You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

Ash Sharp

Well, it was fun while it lasted. It turns out that Republic Standard is on the Zucc List.

According to the BBC, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg thinks he has a way to make sure you horrible plebians out there stop thinking in the wrong way.

"There's too much sensationalism, misinformation and polarisation in the world today. Social media enables people to spread information faster than ever before, and if we don't specifically tackle these problems, then we end up amplifying them." ~ Mark Zuckerberg

Zuckerberg believes that beyond our political affiliations, news outlets like the New York Times and the BBC transcend partisanship and are 'broadly trustworthy.'

Yes, the BBC that is openly discriminating based on race for job interviews.

Yes, the New York Times, who if we were to total up how often they have been caught spinning liberal propaganda it would take up all our time between now and mid-terms.

The reason for Facebook to tighten the noose on independent media like Republic Standard and other sites is clear. Back in May 2017, the BBC reported;

Facebook was a key influencer in the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election and the Brexit vote, according to those who ran the campaigns. But critics say it is a largely unregulated form of campaigning.

Those in charge of the digital campaigns for Donald Trump's Republican Party and the political consultant behind Leave EU's referendum strategy are clear the social network was decisive in both wins.

Political strategist Gerry Gunster, from Leave EU, told BBC Panorama that Facebook was a game changer for convincing voters to back Brexit.

A stunning and brave maneuver from some of the most powerful media companies on the face of the Earth to decide that actually they have been right all along and should be heard more after two elections that revealed the people were thinking bad things again. Strangely though, this is a volte face from what Zuckerberg himself said immediately after the 2016 election.


So there is the time line laid out for us. Clinton loses, liberals rage about people using social media to talk to each other -gosh what evil bigots- and Zuckerberg denies the fake news problem even exists. Just over a year later, and now we should just read the New York Times, because fake news is such a problem now it could mean Democrats never win again.

Now, of course, there's something to be said for at least alerting people to factually incorrect articles or utter fabrications. The dilemma begins with who decides where the line is. For example, many of the things on this site are matters of spirited debate. Republic Standard recognizes that many people will disagree with our perspectives- and that is fine.

What would not be fine would be for a one-sided ideologically driven narrative to be propagated through social media. While we all know Facebook and Twitter lean hard to the left, in the spirit of the game these platforms should be neutral. It is quite an amazing thing as a European to see the United States pass through a fiery debate on net neutrality -including death threats to members of Congress- but for no debate to occur around the neutrality of the websites upon which so much news is disseminated.

It is the dawn of 2018. In just a few short months we gear-up for the mid-term elections. The Brexit negotiations are on-going. Europe is wracked with self-doubt at a political level, the Middle East is undergoing seismic changes; not to mention the on-going threat of Islamic terrorism and a migration crisis that has thus far been treated by world leaders with all the due care and attention of a drunk driver.

If it is only the globalist and progressive arguments on these topics that are authorized to reach the vast numbers of politically inactive users of Facebook, which way does the Overton Window shift? By pushing the window further left while the nation is undergoing a populist revival will allow the legacy media and power elite to further frame Make America Great Again as a racist idea. We see this happening already, but for the moment there is at least the possibility of discourse to highlight the paucity of this position. Average Joe is particularly vulnerable to indoctrination-by-stealth of this kind. His apolitical nature lends itself to a natural conservatism, but simultaneously he is able to be scared into submission by calling him a few choice liberal epithets.

The media power elites know that social media and independent news is the future. The irony is of course that fine progressive fellows like Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey are wrestling with the conflict of interest between their positions as providers of social networks and also members of the new power elite. On the one hand, restricting the lifeblood of their business model -information- would be in their interests of controlling the narrative in service of their ideological goals. On the other, money talks. The fine-tuning of what we are permitted to see through these sites will take some time, and it is here that an opportunity emerges.

Until a viable alternative to Facebook and Twitter emerges, huge numbers of people are subject to the political indoctrination by algorithm. It is likely that these algorithms will take time to perfect to a point where most people are unaware of a wider news conversation. The responsibility will, therefore, lie with politically astute citizens -that's you, dear reader- to inform your friends and neighbors of the great con that is being perpetrated.

Alex Jones' Infowars might be fake news as all get out, but he's right- There is a war for your mind.

The Editor

by The Editor