Social Media Intolerance: Instagram Deletes The Firearm Blog’s Account

firearm blog TFB instagram ban

Courtesy The Firearm Blog

As has happened to so many gun-related enterprises in recent years, our friends at The Firearm Blog woke up earlier this week to find that they’d been de-platformed by Instagram. The Facebook-owned site had simply deleted their account without warning or explanation.

You’d think there’d be some kind of appeals process when something like that happens, but in the Alice in Wonderland-style curiouser and curiouser world of social media site standards management, TFB got this message when they tried to contact Zuckerberg’s anonymous drones to find out what happened:

Hi,

The account you’re referring to has been removed. We’re unable to restore accounts that have been permanently deleted. We’re sorry for any inconvenience this causes.

Thanks,
The Instagram Team

Apparently you can only appeal if you’ve been suspended. Removal is forever. Or something.

I talked to TFB’s editor in chief Pete yesterday who was at a loss to explain how they’d run afoul of Instagram’s nebulous, malleable, inscrutable “community standards.” It could have been something as simple as a single angry reader (who may have objected to their take on an ugly gun or something) reporting the site. Then, when the faceless button-pusher who fielded the complaint saw the word “firearm” was in the site’s name, they simply dropped the ban hammer.

Who knows? That’s just speculation.

Such is life these days when your topic of choice is one as déclassé and socially unacceptable to the famously tolerant techno-coastal elite wizards who run online media platforms as guns. You never know when posting something as anodyne as a photo of a rifle might trigger someone who thought they were secure in their safe space.

In the mean time, TFB has established a new Instagram account, here, and has begun the long process of rebuilding their reader base. Consider visiting the new address and giving them a follow.

 

comments

  1. avatar barnbwt says:

    LOL, “faceless button pushers” don’t get to directly screw with customers like this, as it’s bad for business. This was a decision by whatever internal censor board I’m sure IG denies having.

    I’ve noticed an oddly high number of openly hostile antigun commenters recently…it seems TTAG muat have grown enough to attract some unwanted attention. This IG ban is one of the results.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Whoops, ACS –Acronym Confusion Syndrome– got me; replace TTAG with TFB (or don’t; wasn’t TTAG also blocked a while back?)

      1. avatar M1Lou says:

        TFB has a special commenter named SWATman or something like that. He is not quite as entertaining as MikeB202020392094823098472745207350 who used to come on here to spread his joy and happiness.

        1. avatar guest says:

          Way to give him attention.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Way to give him attention.”

          Like you care, troll?

          Dance, troll. I order you to respond… 🙂

    2. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

      I’ve noticed a massive spike in the number of new, hostile, semi-literate trolls on the numerous firearm blogs (as well as numerous free-speech forums) that popped up within about 24-48 hours of that recent anonymous $100 million dollar investment into bitcoin.

    3. avatar Snake Plisskin says:

      I too have noticed the trolls that have come here. Best thing to do (it’s hard) is ignore them.

      While certainly a bit more cumbersome, only solution I can see if start having everyone sign up with an account to comment to control some of this. TTAG is kinda like the Wild West now… LOL

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Ignore them? They make such fun punch-toys! 🙂

        1. avatar Snake Plisskin says:

          Good point, but they are like those blow-up-sand-weighted punch clowns a lot of us had as kids. You hit them and they just roll back and straighten back up.

  2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Such intolerance — coming from a political group that preaches tolerance.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      They’ve never preached tolerance. They’ve been angrily shrieking the entire time.

    2. avatar Some dude says:

      The only thing progressives are tolerant of is progressive deviance.

      1. Progressives have their own definition of the word “tolerance”:

        https://is.gd/DeHavelle_Tolerance

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Redefining key words is one of the most beloved tactics. Orwell pegged them dead on in many ways, this being a notable one.

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    Revenge of the nerds, friendless outcasts, mammas boys, fat chicks and tattle tales continues apace.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Fat chicks?

      Better hope your wife doesn’t see that post.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        My personal favorite, girly boys and drama queens!

  4. avatar Crabbyoldguy says:

    Just remember, you aren’t their customer. You’re their product. They don’t feel as though they owe you anything. Maybe consider contacting your senator and demanding payment for their continued use of your property.

    1. avatar Darkstar says:

      Yes, this.

    2. avatar burley says:

      I’m so glad there are others who understand what social media is about!

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Social media: kind of an oxymoron isnt it? Or at at least a contradiction in terms.

  5. avatar BluesMike says:

    We’re going to have to start pushing our politicians and gun rights organizations to make gun owners a protected class.

  6. avatar GridSquare says:

    “TFB has established a new Instagram account, here, and has begun the long process of rebuilding their reader base. Consider visiting the new address and giving them a follow.“

    Um, why!? Why continue to give buisness to a company that’s openly hostile to the 2A and your buisness? Why not take to another platform?

    1. avatar NoFudds says:

      What other platform?

      That’s what people don’t get. Sure, you can go elsewhere. But if no one is there then there’s no point. The point is having a presence in the national square, where everyone is. If you can only speak in box then there’s no damn point dude.

      I’m so tired of jUsT TaKE yOuR BuSInEss ElSeWheRe fools. You completely miss the point.

      1. avatar GridSquare says:

        Well then they’ve won, and you should just roll over and take it like the b*tch you are.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          *No*, we make them roll over and take it with *zero* lube. 🙂

          They are either tolerant and accepting of others not like themselves, or they are *not* tolerant and accepting of others not like themselves…

    2. avatar B says:

      I know, huh? Just start up their own social media app called Insta-blam!

  7. avatar ML says:

    Actually we need to have them reclassified as a public utility. As they (YouTube, FB, etc.) have become de facto monopolies for public communications, they should be regulated just like the phone company(ies) and just allowed to carry the signal, not censor it.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      It’s not a utility. No one needs it and service isn’t guaranteed for all. The cable tv monopolies almost declassified themselves to avoid public regulation but they needed the utility designation to run lines, work with other utilities and trespass on your property.

      1. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

        My, and presumably your, tax money is responsible for the creation of Google and Facebook, both through DARPA and In-Q-Tel. Considering the fact that the two own essentially every other social media company, as well as proven themselves to be publishers time and time again leaves the public with scant few options. Either classify as public utilities, or after what they have done to 4chan, 8chan, bitchute, Gab etc. Antitrust/Non-Compete violations.

    2. avatar Quasimofo says:

      Many social media companies present themselves to the public and, more importantly, to .gov as a platform, like the phone company, but some (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) act in the manner of a publisher. In that regard, often their application of their “terms of service” appears to have an ideological bias, as Tim Pool and others have shown.

  8. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    Normally I’d be against the government stepping in an making the social media industry even worse (the only effect it ever has) but if it could be done in a way that harms these companies and their owners I’d be for it in this instance. My use of the services is quite limited and I’d be happy to change it to zero. I have never even seen Instagram or Twitter. I have a FB account just to see a BD-5 group’s communications. I realize that this is a case of my principles distorting in war. However, I suspect that any legislation, no matter it’s intent would help the likes of Zuckeberg and Dorsey.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Google and others are already sucking up to the Chinese Gov. to make that happen.When they get the bugs worked out to the satisfaction of the Commies they’ll do it here also.

      1. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

        The Chinese government now owns complete control of Apples iCloud and with Google’s Project Dragonfly, as well as the “American” tech companies clamoring to create the Social Credit System in China (as a likely forerunner for a worldwide system) dark times are already here.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “…clamoring to create the Social Credit System in China”

          Clamoring? It’s already been created, and is being rolled out in China even as we speak…

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    Golly and TFB famously(infamously?!?)claims they ain’t political. I guess yer screwed no matter what. Because guns…might as well grow a backbone.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    I’m proud to have no dealings with the Zuck or his empire. More people should review their relationship with social media and question if it’s worth it. Ideally the gun community could try to produce their own storm but the tech industry is uniformly intertwined and they control a lot of the infrastructure. Add aggressive government to the mix and we are being pushed into the closet slowly.

  11. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Liberalism, democracy at it’s finest…

  12. avatar David Deplorable says:

    “Firearms not Politics” is TFB’s simple-mimded motto.

    Without politics (and political advocacy) there will be no firearms.

    Some people are slow learners.

    1. avatar Quasimofo says:

      To paraphrase a comment on TFB’s site: You may not be interested in politics, but politics is still interested in you.

  13. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    One more reason I’m not on Facebook! Usually dont agree with Gov. control, but cant help thinkin it might be time.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Usually dont agree with Gov. control, but cant help thinkin it might be time.”

      I, for one, prefer Gov. William J Le Petomane to remain un-controlled at all times in all his voluminous fecal-gas ‘splendor’.

      (Incoming!)

      *snicker* 😉

  14. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Another reason to use minds , gab and bitchute.

  15. avatar Darkman says:

    Make enough enemies and eventually someone will deal with you. A lesson learned the hard way and usually most unpleasant. As far as expecting the government to do anything through regulations. Not likely. Zuckerberg has all of them right where he wants them. Feeding at his trough and providing a censorship tool that they want but publicly won’t admit to. Regardless of party affiliation. At the end of the day they fear Zuckerberg more than they fear citizens. We spend our time fighting amongst ourselves. Because that is what they need in order control Us. All the while they slowly back us closer to the Abyss of Tyranny. Until they achieve their goal of unlimited control. Keep Your Powder Dry.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      If it continues to creep slowly enough, but the time enough people realize it, it might well will be too late.

  16. avatar possum says:

    . There should only be one source of information and that information should be controlled by the government. The lies of propaganda work better that way and once you’ve embraced the pain mortal your life will be better. Oh BTW , I was stopped last night riding my bicycle, red and blues, get your hands up reach for the sky, keep your hands out of your pockets, your ID, run the checks,” We stop everyone riding this late” ,,,, Thank you Officer for keeping my streets safe

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      I get that about once a year or so, since I ride at night in the summer heat.

      If they ask if I have any weapons, I let em know where they are. If they ask why I’m armed, I tell them because a ‘good ole’ boy’ thought it was funny to sic his dog on me once. They usually agree that’s a damn good reason…

  17. avatar Anner says:

    Absolutely not. If we allow the gov to regulate this form of speech, even if we strongly dislike or disagree with the actions of a private entity in deleting someone’s account, it is a gov infringement on free speech. Don’t like Instagram, Facebook, or whatever? Go start your own. But do not think that just because you don’t like the current offerings of social media platforms that the solution is to allow the feds to regulate it.

    Once that regulation is in place, consider it permanent in existence—only open to modification by future policy changes. That’s a damn scary thought. The IRS scandal, FBI leadership political crusades, and many other examples show what can happen when someone in power doesn’t politically align with you. Do not hand them the power to silence your speech.

    1. avatar Anner says:

      That was a reply to an above comment on using gov regulation to fix this. Nope.

    2. We don’t need government regulation of these private entities, we just need to end government protection of them.

      Currently, as “platforms,” they are immune from lawsuits pertaining to their treatment of content.

      But as publishers — people who actively edit or remove content at their pleasure, they would be exposed to legal actions. Causes of action such as “intentional interference with economic advantage” would eventually get their attention, and improve their behavior.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Good to see you again, Keith!

        1. Thank you, sir. I cannot get out to shoot anymore; I’m an old guy stuck in an electric wheelchair. But my brain still works, and I can still type, even if not as fast as before. I’ve had to switch from touch typing to the Columbus method: “I discovered it myself!”

          I remain a fierce supporter of the Second Amendment, a lifetime member of the NRA, and a big fan and friend of its current president. Years ago, I met Sandy Froman, who had just taken over from Charlton Heston. She was quite literally a liberal who had been mugged by reality, except that the intruder never made it through her front door in LA. The next day, that liberal attorney was at a gun shop.

          But I’ve been a Constitutional conservative from high school days. I needed no convincing.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)

    3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Do not hand them the power to silence your speech.”

      We’re not in any way seeking to silence anyone’s speech. We are demanding all legal speech be treated equally.

      They are giving intolerance a voice, we want equal tolerance for speech they disagree with…

      1. avatar Anner says:

        It’s a private company, they can push or silence whatever they want. And I don’t want any forced actions otherwise.

        Are they hypocrites and intellectually dishonest about their policy? Absolutely. It’s maddening. And yet their freedom to do that is more important than forcing them to treat all customers or participants equally.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Whether or not this is true or not is questionable. Are they a platform or a publisher?

          If they’re a platform then they’re generally not as responsible for things that get posted on their site but they also are not supposed to pick and choose what speech to allow and disallow unless it’s illegal. Threats, child porn, that kind of thing. OTOH, if they’re a publisher they have to police that stuff because they’re more responsible for what goes out.

          They like to claim platform status but then they act like publishers when they don’t allow certain people to say certain things like “Here, look how cool this gun is!” which isn’t actually illegal or threatening.

          If they’re a publisher, which they often act as, then I’d say they can police speech any way they want. The downside is that if some loony posts some illegal stuff they’re on the hook for that. If they’re a platform just “hosting the discussion” then they really don’t get to pick and choose what people say on the platform unless it’s illegal or obviously objectionable (trolling, abuse etc).

          When they hide behind the law to pretend their a “free speech platform” that’s just furthering the discussion and then remove people for saying something they don’t like, like a publisher, that’s horseshit and it’s a grey area of the law where what they’re doing might rightly be found by a court to be wrong.

  18. avatar Draven says:

    Ehh, social media is gradually killing itself anyway.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      For gen Z and many millennials, it seems to be pretty much their only source of information. They live on social media. The social media brown shirts and gestapo may be driving off others, but driving off dissenting voices helps keep the echo chamber functioning. If a bunch of (mostly older people) get fed up an leave, I’m pretty sure the leftists will consider that a solid win.

  19. avatar strych9 says:

    Damn, now how am I gonna get detracted by semi-useful stuff while cruising for hot mom selfies and pictures of whatever some rando had for lunch?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Strych the ‘M*I*L*F Hunter’?

      *snicker* 😉

  20. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    I don’t use Instagram and will not. Where can I tell them to do unnatural things with each other?

  21. avatar UpInArms says:

    It seems that Instagram has its own version of a red flag law.

  22. avatar Michael says:

    Real nice electric empire you got there…(can you spell “EMP”?)…ever think something might happen to it?…-30-

    1. avatar Draven says:

      I await the day when we suddenly find out that large-scale EMPs don’t propagate in the atmosphere the way theory says…

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        You will be in for a rude surprise. 900 miles away, it blew out streetlights :

        “Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), which was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 898 miles (1,445 km) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights,[6] setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link.[7] The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.[8]”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

        1. avatar Draven says:

          And it had line of sight to those locations. Some people insist that the emp can cascade around the curvature of the earth.

  23. avatar idaho hiker says:

    Stand your ground TTAG. You can’t let Zuck bully you.

  24. …I thought the article was describing “Red Flag Laws….”

  25. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Libertarianism strikes again. I look forward to the day when every private Media Company deletes those things and people they despise. And gun people can go back to being pamphleteers. And use a piece of paper to spread their message in the 21st century.

    Assuming the US Postal Service will still be in existence.

  26. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    I may or may not have been following the blog previously but anything social media is trying to shut down is something that should not be shut down. I followed the link provided and am now following the new blog.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email