Exclusive: Tom Cotton Pushes IRS to Investigate Southern Poverty Law Center’s Tax-Exempt Status ‘the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation’

By Matthew Boyle

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 3.39.22 PM

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is pressing the IRS to investigate the tax-exempt status of leftist group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization that has been mired in scandal.

Cotton argues that a series of recent reports regarding the leftist group’s patently political activities are troubling, and in a letter to the head of the IRS provided to Breitbart News exclusively ahead of its public release questions whether these actions warrant removal of the group’s status as a nonprofit organization.

“I am writing to urge you to investigate whether the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) should retain its classification as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization,” Cotton wrote in the Tuesday letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. “Recent news reports have confirmed the long-established fact that the SPLC regularly engages in defamation of its political opponents. In fact, the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation.”

2019 SPLC Cotton Letter VF by Breitbart News on Scribd

Cotton noted in the letter to the IRS commissioner, citing SPLC financial documents, that the leftist organization has made lots of money by targeting conservative groups with allegations that they are hate groups–regardless of the veracity of such allegations.

“This business model has paid well. The SPLC has accrued more than $500 million in assets,” Cotton wrote. “According to the group’s most recent financial statement, it holds $121 million offshore in non-U.S. equity funds. The SPLC uses these assets to pay its executives lavish salaries far higher than the comparable household average.”

Cotton’s letter cites a number of recent investigative reports by the media into SPLC’s standards and culture, including a recently-published CNN exposé where staff alleged racism and sexism running rampant throughout the leftist group’s organizational structure.

“Famous civil rights group suffers from ‘systemic culture of racism and sexism,’ staffers say,” was the headline in CNN’s March 29 article by Nick Valencia and Pamela Kirkland.

“Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a ‘systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace,’” Valencia and Kirkland wrote. “The SPLC, which has been on the front line of the fight against racial inequality and injustice in the United States since 1971, has been thrust into chaos after allegations over its treatment of minority and female employees. The claims have been followed by changes in its leadership and a company-wide review.”

Cotton also cites New York Times report from Alan Blinder published on March 22 that Cotton noted described the SPLC as “in turmoil” while citing SPLC employee claims that the organization and its leadership are “complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.” Both Richard Cohen, the organization’s president, and Morris Dees, the organization’s co-founder, have been pushed out in recent days amid these scandals — and the SPLC has named an interim president to lead the group for now.

“Based on these reports, and in the interest of protecting taxpayer dollars from a racist and sexist slush fund devoted to defamation, I believe that the SPLC’s conduct warrants a serious and thorough investigation,” Cotton wrote to the IRS commissioner. “Engaging in systematic defamation is not a tax-exempt purpose: Federal law requires nonprofits classified as 501(c)(3) organizations to comply with IRS guidelines and have a ‘tax-exempt purpose.’ While IRS guidance lists several examples of tax-exempt purposes, engaging in defamation as a business model is of course not one of them. The SPLC defames other organizations in several ways.”

From there, Cotton cites Washington Post piece by David Montgomery published in November 2018. The piece in the Post notes how the SPLC, which used to simply target hate groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Black Nationalists, White Nationalists, and others, has expanded in recent years its so-called “hate map” to target mainstream conservative organizations to tarnish their reputations in order to push a leftist agenda.

“Today the SPLC’s list of 953 ‘Active Hate Groups’ is an elaborate taxonomy of ill will,” Montgomery wrote in the Post on Nov. 8, 2018. “There are many of the usual suspects: Ku Klux Klan (72 groups), Neo-Nazi (121), White Nationalist (100), Racist Skinhead (71), Christian Identity (20), Neo-Confederate (31), Black Nationalist (233) and Holocaust Denial (10). There are also more exotic strains familiar only to connoisseurs: Neo-Volkisch (28; ‘spirituality premised on the survival of white Europeans’) and Radical Traditional Catholicism (11; groups that allegedly ‘routinely pillory Jews as ‘the perpetual enemy of Christ’ ‘). Then there are the more controversial additions of the last decade-and-a-half or so: Anti-LGBT (51), Anti-Muslim (113), Anti-Immigrant (22), Hate Music (15), Male Supremacy (2). Finally, the tally is rounded out by a general category called Other (53) — ‘a hodge-podge of hate doctrines.’”FB

Montgomery noted that the SPLC hate group list for many years — decades, he says — “was a golden seal of disapproval, considered nonpartisan enough to be heeded by government agencies, police departments, corporations, and journalists.”

“But in recent years, as the list has swept up an increasing number of conservative activists — mostly in the anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim categories — those conservatives have been fighting back,” Montgomery wrote. “[General Jerry] Boykin, of the FRC, recently sent a letter to about 100 media outlets (including The Washington Post) and corporate donors on behalf of four dozen groups and individuals “who have been targeted, defamed, or otherwise harmed” by the SPLC, warning that the hate list is no longer to be trusted. Mathew Staver, chairman of the Christian legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel, told me 60 organizations are interested in suing the SPLC.”

Conservatives’ efforts to expose the SPLC as a fraudulent group that does not represent an honest arbiter of what is a hate group and what is not have been effective, Montgomery noted.

“There are signs the campaign is having an impact,” Montgomery wrote. “Last year GuideStar, a widely consulted directory of charitable organizations, flagged 46 charities that were listed by the SPLC as hate groups. Within months, under pressure from critics, GuideStar announced it was removing the flags. The FBI has worked with the SPLC in the past on outreach programs, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions has signaled a very different attitude. At a meeting of the Alliance Defending Freedom in August, Sessions said, ‘You are not a hate group,’ and condemned the SPLC for using the label ‘to bully and to intimidate groups like yours which fight for religious freedom.’”

In his letter to the IRS leader, Sen. Cotton noted that the SPLC regularly defamed reputable conservative groups in its hate map designation–which runs as he already detailed contrary to IRS regulations and federal statute regarding nonprofit status for organizations.

“Each year, the SPLC publishes a so-called ‘hate map,’ which ostensibly identifies hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nation of Islam. But under the guise of its ‘hate map,’ the SPLC also lists its mainstream political opponents and faith-based groups, including reputable organizations such as the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Center for Immigration Studies,” Cotton wrote.

Cotton also noted that the SPLC has regularly engaged in defamation of individuals, citing reports from the Washington Examiner‘s Emily Jashinsky and National Review‘s Douglas Murray.

“The SPLC also defames individuals. It labeled the civil-rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the British political activist Maajid Nawaz as ‘anti-Muslim extremists,’” Cotton wrote. “Last June, the SPLC agreed to pay Nawaz – who is himself Muslim – $3.375 million following a defamation lawsuit.”

Cotton noted too that the leftist group’s defamation of conservatives has real-life serious consequences as well, citing the shooter who attacked the Family Research Council in 2012.

“The SPLC’s defamation has not just damaged the reputation of these mainstream organizations and individuals by lumping them in with the Ku Klux Klan and Nation of Islam; it has resulted in injury and the threat of the loss of life, including an attempted mass murder,” Cotton wrote. “In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins entered and shot up the Family Research Council’s headquarters, while carrying fifteen Chick-fil-A sandwiches that he planned to smear in his victims’ faces. Corkins told investigators that he selected the Family Research Council because the SPLC labeled the organization as a ‘hate group.’”

Cotton cites a 2013 CNN report on Corkins’ trial, where Corkins admitted he targeted the FRC–a leading mainstream conservative group–because of SPLC’s false labeling of it as a “hate group.”

Cotton then turns to how the organization has abused its tax-exempt status to enrich its leadership, including the now-removed leader Dees. To make these points, Cotton cites New Yorker investigation into Dees and the SPLC published on March 21, as well as the SPLC’s own financial documents including the group’s 990 form filed with the IRS and a report from the Nonprofit Times.

“The SPLC operates as a tax-sheltered slush fund to enrich its leadership: In addition to failing to have a tax-exempt purpose, the SPLC’s peculiar financial situation warrants your attention,” Cotton wrote. “Federal law prohibits tax-exempt organizations from inuring to the benefit of any private individual. Yet the SPLC has accrued more than $500 million in assets as of October 31, 2018. Reportedly and inexplicably, $121 million of these assets are parked in offshore accounts. In 2017 alone, these funds were used to pay the organization’s founder and longtime leader, who was recently removed for unspecified inappropriate conduct, more than $400,000. This payment came despite reports that Morris Dees, in addition to allegedly engaging in sexual misconduct, had ‘ratchetted down his involvement with the organization.’ This is more than nine times the median household income for Montgomery, Alabama, where the SPLC is headquartered.”

Cotton concludes the letter by asking Rettig, the IRS commissioner, to take “immediate action.”

“Perhaps the SPLC was founded for noble purposes and decades ago performed some good work, but what is left of the SPLC is no longer operating in a manner consistent with IRS guidelines and applicable law,” Cotton wrote. “Based on this concerning information and the flood of recent reports, I encourage you to take immediate action.”

Kirsten Gillibrand Wants To Abolish Electoral College To ‘Restore’ A Fundamental American Principle. There’s Just One Problem.

By Ashe Schow

Maybe it was an April Fool’s Day joke, because that would be the kindest explanation for presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-NY) tweet on Monday claiming we need to “abolish the Electoral College” in order to “restore” the principle of “one person, one vote.”

She put out the tweet and included a link to a Daily Beast article about Democrat senators introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College (because their supporters live in big, populous cities and a popular vote will ensure they’re elected).

“Our democracy is built on the principle of one person, one vote. It can’t function until we restore that principle. It’s time to abolish the Electoral College,” Gillibrand tweeted.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 2.57.06 PM

The problem with the tweet, as Mark Hemingway and others pointed out, is that there is no “principle” to “restore” by eliminating the Electoral College. It’s in the constitution. It is a principle on which our “democracy” (constitutional republic) was built.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 2.59.33 PM

The Electoral College is described in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In 1804, the states ratified the Twelfth Amendment, which supersedes the paragraph after the one quoted above. Originally, the person with the most electoral votes would be president, and the person with the second highest would be vice-president.

The Twelfth Amendment changed that by making president and vice-president two separate elections.

The national popular vote was never an American principle, or at least not the way Democrats want it to be now. The Electoral College results from a popular vote – in each state and the District of Columbia. It is 51 separate popular votes, although two states award proportional electoral votes.

Democrats don’t like the way elections are currently done because their party lost in 2016 and 2000 due to electoral votes when they won the popular vote. So, naturally, because the system didn’t work for them, they want to abolish it.

Republicans run using the Electoral College. Then-candidate Donald Trump visited states he thought he could win to increase his electoral votes. Hillary Clinton visited some states she knew she wouldn’t win in order to increase her vote totals so she would not only be the first female president, but also the president with the most votes ever.

This strategy, of course, did not work out in her favor. She ignored states she assumed would give her their electoral votes (like Wisconsin), assuming the Electoral College was a lock for her. She was wrong.

Now Democrats are upset that their strategy to win the election didn’t work, and they think that because Clinton won the national popular votes, that a national popular vote would result in total Democrat control.

Republicans don’t run on the national popular vote. If they did, maybe they would win it. It’s a chance Democrats seem willing to take.

Pelosi: Biden’s Unwanted Touching Doesn’t Disqualify Him In Run For President

By Joseph Curl

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 11.30.45 AM

It’s all cool, bro.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is getting a lot of headlines lately, and not exactly the kind you want to get when you’re thinking about running for president. He’s also earning a new nickname — Handsy Joe — for all his touchy-feeliness with women over the years.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a woman, doesn’t think the new allegations should prevent Biden from moving into the White House.

Asked on Monday if she thinks the claims from two women should prevent Biden from being president, Pelosi said: “No. No, I do not.”

“I don’t think that this disqualifies him from being president,” the California Democrat said. “Not at all.”

On Tuesday, though, she had some advice for Biden: No more touching.

“Join the straight-arm club,” Pelosi told a breakfast hour Washington event on Tuesday, the Associated Press reported.

“Just pretend you have a cold and I have a cold,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi, D-Calif., told the event, which was sponsored by Politico, that Biden “has to understand that in the world we are in now people’s space is important to them and what’s important is how they receive it, not necessarily how you intended it.”

Democrats have a huge tolerance for misogynist men — as long as they’re Democrats. Liberals fiercely defended then President Bill Clinton after he had an affair with a White House intern his daughter’s age and lied under oath about it, saying the whole story was “just about sex.” Clinton’s alleged sexual promiscuity was long reported, including affairs with lounge singers and accusations that he raped or sexually accosted at least three women.

Meanwhile, Democrats became enraged over allegations that Brett Kavanaugh, then a nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court, had supposedly once pushed girl onto a bed at a drunken high school party 35 years ago.

Last week, Lucy Flores, a former Nevada Democratic assemblywoman who was running for higher office, came out with allegations that Biden inappropriately touched her during a campaign rally in 2014, saying she felt uncomfortable and demeaned by his touching.

Then on Monday, another woman came forward with new allegations. Amy Lappos told the Hartford Courant that “Biden touched her inappropriately and rubbed noses with her during a 2009 political fundraiser in Greenwich when he was vice president.”

“It wasn’t sexual, but he did grab me by the head,” Amy Lappos told The Courant. “He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.”

And she said Biden crossed the line. “There’s absolutely a line of decency. There’s a line of respect. Crossing that line is not grandfatherly. It’s not cultural. It’s not affection. It’s sexism or misogyny.”

Biden’s fellow Democrats, especially the ones who are already running for president, have let him twist in the wind — or pounced on the allegations outright.

“I believe Lucy Flores,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in Iowa on Sunday. “And Joe Biden needs to give an answer.”

When Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was asked if Flores’ allegation disqualifies Biden from running for president, he said: “That’s a decision for the vice president to make.”

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, also a 2020 candidate, said Biden’s actions were cause for concern. “Certainly, I think it’s very disconcerting and I think that women have to be heard and we should start by believing them.” And another candidate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said she has “no reason not to believe” Flores.

“I think we know from campaigns and politics that people raise issues and they have to address them, and that’s what he will have to do with the voters if he gets into the race,” she said on Sunday.

CAP

2017 JUSSIE SMOLLETT MUSIC VIDEO FEATURED A FAKE TRUMP, A NOOSE AND ‘ALTERNATIVE FACTS’

2017 Jussie Smollett Music Video Featured A Fake Trump, A Noose And ‘Alternative Facts’

Smollett’s video, titled “F.U.W.” for “F**ked Up World,” explored themes of perceived racial bias and human rights abuses from Dakota Access Pipeline and Standing Rock to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan

“Empire” actor Jussie Smollett released a music video in 2017 that featured a fake President Donald Trump, a noose and the words “alternative facts.”

WATCH:

Smollett’s video, titled “F.U.W.” for “F**ked Up World,” explored themes of perceived racial bias and human rights abuses from Dakota Access Pipeline and Standing Rock to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. (RELATED: Dueling Protests Over Jussie Smollett Case Rock Chicago)

The lyrics were clearly aimed at the fake Trump, who made an appearance early on:

Build a wall. You won’t keep us from loving each other.

Rewrite the law. You won’t keep us from loving each other.

Resist. Resist. Resist. Resist. Resist. Resist …

The actor, who claimed he was attacked in Chicago in late January, alleged that his attackers yelled, “This is MAGA country!” as they poured bleach on him and wrapped a noose around his neck. He later said on “Good Morning America” that he believed he had been targeted because of his activism “against 45.”

Police offered a different story, however, saying instead that there was evidence indicating that Smollett had possibly staged the attack himself. Investigators detailed a timeline of events and a series of communications between Smollett and the two Nigerian brothers who admitted to attacking him — but said that he had directed them to do so.

The charges against Smollett were dropped last week after he forfeited his $10,000 bond and agreed to do community service, but many were quick to voice displeasure with the decision. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel went so far as to call it “a whitewashing of justice.”

#MeToo founder Alyssa Milano defends ‘creepy’ Joe Biden from harassment allegations

 

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 10.55.57 AM

Actress, #MeToo advocate, and all round woke feminist Alyssa MIlano has stepped in to defend her “friend” Joe Biden, after accusations of inappropriate touching and groping have mounted against the former vice president.

“I am proud to call Joe Biden a friend. He has been a leader and a champion on fighting violence against women,”Milano tweeted on Monday, adding “that’s who Joe Biden is – a warm, generous individual who believes its on all of us to pay attention to women’s stories and experiences.”

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 10.59.02 AM

As vice president, Biden spearheaded the ‘It’s On Us’ campaign against sexual assault on college campuses. However, the 76-year-old has also built up quite the highlight reel of his own inappropriate moments; becoming far too familiar and handsy with women and children at Washington events.

Most recently, Biden was accused of unwanted kissing by former Nevada legislator Lucy Flores, who said the former VP planted a “big slow kiss” on the back of her head at a rally in Las Vegas; and Connecticut woman Amy Lappos, who alleges Biden “put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me.”

Biden denies any wrongdoing, saying it was “never” his intention to make anyone feel uncomfortable. Milano, who reinvented herself in recent years as a vocal feminist and founder of the #MeToo movement, agrees.

“I respect Lucy Flores’ decision to share her story and agree with Biden that we all must pay attention to it,” she tweeted. “But, just as we must believe women that decide to come forward, we cannot assume all women’s experiences are the same.”

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 10.59.52 AM

“Believe women, but…” is certainly a change of tune for Milano, who led the crusade against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, last year. Milano said that his confirmation in the face of uncorroborated sexual assault allegations served to “institutionalize sexual violence,” and hashtagged her anti-Kavanaugh tweets“#BelieveWomen.”

Biden has not yet announced a run for the presidency in 2020, but is considered a likely candidate and a frontrunner among a crowded field of Democrats. Although progressive godfather Bernie Sanders remains a favorite among young voters, Biden topped a recent Quinnipiac University poll, with 29 percent of Democrats rating him as their first choice.

With Sanders dangerously close in the polls, a certain few journalists in the mainstream media have stepped in to downplay the accusations against Biden.

“Is is okay to bring up this could be politically motivated?” MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski asked on Monday. “Are we allowed to bring up that Lucy Flores is a huge Bernie person? And she has political connections that might be counter to Biden’s goals?”

Brzezinski then laughed off Biden’s wandering hands, describing her “friend” as “extremely affectionate, extremely flirtatious in a completely safe way.”

Still, others are more puzzled. Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked former Clinton Adviser Richard Goodstein “have you ever sniffed a stranger’s hair? What is that?” Even liberal late-night comedian Stephen Colbert piled on Biden. “Generally, the only people who come up from behind, put their arms around you, smell your hair and kiss your head are dead husbands teaching you pottery,” he jibed.

(NO, IT’S NOT AN APRIL FOOL’S JOKE.) – Facebook plans to curate ‘high quality’ news for its users from ‘trusted outlets’

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 10.40.40 AM

Mark Zuckerberg is considering hiring human “editors” to hand-pick “high-quality news” to show Facebook users in an effort to combat fake news — and no, it’s not an April Fool’s joke.

In his ongoing quest to satisfy the political censorship demands of Western governments, Zuckerberg told German publishing house Axel Springer that he is considering the introduction of a dedicated news section for the social media platform, which would potentially use humans to curate the news from “broadly trusted” outlets. Zuckerberg said Facebook might also start paying news publishers to include their articles in this dedicated news section in an effort to reward “high-quality, trustworthy content.”

With social media censorship already at worryingly high levels, who will decide which outlets are “broadly trusted” and which are untrustworthy? What qualifies one outlet as more “trusted” than another? Will Zuckerberg make the criteria public?

Collective punishment? Zuckerberg’s call for internet regulation is aimed at competitors – analyst

Fresh from the anti-climactic Russiagate saga and long-awaited Mueller report, will Facebook penalize all the outlets that incessantly pushed the Trump/Russia “collusion” narrative and hyped fake “bombshells” for more than two years sans evidence, or will the likes of MSNBC and Rachel Maddow automatically earn “trusted status? The answer to that question is blindingly obvious.

Facebook’s efforts to combat fake news are reminiscent of other recent efforts from apps like NewsGuard, the US government-linked app which rates news websites according to their “trustworthiness” and, unsurprisingly, targets alternative media sites which do not strictly adhere to establishment narratives. If recent history is any indicator, Facebook’s own efforts to rate news will also fall directly in line with US government objectives.

The social media giant has been rightly accused of blatant censorship on multiple occasions in recent memory — and there doesn’t seem a way that a group of Facebook-hired editors could be trusted to curate the news for anyone, unless it took some serious steps to address its various biases. In fact, even if it did that, isn’t hiring human editors with their own political biases and preferences to sift through all the available news and select the stories deemed fit for public consumption just an Orwellian idea in the first place?

Facebook should probably already be aware of the pitfalls when it comes to hiring human editors for such purposes. During the 2016 US presidential election, the company’s solution to political bias in its trending news section was to fire the human editors responsible for it. Maybe Zuckerberg thinks this time it will be different? Or maybe, and more likely, this is just another PR effort to placate the pro-censorship crowd on Capitol Hill.

There is no shortage of examples of Facebook censorship at this point. Last year, the platform inexplicably took down the English-language page belonging to left-leaning, Venezuela-based news network Telesur — and deleted the page belonging to Venezuela Analysis, another left-leaning outlet offering commentary critical of Washington’s foreign policy in Latin America. The pages were later restored, but Facebook was not forthcoming with an explanation.

Changes made to Facebook algorithms to combat “fake news” in 2017, saw traffic to multiple socialist and government accountability websites plummeting — including Police the Police (a page exposing US police brutality) and the Free Thought Project (which promotes government transparency). Alternative news websites like Truth-out.org, Democracy Now and Alternet also suffered as a result of those algorithm changes.

More recently, Facebook suspended popular pages run by Maffick Media, which is 51 percent owned by RT’s video agency Ruptly. Coincidentally, the content on those pages is also highly critical of the US government. Funnily enough, Facebook isn’t often caught censoring popular pages whose content is Washington-friendly. The Maffick pages were later restored, but Facebook forced them to include more explicit information about their funding, which in itself is no big deal, but it is a requirement curiously not demanded of US government-funded or linked pages.

ALSO ON RT.COMZuckerberg asks governments for more internet regulation in self-flagellation exercise

Not only has Facebook been accused of censorship, however, it has also been found to be working at the behest of certain governments — but again, only Washington-friendly ones, of course.

The Intercept reported last year that Facebook met with Israeli government officials and complied with orders to delete the accounts belonging to certain Palestinian activists. Facebook quickly bowed to Israel’s demands after threats that it would be forced into complying with the deletion orders by law if it failed to do so voluntarily.

But things don’t look to be getting any better on the Facebook censorship front since then. A journalist for Israeli news outlet +972 Magazine tweeted on Monday that Facebook was now punishing news sites (in the form of lower views) for publishing content that “could be a negative experience” for users — whatever that means. The content in question was an article by the magazine about Gaza’s Great Return march and the casualties inflicted on protesters by the Israeli army.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 10.42.59 AM

With such a terrible track record when it comes to political bias and willingness to censor news and information, don’t be surprised if Facebook’s planned “dedicated news section” of “high-quality” information turns out to be a failure.

Danielle Ryan

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑