for "women's rights" alongside [Linda Sarsour], an Islamist who supports sharia law and the forced mutilation of women's genitals overseas. Indeed, if stupidity was the crime, they should have held you without bail.

Yesterday on TheBlaze, I went into Linda Sarsour and her part in 4th Wave Feminism, the radicalized new form of feminism that blends social justice, Marxism and Postmodernism.

Watch the clip below.

A month for sheepdog preparedness

Photo by Federica Giusti on Unsplash

September is National Preparedness Month. There's a philosophy that gets talked about a lot in the preparedness community. It's called the "sheepdog approach." It comes from an analogy that describes humans as either sheep, wolves or sheepdogs as it relates to preparedness.

Here's a brief overview, with the analogy broken down into its parts.

The Sheep

Sheep make up the vast majority of society. Peaceful, kind, gentle. Collectively, they're productive and make up the "greater good" of our world.

This is not to say that the sheep, in this analogy, are by nature weak, fearful, blind or any other negative attributes.

Yet, the sheep are vulnerable to the wolves. The reason sheep are vulnerable is not because wolves are more powerful and cunning. No, the real reason is because sheep deny the existence of the wolves.

Many people understand danger and have a desire to feel safe. For instance, almost everyone knows that a seatbelt can save a life. Yet, these same people often complain about taking their shoes off at the airport.

The difference has to do with denial. Most people are more comfortable with accepting the fact that a dangerous accident can happen versus a violent person carrying out a willful act to injure, maim and kill.

The Wolves

Wolves are characterized by two things among humans: a lack of care for the rest of society and a capacity for violence.

Many people visualize home invaders, terrorists, or enemy combatants as the wolves of this world. Indeed, these are wolves. They are threats to the sheep of this world.

However, it can't be denied that there are often wolves among us. They may be wearing sheep's clothing. They may not carry out violence themselves but put others in harm's way to achieve their ends by violent means. They may swindle sheep out of their peaceful way of living to selfishly make a better life for themselves.

That's why the world needs sheepdogs.

The Sheepdogs

The sheepdog protects the sheep from wolves. It alerts the flock to the wolf, and if necessary, defends against the wolf with equal violence. The sheepdog is capable of violence, but only out of love for people.

In society, the most identifiable sheepdogs are our servicemen and women and law enforcement. They put themselves in harm's way to protect the greater good. They neutralize the wolves, even if a wolf in sheep's clothing sent them to do so.

It's worth noting that all sheepdogs don't have to be capable of violence in order to stave off the wolves.

The armed forces and police make effective sheepdogs because they know how and when to use violence. A lot of people think they are born this way, as natural sheepdogs. But the truth is, no one becomes a warrior or a hero overnight.

Today's sheepdogs are constantly training, constantly learning. As the world changes, so do they. They are sniffing out new threats, becoming better equipped to handle them and so on.

Sometimes, many "sheep" tend to deny the threat of violence because at this moment, they are not prepared to handle it. It's much more comfortable to deny it.

The bottom line is that being a sheepdog is more about mentality than current abilities or capacity to take down the bad guys.

This means that everyone is capable of becoming more sheepdog-like in their everyday lives. More prepared.

There's one last role that is often overlooked.

What about the Shepherd?

One character that is left out in this analogy is the shepherd. Humans are either sheep, sheepdogs or wolves. Now maybe, just as in the biblical version of the analogy, a higher power is the shepherd. This makes sense, since the shepherd is ultimately responsible for the fate of the sheep, wolves and sheepdogs.

Ultimately, the shepherd is a leader who can see the whole picture. They train the sheepdog. They care for both the sheep and sheepdog's needs. And they are careful not to lead either into a place where wolves can prey easily.

People are not destined to be one archetype or another. All of us are part sheep, sheepdog, shepherd and even wolf. Inside us, there is a battle going on to determine who we will become. National Preparedness Month provides us with a moment to consider our position in society.

This article originally appeared on MyPatriotSupply.com.

Glenn's Show Prep