Many have argued that Facebook and their cohorts have wrongfully given themselves the privilege of being barometers of truth, and that it's not Facebook's place to play thought police. But their plan has been enacted regardless -- and it seems no slight is too small to go unpunished. According to Politifact's own article, Watson's article is backed up not only by the U.N. report, but reports on the paper in six other languages.
Facebook blacklists reality
Their issue is that Watson titled his report, "Revealed: UN Plan To Flood America With 600 Million Migrants." And according to Politifact, the word "revealed" makes it seem as though this is a new story, when the report is actually from 2001. However, Watson noted throughout his report that the paper is from 2001, and it was getting "fresh attention" due to the mass migrations taking place right now.
Even Politifact admits that Watson wrote about scenarios explicitly listed in the report, entitled Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? [PDF].
Though the U.N. report claims that these "hypothetical scenarios" were not intended to be "recommendations," the report's own opening paragraphs seem to be at odds with this statement. The U.N. report notes that replacement migration is being "considered" throughout the paper for eight low-fertility countries, including the U.S.
And as the opening paragraph states:
The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.
There are six scenarios for the U.S. outlined in the paper, which range in extremity. The most severe situation calls for over 10 million immigrants to enter the U.S. each year.
As the U.N. wrote in 2001, “It would be necessary to have 593 million immigrants from 1995 to 2050, an average of 10.8 million per year.”
“By 2050, out of a United States total population of 1.1 billion, 775 million, or 73 per cent, would be post 1995 immigrants or their descendants,” the U.N. report explains.
Ultimately, Watson's article was slapped with a "False" rating by Politifact and got flagged by Facebook -- in spite of his accurate reporting. This raises questions about how bias in "fact-checking" can, and will, lead to censorship of divergent opinions and independent thought.
.
Censorship on the rise
Earlier this summer, Facebook was under fire for censoring pro-life content and refusing to approve ads for pro-life pages like LifeSiteNews. A representative for the social media giant even told LifeSite that their pro-life message may be "too offensive" for Facebook.
“I definitely understand what you are referring to, but more than likely the topic you are speaking of may offend some, or Facebook finds they would rather not allow that type of Advertising at this time," the rep explained.
“Perhaps Facebook would rather remain neutral as they would not want to offend either side. While you do have authorization to run Ads, perhaps this topic might be the cause of those disapproval,” the reply continued.
If Facebook wanted to remain neutral, that would be a fine response. But according to LifeSite, ads for Planned Parenthood seem to be unrestricted -- with one ad calling out politicians by name and accusing them of obstructing access to healthcare. Facebook has cast a wide net on their pathway to total suppression. See more coverage of stories like this at Censorship.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
