Social Media Platforms are Bipartisan? Yeah, Right

CEOs of major social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook want to call themselves bipartisan. They’ll allow anything to be published on their platforms as long as it adheres to the terms and service. That’s what they say out loud, but their checkbooks paint a very different picture.

Many of the top Facebook and Twitter executives donated tens of thousands of dollars to Biden’s presidential campaign.

As soon as people start donating money, they are financially vested in the outcome. That means they’ll do what it takes to get the person they’re rooting for elected – including slapping false claims on posts that oppose Biden.

Throughout the entire election, it was easy to see that there was a bias. Anything posted about Hunter Biden was taken down immediately while anything derogatory about Trump was allowed to stay.

Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey can hide behind his smug comments about the terms and service conditions all he wants – we all know that the conditions were applied to only one side.

Records from the Federal Election Commission showed that Biden’s campaign received a significant amount of money from social media companies’ executives – and some made the maximum legal donation of $2800.

How much did Trump receive from social media executives? Nada.

Erin Egan, the VP of public policy for Facebook donated $2800 to Biden during his presidential campaign as well as during the primaries. David Wehner, the chief financial officer for Facebook was also one to hand over $2800 to Biden’s campaign – and the list goes on and on of those who are a part of Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

The FEC records show that there are plenty with the title of “director” or “manager” who donated at least $1,000 to help Biden get into the White House.

Now, Trump did receive a few donations from “manager” or “director” titles from Facebook, though none of the donations were more than $300 – and none of the donations came from such titles from within Twitter.

Trenton Kennedy, the spokesman for Twitter, wants to claim that the Twitter rules are enforced “judiciously and impartially” for everyone who is a part of the service.

Really, though?

Kennedy says that “political ideology” doesn’t play a role in the process in which they allow or disallow posts.

Yeah, no one’s buying that, especially when the FEC records paint a very different picture.

It’s clear that the social media platforms were in favor of Biden winning the election simply based on where they donated their money. Considering that there were so many executives, directors, and managers donating the money, it would be very easy for them to play with the algorithms or simply deny certain posts to circulate on their platform.

It’s hard to believe that the Biden campaign isn’t thrilled about this. When asked to comment, the campaign has pointed out that Biden has been critical of the platforms and has urged them to police misinformation more aggressively.

Misinformation? Oh, well that depends on who is defining what misinformation is.

Apparently, Twitter does a great job of policing “misinformation” aggressively if it means telling the truth about Hunter Biden’s dealings. It’s quickly labeled as misinformation as a way to protect Biden.

When it comes to getting posts down about Trump’s IRS filings, though, which were posted illegally, those are allowed to stay. That’s not considered disinformation because Twitter and Facebook will redefine the rules if it is going to benefit Biden and hurt Trump.

Tim Murtaugh, the communications director for the Trump campaign, drops the truth bomb when talking to Fox News: “That was election interference, plain and simple” when discussing how the Biden story was blocked while also targeting Trump and other members of the GOP when trying to post anything.

When in doubt, follow the money trail. The way in which social media executives donated proves that there’s more than a little partisan leaning within social media.