Social Media Silencing: ‘The Well Armed Woman’ Removed From Instagram

mikeyp

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
11,704
Likes
14,209
Location
Plymouth
Social Media Silencing: 'The Well Armed Woman' Removed From Instagram - Bearing Arms -



We’ve seen a slow but steady crackdown on anything having to do with gun ownership on social media over the last few years, from the recent demonetizing of some gun channels on YouTube to Facebook’s ban on advertising sales of firearms or ammunition. Now we’re starting to see individual accounts being targeted. John Lott’s Twitter account was recently locked by the company, apparently over a tweet about the active assailant attack in New Zealand, though how the tweet violated Twitter’s terms of service agreement has apparently not been disclosed.

The latest social media silencing appears to be the Instagram account of The Well Armed Woman.


The Well Armed [email protected]

https://twitter.com/WellArmedWoman/status/1163945473243340802

The Well Armed Woman @instagram page has been shut down. Poof, it's gone!! No warning, no response, nothing. Empowering and educating women to #RefuseToBeAVictim to rape and murder appears to offend them!



306

6:46 PM - Aug 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

286 people are talking about this





I reached out to Carrie Lightfoot, the founder of TWAW, and she says that so far she’s had no response from Facebook-owned Instagram about why the account has been disabled. Calling it “infuriating”, Lightfoot says that the Instagram account for TWAW just disappeared without notice.

“There was no warning and there has been no communication from Instagram at all. We don’t post ANYTHING even close to being inappropriate. My focus is totally on empowering and educating our followers. For them to take down a page focused on women taking responsibility for their own self-protection against violence is a new low.”

The capricious nature of these bans is bad enough, but the complete lack of engagement on the part of companies like Twitter or Instagram to engage with those they claim have violated terms of service agreements is even worse. You can’t help but be left with the impression that these companies don’t want to resolve any issues, they just want these voices to disappear.

We’ve seen attempted alternatives to Twitter pop up from time to time, but the real reason why we’re unlikely to see true competitors to social media juggernauts like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram is simple: they’ve already got hundreds of millions of users (or billions, in the case of Facebook), and as long as the platforms work for most of them, they won’t have a good enough reason to leave. Starting up a new platform is a great idea in theory, but in practice it reminds me of the kid who announces he’s running away from home, and this time he really means it and won’t you be sorry once he’s gone. The kid’s inevitably back an hour later. There’s a reason why Parler and Gab have Twitter accounts, but you won’t find an official Twitter account on either of the much smaller platforms. They may exist to be different than Twitter, but they still need its reach and its audience.

I don’t know that there’s an easy solution, or even a solution at all here. I’m loathe to get the government involved with policing social media policies, as I think that’s likely to work out badly for pro-2A voices in the long term. It’d be great if these companies still saw themselves as viewpoint-neutral platforms, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. What seems to work best (and that doesn’t mean it works all the time) is when a stink is raised about a particular banning or de-platforming. If I were Carrie Lightfoot, I’d be encouraging members of The Well Armed Woman to use their own Instagram and Facebook accounts to question Instagram about the decision. And of course, sharing this story on your Facebook feed isn’t a bad idea either (hint, hint). It may not work, but it’s probably the least bad option at the moment.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
21,662
Likes
12,987
TWAW?? Glad she's not The Well Armed Transsexual. ROFL!!!!

It doesn't help. Banning just gets more attention. Best to STFU and leave well enough alone. But they can't do that. So it works out to our benefit in the end.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
21,662
Likes
12,987
There is always a way to communicate. And in the short-run it outrages conservatives, meaning MORE pressure on them and MORE activity for us.

This is far from a "they aren't letting that poor man fornicate with that consenting donkey! We need to go protest with stupid hats and Vajingjong signs" outrage. There's a huge difference. Liberal outrage is something to do. Conservative outrage is something we truly believe in.
 

sweetride

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
108
Likes
19
This is why social media needs to be regulated like a utility company. This is equal to the phone company stopping your service if they don't like what you're talking about with your friends
 

Roland Deschain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
7,688
Likes
9,852
Maybe in the short term. The long term damage is real.
This is the real issue. I don't think people really understand the long-term consequences of these private companies deciding who is allowed to be heard. People bleat 'well just go somewhere else, or make your own platform'. Sure... that would work great if the search algorithms weren't f***ed. The reality is that the media, and giant companies are all interested in their own version of the world, where individuals are second to the greater good of their vision.
 
Rating - 96.8%
30   1   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
11,231
Likes
3,101
Location
Texas
So anti-regulation NES is proposing the government regulate something because they don’t like the direction things are moving. Does anyone see a problem with that?
 

Jason Flare

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
9,451
Likes
7,365
Location
Berkshires
So anti-regulation NES is proposing the government regulate something because they don’t like the direction things are moving. Does anyone see a problem with that?
I have a problem with it.

One time, years ago, my son explained to me how monopolies fail in the long run. It was a libertarian thing and for the life of me I can’t remember the details or if it truly made sense.

But like Communism, if it’s truly destined to collapse why bother spending 58,220 lives in Vietnam.

I think the government doesn’t need to get involved and the Big Boys will fall on their own despite their efforts.

ETA: Does anyone know the details of how a monopoly would fall without govt. intervention?
 

Roland Deschain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
7,688
Likes
9,852
Here's my simple position. Big gov uses social media to indoctrinate the masses. Social media agrees with them for the most part. Social media then decides what messages don't fit the agenda, and work (maybe not explicitly... or maybe they are) to suppress that. In addition to these companies taking massive subsidies. If you really want to drink the koolaid that this isn't a 1a issue, or that they are 100 percent private, I don't know what to tell you. The lines are getting blurred more every single day between gov and these platforms.
 
Rating - 96.8%
30   1   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
11,231
Likes
3,101
Location
Texas
I have a problem with it.

One time, years ago, my son explained to me how monopolies fail in the long run. It was a libertarian thing and for the life of me I can’t remember the details or if it truly made sense.

But like Communism, if it’s truly destined to collapse why bother spending 58,220 lives in Vietnam.

I think the government doesn’t need to get involved and the Big Boys will fall on their own despite their efforts.

ETA: Does anyone know the details of how a monopoly would fall without govt. intervention?
Basically because monopolies are inefficient and creat/lead to shortages which encourage competition. The competitors can do it better being more efficient and thus the monopolies break up - unless government supported.
 
Rating - 96.8%
30   1   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
11,231
Likes
3,101
Location
Texas
Here's my simple position. Big gov uses social media to indoctrinate the masses. Social media agrees with them for the most part. Social media then decides what messages don't fit the agenda, and work (maybe not explicitly... or maybe they are) to suppress that. In addition to these companies taking massive subsidies. If you really want to drink the koolaid that this isn't a 1a issue, or that they are 100 percent private, I don't know what to tell you. The lines are getting blurred more every single day between gov and these platforms.
So the solution is to go full retard and let the camel all the way into the tent? Government is the problem, not the solution
 

Roland Deschain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
7,688
Likes
9,852
So the solution is to go full retard and let the camel all the way into the tent? Government is the problem, not the solution
So the solution is to stick head in sand?

Tell me how the market would correct this. Boycott? THEY DON'T WANT US ANYWAYS
 

Jason Flare

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
9,451
Likes
7,365
Location
Berkshires
Basically because monopolies are inefficient and creat/lead to shortages which encourage competition. The competitors can do it better being more efficient and thus the monopolies break up - unless government supported.
Not trolling.

I agree with you.

Furthermore I think Google/ Facebook/YouTube will be shells of their former selves someday without govt. intervention.

If you agree with the above, how do you see it happening.
 

Roland Deschain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
7,688
Likes
9,852
Not trolling.

I agree with you.

Furthermore I think Google/ Facebook/YouTube will be shells of their former selves without govt. intervention.

If you agree with the above, how do you see it happening.
That's my point though... the government HAS been intervening behind the scenes and overtly. In addition to USING the platform to increase it's sphere of influence...
 
Top Bottom