"Live Action" defended
  
When Lila Rose posted two videos insisting abortion isn’t medically necessary, they were labeled “false” and censored.

In a pointed letter to Zuckerberg, Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) explain how interesting this is, since Facebook’s “fact-checkers” are supposedly “certified” through a nonpartisan group. If that’s the case, how does Zuckerberg explain putting two pro-abortion activists with “significant ties to abortion-rights advocacy organizations” in charge of Live Action’s content?

“…No reasonable person would describe [these activists] are neutral or objective when it comes to the issue of abortion,” they write, “yet Facebook relied on their rating to suppress and censor a pro-life organization with more than three million followers. These are clear violations of the IFCN principle and of Facebook’s supposed commitment to nonpartisanship.”

Like Twitter, Google, Pinterest, and other platforms, Facebook insists these are “glitches.” That’s funny, these senators would say, since these “glitches” only seem to affect conservatives. The political optics must not have been lost on Facebook, who contacted Live Action within hours of the letter and informed the group that its posts had been restored. In a tweet, Senator Hawley celebrated the news that Zuckerberg had also asked the company’s “‘independent’ fact check organization to open investigation into how pro-abortion activists got certified as ‘neutral’ fact checkers.”

And that’s a problem, Hawley knows — not just because they’re a major corporation, but because they get special protections that other companies don’t get.

“Facebook gets a special immunity from [law]suits — immunity from accountability, really. So groups like Live Action, they can’t sue Facebook under the law. They can’t pursue any kind of remedy under the law because Facebook is immune. That’s because of the federal government. The federal government has given them this special deal. It’s worth billions of dollars to Facebook. I mean, it’s really a massive subsidy for the American taxpayer. And that’s why I say Facebook if [they’re] going to censor, if they’re going to discriminate, why are we being forced to subsidize it? Why are we being forced to protect them with the power of the law and taxpayer money? That needs to stop.”

SOURCE