Why There Will Never Be Balance or Fairness on Facebook

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

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips after he had refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. So, the Left is after him again.

Phillips says that on the same day of the Supreme Court decision, he received a call from an attorney asking him to make a cake that fades from blue to pink to celebrate his gender transition. Phillips again refused. He has also been harassed by the same attorney with multiple requests for cakes celebrating everything from drug use to Satanism. Naturally, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is going after Phillips for discrimination. Again.

RELATED: The 'Masterpiece Cakeshop' ruling is actually a win for LGBT rights

Well, Phillips has understandably had enough. This week he filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado. In the lawsuit, Phillips says his family lost 40 percent of its income due to the harassment he has received. He also says he and his employees were forced to complete a "reeducation program" about not exercising his faith at work.

In the Declaration of Independence, just before the list of specific grievances against King George III, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"To prove this [talking about the king's tyranny], let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

The Left isn't interested in liberty and justice for all.

I wonder, do candid citizens in the U.S. notice that the tyranny against personal liberty, and religious liberty is not coming from the Right? Really, you would think that the Left would be all about the anything goes, to each his own kind of philosophy. "You do you," that's the typical Leftist philosophy, isn't it? It's certainly the spirit of postmodernism.

But the Left isn't interested in liberty and justice for all. They're interested in liberty and justice only for their vetted list of oppressed groups.

The Left is also pretty confident in its ownership of the "bigot" label to slap on whomever it deems necessary. But let's just go ahead and say it since no one else will – the Left is bigoted toward Christianity. This has nothing to do with the state of Colorado defending LGBT rights, and everything to do with their contempt for Jack Phillips' religious beliefs.

You know you're in for trouble any time an article begins with the following words: "These have been challenging times to be white in America."

Oh. I see where this is going:

People who aren't white may find this surprising. After all, it has been decades since white people could feel so free about loving their whiteness, or so openly celebrate whiteness, or talk about how much they relish being white and doing white activities.

RELATED: Redemption of a Grand Dragon: Can such a hateful person actually change?

Those are the opening lines of a recent NBC News op-ed- titled "Are 'white people' jokes racist? Let a fellow white person explain." I mean, it would make for incredible satire. I mean, if it were mocking the outrageous postmodern mental gymnastics of the modern Left, this article would be awe-inducing in its satirical prowess. Alas, it is not. It's real. The author, somehow, means what he's writing.

You know the routine: Racism against white people isn't a real thing. It's a clever mechanism which allows that racism against white people is purely linguistic, based on the idea that power determines who can say what.

You know the routine: Racism against white people isn't a real thing.

The idea is embodied by the entire article, but one sentence in particular smacks of it: "one of the great things about being white is that you'll never have to know what racism feels like (on the receiving end anyway)."

I think I know what it feels like. It feels like someone is judging based entirely on my skin color. Kinda like this entire article about how white people cannot be judged based entirely on their skin color. How does that not make sense?

The great censorship jihad continue'ith. And maybe one of the most bizarre developments in this war is how members of the media have formed a Caliphate to wage this jihad. There are actually beat reporters from the mainstream media, hanging on every word Alex Jones says with the hopes of catching him violating social media terms of service rules.

If these mainstream media jihadis catch Jones in the act of saying anything haram - or forbidden - they instantly charge the battlefield and pummel companies like Twitter with examples of how their rules are being infringed upon. Their strategy bared more fruit yesterday. Twitter, one of the last platforms Alex Jones still had, slapped him with a seven-day ban.

RELATED: Alex Jones BANNED?!

I just can't understand where the Media Caliphate is coming from here. When you're in the business of and count on, the free flow of information, is it not counter-productive to your business model to advocate for censorship? Do you not see the slippery slope you're on? Look, I get it. You think Alex Jones is looney tunes and maybe even dangerous, but silencing ideas and information should never be the answer.

Countering crazy and dangerous speech with rational and sane speech should be your mission… not censorship. You're helping Jones get silenced and cheering it on, but what will you do when someone comes to censor you? Because that's where this is headed.

But while the call for jihad was raised for Alex Jones, and silence now falls on his Twitter account, these accounts still have full access. The Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, Beverly Hills Antifa, Antifa Philadelphia… there are more Antifa twitter accounts than I have time to mention.

The radical Left is so well represented on Twitter, you'd think they have their own private office at Twitter headquarters right next to Jack. The Revolutionary Communist Party of America is but one still posting and calling for things like - you know - just the violent takeover of the U.S. government.

I hope the advocates for censorship enjoy these early victories because it won't be long before the monster they're unleashing turns on the master.

But the Media Caliphate isn't calling for their social media heads. They just want people like Alex Jones and Gavin McGinnis to shut up. I sure it doesn't have anything to do with - no it couldn't be - this is crazy talk, but both Jones and McGinnis work for rival media outlets and deliver rival narratives to the mainstream media.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with it. If smaller outlets like CRTV and Infowars are cutting into their viewership and stealing their YouTube and Social Media clicks, would it benefit the Caliphate to come at them full bore on a digital battlefield where they're currently getting their butts kicked? You bet it would, but that's just crazy talk.

I hope the advocates for censorship enjoy these early victories because it won't be long before the monster they're unleashing turns on the master.

How could you say no to that face?

WANG ZHAO/AFP/Getty Images

Do you trust your own ability to unplug from technology? Some people born before the 1990s are wearing it as a badge of honor now – that they quit Facebook, or they do a regular technology fast.

We like to think we're not overly dependent on technology, while posting on social media about how old-school we are. That's all well and good until the technology starts giving you puppy dog eyes and producing digital crocodile tears. What if your robot begs you not to turn it off? Will you still do it?

RELATED: Glenn's Predictions on Technology and AI for 2018

This isn't science fiction anymore. It's right around the corner. And if you're skeptical whether humans will treat robots like a family member, a new study might alter your view.

Researchers in Germany set up an experiment to examine how people treat robots when the robots act like humans. Each human participant was asked to work with a robot named Nao to create a weekly schedule and answer a series of questions.

What the participants didn't know was that completing the tasks was just a way for the researchers to find out what they were really interested in – how the participant's interaction with Nao would affect their ability to shut down the robot when asked.

Half of the participants were asked to shut down Nao without the robot protesting. But the other half of the participants heard Nao plead with them, saying: "No! Please do not switch me off! I am scared that it will not brighten up again!"

Of the 43 people who heard Nao's plea, 13 chose not to turn him off. Some said they felt sorry for him, others that they didn't want to act against his will.

The other 30 people did turn him off, but they took twice as long on average to do so than the group that did not hear the robot's plea.

Our 2018 problems will suddenly seem very quaint.

The experiment confirms previous research demonstrating that humans are prone to treat technology, especially robots with human-like traits, as living beings.

Now, take this human tendency, and fast-forward a few years in the future when robots will look, sound, and act human, and know everything about us. Our 2018 problems will suddenly seem very quaint.