Tyranny comes in many forms, but the most dangerous is the tyranny of absence. When a thought is suppressed for the sake of removing it from public consciousness, it’s the people who are weakened as a result. What makes absence so dangerous is people are much less conscious of what they’re missing than what they have. As the House Democrats trudge along with their impeachment inquiry, information about alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella is of the public interest.
Facebook doesn’t see it that way. It will get us in trouble to even say this as Facebook is wont to censor criticism against their magnanimous decisions, but we had eight posts removed from our page because they mentioned the alleged whistleblower’s name. I’m sure on the surface they believe this decision is righteous since whistleblowers are supposed to enjoy anonymity, but that’s a misinterpretation of what it means to be a whistleblower. They are protected from repercussions against them by those for whom they’ve blown the whistle, but protection does not extend to deprivation of media scrutiny. If anything, the credibility of a whistleblower is paramount when determining whether their complaints are legitimate or forged from a foundation of preexisting opposition.
If Ciaramella turns out to be the whistleblower, and that definitely seems to be the case, then knowing his history as an anti-Trump operative accused of leaking sensitive information as well as participating in multiple attempted “take downs” of the President is important information for the people to know. We aren’t talking about taking down a tobacco company or a hedge fund. This particular whistleblower has incentives to take down a sitting President of the United States for what seems to be purely political reasons. Facebook is wrong to censor his name, let along the details surrounding his motivations.
As a private company, Facebook enjoys autonomy. But as a so-called “platform” that enjoys protections from legal consequences as a result of their propagation of user content, it does not make sense to censor legal information. If they want to censor illegal activities like doxxing or the spread of child pornography, that’s well within their charter and would not threaten their protections as a platform. But once they stop calling legal balls and strikes and start censoring based on the sensibilities of a progressive mindset, they’ve entered into the realm of editing for opinion, and that means they’re no longer acting as a platform.
Of course, saying they’re “starting” to do these things is a joke. They’ve been doing it for a while, and even though the left seems oblivious about Facebook’s penchant for quashing conservative views, readers of this site are all well aware of Facebook’s purging, censoring, and silencing. This is why it’s incumbent on NOQ Report and the rest of conservative media to persevere even if it means self-censoring. Getting most of the message out cannot be subverted by personal desires to oppose their system altogether. This is why we will comply by not posting the alleged whistleblower’s name on Facebook. It’s not out of cowardice. It’s out of a need to continue reaching the people with the vast majority of the rest of our content that doesn’t mention Eric Ciaramella.
Censorship on social media will continue unabated. That doesn’t mean we’re giving up. We must take the absence of hope and use it to drive us into demanding more and wanting better. There are other ways to fight impeachment without Eric Ciaramella.
