Loud & Clear: FB trying to hold me down

Clinton Lee Young – Loud & Clear
Topic: FB trying to hold me down 
Date: Sept. 12th– Oct. 4th 

I have recently encountered some complications by Facebook, due to new regulations pertaining to political ads. A day after being notified of this.
I get a Wall Street Journal Newspaper. In it there was an opinion article about Facebook and the action taken in a recent high profile case. Before I read the article, just by the headline. I knew I had to write a blog about it.  

My complication is because the words Clinton and Foundation are in my social media name. Facebook flagged and prevented an ad. Indicating it is political and facebook is preventing any political ads before election time.  Extreme policies result in unintended consequences always. Facebook also has seemingly blocked out any praise or support for a 17 year old by the name of Kyle R*tt*nhous*. He was arrested for 2 murders in a high profile case and politics have gotten involved. One side says murder. Another says self defense.  

It doesn’t matter what he did or didn’t do. He has not been convicted.  To keep it simple. He is charged with crimes. As a citizen he has the right in court to defend himself. Facebook’s claims is he fits the mass murderer category.  

Okay, words matter. We use the term mass murderer for a specific type of killer. Like we do with serial killers.  A person walks into a bar and starts shooting. The intent is to kill several people. That person would then be a mass murderer.  

The law allows for self defense. This guy seeming did not set out with intent to murder people. The store he was in front of. The owner said he requested for him to come down there to help protect the property. A possession of a firearm is not within its self intent for any crime. Unless the very possession of it is illegal. Then the intent is limited to that possession. And no, having a gun does not indicate expected could murder someone. It can indicate a plan to defend self or others.
All murders are illegal. All “homicides” are not.  

When someone invites you to a location. That is different than jumping up one night and saying, “I’m headed to town to guard some random place.” Given that self defense is legal in this country. (Some states the laws are more strict than others.) he has a viable defense to the charges. Charges which he has not been indicted for.  

The problem is this. The way out world operates. Social media has become basically a pillar of many peoples lives.  It is like the local park, town square, or such places.  It has become such an essential element that the danger comes in how one or two people can pick winners and losers. More so when that pick derives from mob passion or politics, and someone liberty or livelyhood is at stake.  

This case provides an example. This guys lawyer says that the two that died attacked him. If that is true, then those two would have engaged in a criminal act. under the law they then would hold more criminal responsibility than the kid. As the kid would, based on self defense laws, not be criminally liable. This is a legal and plausible defense. 

Given that there is this possibility. Facebooks restrictions are preventing him from informing the public as to any injustice he might have suffered or will suffer by the state. It limits his ability to defend himself ‘to the people’. Newspapers was once the main way government corruption/ oppression could be spotlighted. Now it is social media platforms mostly.  

Facebook does not have to give free speech or due process. It is a private company. People in the US seem to think, the amendments of the constitution they favor most, applies to all areas of life.  

The 2nd amendment doesn’t give you the right to carry a gun anywhere and everywhere. The 1st amendment does not give you free speech at work or within someones business. The constitution is about what rights the Government can not take from the people. People seem to think they have some absolute right. The public education system is to blame for that. Most americans are sadly, grossly, uneducated when it comes to anything about the government. So I will not say that facebook CAN’T put forth the policy it wants.  

Mark Zuckerberg leads the company, he created. (If I come to your house, you have the right to tell me I have to take my shoes off before walking on your carpet. It’s your carpet.) 

Now SHOULD such a policy be in place? Now as it does not serve the greater good of due process and free speech by informing the public. The people matter. They also have an interest in knowing.  

Preventing images of child rape is a good policy. Facebook should prevent obscene illegal images. Just as you should make a person take off their shoes. When a person enters your home though, they do not lost all protections afforded by law. You cannot force your hand over their mouth to silence them.  Given the nature of social media. It should be expected that a persons rights will be honored. While illegal images and direct threats, which are criminal, are prohibited.  Social media has helped to free people wrongfully convicted. Some even from death row. It has empowered the person to be able to have a louder voice.  If the people hear that persons proclamations and accept it. They then stand I support of that persons cause. That’s how a democracy works. Imagine if Socrates could not speak to the crowd? 

Just because there is people with a desire to use this kids situation as a political ping pong ball. (Mainly as a way to distract from other things.) 
It should not then be, that he cannot speak to the people.  

More so once politicians began using the case to further their agendas. Being that these ‘government’ officials have gotten involved. It makes all the more need for the case to be spotlighted. This way the ‘people’ will be able to check the governments words and deeds.  

When a company which literally can only exist by the peoples willing participation. Yet in some ways forces a person to, due to being a significant infrastructure of society.  When it then takes actions that are beneficial to one side of politics. It then can become oppressive to the other side, which sacrificing the individual.  Being that prosecutors are elected officials. They are swayed by public perception. It impacts how a prosecutor will resolve the case. (Which really should not be like that) 

Like how local media can make a guy charged with a crime, look like a monster.  

The corrupt Das and judge then send the guy to death row. The local media never highlighting the criminal acts and misconduct by Das. Stuff like that happens. Which then makes Das feel more comfortable doing misconduct. As no one will expose them to the people that vote. I thought we had protests, riots, and a social awakening, so in part, criminal justice would be under a microscope? 

As I mentioned in a previous blog. Midland newspaper said nothing about current DA withholding favorable evidence as I awaited execution. Which was mentioned through out the appeal that was the basis for the story.  How then are the people of Midland able to find out what their “government” officials have been doing? Social media! 

A newspaper is owned by a specific company or person that can control what news is covered. Same as TV stations. The people would be at the mercy of the decided coverage. Facebook is supposed to empower the individual. As I mentioned it survives solely based on willing participation. (While profiting greatly from their presence. Which is okay, as they get a free service.) When it then silences a person so completely. It offends the democracy our republic is built upon.  

As it blocks the person from speaking “&” the people from hearing.  

I wonder what ever happened to ole Socrates.  
When it comes to political ads. It seems because of the words Clinton & foundation are in the page. It is getting flagged based on Hillary Clinton’s foundation. Which is The Clinton Foundation. My page is clearly established for what it is, along with a website. It also has my last name, making it obvious that it is pertaining to a different individual.  Beyond all that. Hillary Clinton is not running for office and her foundation is a nonprofit, not a political action committee. Really should not be any blocking of her and that.  

When it comes to political ads in general.  Yes Facebook has the right to limit such. Though what if a news story is readily available and shared on Facebook about a particular candidate.  Say that news story is false and the result of that candidates more powerful opponent. Who has in some form able to create a false or misleading story, that is then shared in the news. 
This news story would then be a type of hit piece that serves a political end, beneficial to a politician.  It can act as an ad against the other candidate. If that other candidate can not get that media outlet to correct their story with the same energy they broke the false story or if they refuse to even correct or take down the story. That persons best option to counter that false story would be to take out an ad.  

Facebooks ban on political ads thus harms those running for office who are less connected and poorer.  In their attempt to counter, I guess, stuff like what Russia done in 2016 and so forth. The problem with the Russians, was not so much political ads as it was pages professing to be for certain groups. Then using those followers to share and repeat false information. Like the one guy that operated two pages. One for black militant types and the other for tea party or some type group that is majority white. He then stirred up conflict in Houston.  

That kind of stuff was the problem more than ads. False ads are a problem for people that see what they want to see. Facebook ban on ads while I guess was based on good intentions. It only serves to benefit the candidate that has the most money and can take out the more expensive TV and newspaper ads which tends to reach the older population more. The older population votes at a higher percentage than the youth. The youth use social media more.  

End result: Wealthy and powerful candidate can reach a higher percentage of actual voters. With a then limited counter by the opponent. If people dislike the Supreme Court ruling Citizens United, which allowed for more money in political campaigning.  

Facebooks ban on ads then becomes a prop for those that benefit from being able to raise more money. More so since all but one election is local. Only the ones running for president and their supporters have a need for nation and regional wide ads. The poor lady in Small Town, USA running against some crony mayor. She needs to reach her city only.  

Another element is that Newspapers will endorse political candidates.  Which is a direct act against the opposing candidate.  If poor lady in Small Town, USA has a local newspaper that endorses crony connected mayor. Older people read printed newspapers.  Poor lady, due to ban, cannot then use Facebook to get adds before younger voters to attempt to energize them to vote for her. So she can get elected and fight the coal plant storing waste next to the elementary school/chemical plan polluting waterways or such stereotypical corporate misdeeds a crony mayor would cover for.  The ban does not then sync up with facebooks professed belief in progressive causes. When seen in such a way. As I said: extreme policies result in unintended consequences. What it really is, is this. Facebook is such a powerful entity in the world. Where as in the past the real power was held within the hands of a few.  

Who then played the role of puppet master.  Here comes along Mark Zuckerberg who changed the game.  Whole countries political foundation was upended based on social media posts by the common folk. That used to be reserved for the CIA, KGB and a few select old people who inherited the game from some other old money.  So now they got to use this scandal or that to try to force Zuckerberg towards some specific end. As no one person can have an impact on more people than him. Many crave that kind of power. Some say that government should take it over. Though that’s because they know government officials can be bought and controlled.  

If they cant directly get him to do what they want. They got to take the ole catspaw approach. That or rant about “regulating facebook!” based on some outrage. “Why is Zuckerberg not controlling the people?!” “Why are these people acting all free?!” “Get the subjects in order!” 

I keep up with the news and politics much more than average person. I have hear and read many stories on him over the years.  He was basically a kid that became one of the richest people in the world and with the power, almost over night, that religions, governments and the sort have spent centuries worth of gold and blood trying to obtain.  

He didn’t come up in the street. He didn’t spend decades rubbing elbows with Wall Street CEOS, lawyers, military, and government officials learning how the game goes. How to effectively wield power. He seemingly has good intentions, but he keeps allowing this or that to pull him here or there. (I don’t see Exxon or GE getting pulled this way or that. Politicians aren’t demanding school leaders to testify and explain failing grades and illiterate teenagers.) Like when Facebook was assisting states with actions pertaining to social media accounts linked with people in prison. Prison and state officials was complaining about prisoners having social media accounts. He then agreed to shut some down and assist officials who was investigating the pages. Those officials then used that info to justify banning loved ones and giving draconian punishments to prisoners. There was an outcry about that due to South Carolina prison systems oppressive tactics. So he agreed to stop helping in that way.  

Governments complain in other ways and he said if a prison system has an actual policy on paper and the page violated the policy, he would deactivate the page. What he should have said was, “Its your job to control your prisons. My company isn’t part of any sentencing guidelines. And since you are so outraged by prisoners having some kind of voice. Im going to create more platforms that allow for exposure of excessive use of forces and other misconduct by guards and medical staff.” 

Had he said that, those same prison officials would have turned around and went back to where they came from. As it was the systems with typically the most abuses that complain the loudest.  Instead of telling adults what content they can have access to, as if everyone is children in need of parental controls. I would focus on educating and encouraging people to be able to research what they are exposed to.  

As educating a person empowers them.  

Instead of banning the political ads. I would have created some option where people exposed to the ad could pull up who exactly paid for it, what region that person is from so can know if out of state or another country. If any specific topics of the ad pertain to news stories or actions by another. The person could pull up related media stories or actions by another. The person could pull up related media stories from multiple sources so can read the various versions of what happened.  

Doing this would enable the person to know if the ad is sponsored by someone or some group based out of state, who are just trying to influence a ballot initiative for example or attack a certain candidate that is a threat to some corporate, social, or government interest. That person could then disregard that ad and ignore it. If the ad is by a local politician. The ad then lies on an opponent. The person could see who paid for ad and check related stories from various sources. This would help a person know if the candidate is being dishonest in his/her ad. If seen as being dishonest, then people wouldn’t vote for that candidate. Doing that would empower the people being exposed to ads and would reduce the effectiveness of misleading ads. It would be a checks and balance for the people to help keep politicians a tad bit more honest. People would go to facebook to see ads, as know can fact check unlike TV and newspapers.  

That a pretty good idea I came up with there. I came up with that all while writing this blog. I don’t rough draft. I just sit down and go with it. (Though I did add more to this one. So to make my opinion and law clear.) Everything comes to me as I write. I was frustrated as Facebook kept my foundation from posting ads about the new appeal. Where the judge was paying the DA to help. Hillary Clinton’s foundation does need ads. She famous and powerful. I have the state trying to kill me for a crime I did not commit.  

I am poor and oppressed by corrupt prosecutors and judges.  Huh, I am surprised I didn’t think of that angle first.
It’s a good way to end the blog though.  

I know this blog is long. I wanted to get people to think.  You should always question any restriction applied to the free flow of information.  

No matter who is doing the restricting.  Just because you agree with the specifics today. It does not mean it will go your way the next time. If any restriction is applied. Ask why and inquire as to why alternatives could not be utilized.  When you allow someone to decide what is best for you. You then cease to be the master of self.  Don’t teach me what you want me to know. Educate me so that I know how to learn. Allow me all the information so that I can come to an informed conclusion that reflects my individual perspective. That is how schools should operate.  

Alrighty then. Take care, smile, & strive for all that you desire.  

Veni, Vidi, Vici 
In solidarity I remain, 

Clinton Lee YOUNG #999447 
D.R-Polunsky Unit 
3872 FM 350 South 
Livingston, TX 77351 


Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinion on any subject, being liable for the abuse of that privilege;  and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press.  In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence.  In all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 1.16

(a) An official of a correctional facility or juvenile facility, an employee of a correctional facility or juvenile facility, a person other than an employee who works for compensation at a correctional facility or juvenile facility, a volunteer at a correctional facility or juvenile facility, or a peace officer commits an offense if the person intentionally:
(1) denies or impedes a person in custody in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, or immunity knowing his conduct is unlawful;
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.

Texas Penal Code, Article 39.04(a)(1):(a)