Report: BLM Activists Working with Social Media to Censor Criticism of Group
While it’s not as if social media conglomerates need a whole lot of prodding to do Black Lives Matter’s bidding, if a report published Monday is true, the national organization has been going so far as to tell platforms what news about the group they should censor.
According to New York Magazine, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation was actively monitoring social media for negative mentions about the group — and when it found them, it had them taken down.
This isn’t the first time that critics of the movement have cast a dubious eye on the group regarding why certain stories about it have been censored, particularly as they pertain to the group’s finances. Here at The Western Journal, we reported on the “chilling” effects of a Facebook sharing ban last year on a Black Lives Matter-related story regarding group co-founder Patrisse Cullors’ numerous real estate purchases.
We’ll continue to wage war on social media’s censorious ways; you can help our battle by subscribing.
The New York Magazine piece shone even more light on the group’s questionable real estate purchases, including a $6 million house in California purchased by the BLMGNF in cash from donations money — money one assumes donors didn’t think was going to property investments.
However, there was another disturbing revelation in the story by Sean Campbell: He wrote that the group has been working to censor mentions of its questionable ethical practices on networks such as Facebook and Twitter.
The report detailed a chatroom named the “BLM Security Hub” on the secure messaging service Signal. There are roughly two-dozen participants in the room, not just from BLMGNF but other entities in its orbit.
Campbell, who’s been on the BLM beat for a while, recounted a number of conversations on the chatroom about the $6 million house, which is known internally as “Campus.”
“Other conversations on the BLM Security Hub chat show efforts to monitor social media for negative mentions of BLMGNF, with members using their influence with the platforms to have such remarks removed,” he wrote.
“It’s currently not possible to share the [New York] Post’s article on Cullors’s home purchases on Facebook because the site’s parent company, Meta, has labeled the content ‘abusive.’ At other points, [BLMGNF board member Shalomyah] Bowers and his associates direct a private investigator to look into BLMGNF detractors and journalists, including me.”
When Cullors’ real estate purchases were first reported in April 2021, the national Black Lives Matter association portrayed them as a threat to the activist.
“Patrisse’s work for Black people over the years has made her and others who align with the fight for Black liberation targets of racist violence,” the group said in a statement on Twitter.
“The narratives being spread about Patrisse have been generated by right-wing forces intent on reducing the support and influence of a movement that is larger than any one organization,” it said.
The narratives being spread about Patrisse have been generated by right-wing forces intent on reducing the support and influence of a movement that is larger than any one organization.
— Black Lives Matter (@Blklivesmatter) April 13, 2021
“This right-wing offensive not only puts Patrisse, her child and her loved ones in harm’s way, it also continues a tradition of terror by white supremacists against Black activists,” the group said.
“All Black activists know the fear these malicious and serious actions are meant to instill: the fear of being silenced, the trauma of being targeted, the torture of feeling one’s family is exposed to danger just for speaking out against unjust systems.”
All Black activists know the fear these malicious and serious actions are meant to instill: the fear of being silenced, the trauma of being targeted, the torture of feeling one’s family is exposed to danger just for speaking out against unjust systems.
— Black Lives Matter (@Blklivesmatter) April 13, 2021
Facebook told the Post that its “content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy.”
“This decision is so arbitrary as to be laughable,” the newspaper’s editorial board said at the time.
“Does Facebook know how many newspapers, magazines and Web sites highlight the real estate purchases of the rich and famous?” it said. “The next time People magazine covers Kim Kardashian’s latest mansion purchase, will it violate any community standards? How about running a picture of the resort Ted Cruz is staying at?”
“It again highlights just how much power these social media companies have over our lives and our nation. They monopolized the market and became the main aggregators of news.”
Once again, the New York Post was censored for being right about something — and while its report on Cullors’ real estate binge wasn’t exactly as earth-shattering as their reports on Hunter Biden’s laptop, the concerns the report raised were just salient.
Cullors again featured in New York Magazine’s report; the Black Lives Matter co-founder, who once referred to herself as a “trained Marxist,” allegedly used the $6 million mansion that the BLMGNF bought for dubious purposes such as recording videos for her personal YouTube channel.
The “Campus” house was also purchased by the member of a nonprofit run by the father of Cullors’ only child — a nonprofit to which Cullors has allegedly funneled business, the Daily Caller News Foundation reported last May.
Campbell also noted that BLMGNF tried to “kill” his story about the $6 million house. The group might have a bit more trouble getting New York Magazine’s story censored, however, considering the outlet is solidly left of center. Unlike the censorship of the New York Post, there would be a hue and cry in the media if this story ended up getting shot down.
The fact Black Lives Matter has direct influence over how it’s reported on social media is chilling, however.
And yet, sadly, it’s not surprising. Despite being two of the biggest digital public squares in the world, Facebook and Twitter allow the left to control, to a great degree, what its opponents can say about it.
If the BLMGNF can determine how it’s being portrayed, what other individuals or groups have bent the ears of social media executives?
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.