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

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.