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 light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.