In an age where social media platforms are the dominant medium for sharing news and ideas, censorship has increasingly become a tool to control the narrative. Most recently, Facebook has come under fire for removing an important article from WECU News shared by Linda Genzel on her personal newsfeed, claiming it posed a "cybersecurity threat." This raises several questions: How does sharing an article constitute a security risk, and why does Facebook target independent media while allowing actual threats to persist?
Facebook’s Selective Censorship
The article in question, shared by Linda Genzel, journalist at WECU Media, covered a critical topic that challenged prevailing narratives. Yet, despite its value to public discourse, Facebook flagged and removed it, citing cybersecurity concerns. For context, WECU News does not collect personal data, target-market users, or sell information—practices that are all hallmarks of Facebook’s business model. How, then, can we be classified as a cybersecurity threat?
The article in mention is "Discrimination or Equity? Minneapolis Food Pantry Excludes White People Amid Controversy" where a food bank openly discriminated against hungry white citizens using tax payer funding.
The most troubling aspect of this censorship is that it wasn’t isolated. WECU News has faced repeated instances of its content being flagged or removed, despite having no connection to cybersecurity breaches or violations. Our focus is providing honest, well-researched journalism to our audience. So why the heavy-handed approach from Facebook?
A Double Standard: Real Threats Ignored
The inconsistency of Facebook's enforcement becomes glaring when you consider their response to actual threats. When Linda Genzel reported a direct threat made against her and her family after sharing a comment on Facebook. Facebook's response was shocking: "This does not go against our community standards." How is it that a real, personal threat doesn’t violate the platform’s standards, but sharing a legitimate news article is deemed a cybersecurity issue?
This double standard reveals a troubling trend. Content that challenges the status quo or touches sensitive topics is often flagged or removed, while harmful actions and speech often go unchecked. How can an organization like Facebook claim to uphold safety and integrity while allowing threats to persist but silencing independent voices?
Facebook’s Business Model vs. Independent Journalism
What makes this censorship even more disheartening is the fact that Facebook itself engages in practices that should arguably raise greater concerns. As part of its business model, Facebook collects and sells user data, tailors ads based on private information, and targets users based on their online behavior. By contrast, WECU News does none of this. Our focus is on delivering meaningful content without compromising user privacy or data security.
So, why are we, an independent news outlet, being flagged as a threat when we do not engage in the practices that make Facebook a multi-billion dollar corporation? The answer likely lies in Facebook’s increasing control over what information is allowed to circulate on its platform, especially content that challenges mainstream narratives.
The Bigger Picture: Controlling the Narrative
The removal of WECU News content under the guise of "cybersecurity" fits into a broader pattern of censorship, where social media platforms wield immense power to decide what information the public can access. When independent outlets are silenced and real threats are ignored, it becomes clear that platforms like Facebook are not just neutral carriers of information—they are gatekeepers shaping the flow of ideas and conversations.
By controlling what content is allowed, Facebook—and platforms like it—can influence public perception on a massive scale. This issue goes far beyond WECU News; it affects anyone who values free speech, open dialogue, and accountability in journalism.
Stand Against Censorship
As we continue to see this selective censorship, it’s important to call out the double standards and demand transparency. The public deserves access to independent journalism, untainted by corporate interests or government pressure. WECU News remains committed to providing that platform, but we need the support of our readers to ensure these voices are heard.
This incident is not just about one article or one person’s newsfeed—it’s about the larger fight for freedom of speech in a digital age dominated by a few powerful platforms.
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake
Comments