Facebook Suppressing TTAG, Other Firearms Publishers’ Posts


At the end of February, TTAG noticed a significant drop in our traffic. Silly us, we thought it was the annual seasonal spring fall-off come early. Upon further review, however, it became apparent that the problem was our Facebook-generated traffic. And we weren’t the only firearms-related web site affected. Facebook had, they now tell us, “penalized” us for too much “promotional” content. Only our content mix hadn’t changed. At all. Nor had the content of the other sites involved. And they were all hit at the same time . . .

Strange, no? After being pressed, Facebook tells us that readers had designating our content as “too commercial”. Only they never informed us or the other sites. Who reported us? Good question.

Now we’re trying to determine how many more gun-oriented sites out there have been similarly impacted. The affected group of sites has created a web site — fbgunfail.com — so other site owners can make themselves known. We’ll then address this more vigorously with the social media giant. Here’s our press release:

AUSTIN, Texas (June 6, 2016) – A coalition of firearms-related organizations – Concealed Nation, The Truth About Guns, Gun Owners of America, USA Carry and Alien Gear Holsters – today revealed that Facebook has been actively suppressing their posts. Based on the coalition’s research into the problem, the suppression began at the end of February.

“We have over 700,000 likes on our Facebook page and tremendous reader response to our material,” said Brandon Curtis, publisher of Concealed Nation. “We didn’t change a thing about the way we post. In February our Facebook traffic fell off a cliff. It sank by nearly 50 percent in that first month.”

Facebook has penalized these organizations’ pages by limiting distribution to user newsfeeds, despite users ‘liking’ the page.

Facebook has admitted to Curtis that the social media giant has suppressed the gun-related pages’ distribution. They claimed their posts had “too much commercial content.”

“I realized our Facebook page wasn’t the only firearm-related website that had experienced a dramatic decrease in traffic,” said Luke McCoy, founder of USA Carry. “I emailed the same account manager at Facebook about our situation. She said that people were claiming our content was overly promotional.”

“Content that would normally reach our nearly one million followers has steadily dropped to a fraction of what it once was, despite our page’s continual growth of new followers,” said Rob Russo, social media manager for Alien Gear Holsters.

Curtis informed Facebook that Concealed Nation, The Truth About Guns and other affected sites’ content was purely editorial. Facebook’s account manager then claimed the pages had been flagged by users. Nearly a month has passed and Facebook has yet to provide further information, and has not given a timeline for any type of resolution.

Despite repeated requests, Facebook has failed to remove the penalties imposed on the sites’ firearms-related pages. Instead, they offered a free seminar on how to increase traffic with the penalties in place.

The publishers are looking to determine the extent of the problem — including the amount of revenue lost due to the fall-off in Facebook-related website traffic. They’re asking owners of gun-related Facebook pages to check their Facebook reach and engagement for 2016 and report their findings at fbgunfail.com. Once they gather the data, they’ll contact participants to share their findings and propose a joint response.

“Facebook is an invaluable resource for Second Amendment supporters trying to spread the message of responsible gun ownership,” Curtis says. “We’re asking Facebook to remove any  penalties on the affected pages, and to create a process that prevents this type of thing from happening again, including a notification system that would notify page owners whose posts are being suppressed. Our readers enjoy and want our content, and it’s frustrating that they are no longer seeing what we post.”


  1. avatar dwb says:

    Zuckerburg promised conservative pundits that it was not biased. I am totally sure he was telling the 100% truth. /sarc

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      It’s possible that he’s telling the truth. Misusing ‘report abuse’ functions is something lefties have coordinated to do on twitter and other forums, and downvote-brigades have been around at least since Digg was a thing.

      Robert, you may want to suggest to FB that someone might be misusing the report function to harass people who’s views they disagree with, and ask them to check if the people reporting TTAG’s facebook URL have also reported other firearms-related URLs at about the same time.

    2. avatar Clyde says:

      I have boycotted Facebook along time ago! Who the hell needs them? Socialist run Suckerberg

  2. avatar OneThreeThree says:

    This is the exact reason why I killed my facebook account.

    1. avatar JJVP says:

      One of the reasons I don’t have an FB account. Never had, never will.

      1. avatar js says:

        Take it to the next step, and block them entirely. Add http://www.facebook.com
        (Do not include the “http://” in the above; TTAG added that to my post.)

        To your hosts file at:

        C: Windows System32 drivers etc hosts

        Then their trackers cannot call home, regardless of what page you visit. Yes, they track you all across the web right now. This stops that permanently.

        If you don’t know how to deal with your “hosts” file, look it up. It’s easy.

        As a non-FB user, this has caused me zero issues. Makes me smile though.

        1. avatar HP says:

          There is also a browser add on called “Ghostery” you can download, it blocks all trackers.

      2. avatar Bob in Washington says:

        +1 Ditto and Same here.

    2. avatar HP says:


      Permanently deleted over 2 years ago. Better late than never. I won’t even give Facebook page hits. Starve the beast.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        You didn’t “delete” anything. They still have any info/data you unwisely gave them. Forever.

        1. avatar HP says:

          They do? They might. Are we sure?

      2. avatar Layne says:

        Yes we’re sure. If you don’t believe it, go back and “reactivate” your account. All of the info is right where you left it, just no longer publicly visible. There is no option to “delete” your facebook account.

        1. avatar HP says:

          Uh, yes there is. “Deactivating” and “Deleting” your account are two entirely different things. I encourage you to research it. Facebook doesn’t want you to delete the account, so they bury it through a series of hard to find links. However, my account is gone. Several months after deletion I tried exactly what you are suggesting. No dice. Did Facebook save my info somewhere? They could have, but why?

        2. avatar JimTheo says:

          Actually, if you change your saved profile in subtle and not so subtle ways (change bdate, hometown, occupation) data mining will now be forever polluted and you can use their harvesting methods against them.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    FB is a private company. They can add or subtract any content they wish. Becoming too dependent on any one source of information collection or publication may not be the best tactic.

    BTW, all the social media sites are controlled by lefties. One day they will determine they lose virtually nothing by shutting-down all conservative or gun rights accounts. Maybe all the gun support organizations could start their own social media site?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      … and they are still liable for damages when such actions do not fall in line with their published guidelines and agreements. I would be looking very strongly at a legal challenge.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Published ‘guidelines’ mean nothing. If by ‘agreements’ you mean contracts, then the TOS you ‘agree to’ when using facebook are so overpoweringly on their side that there’s no way you’ll get any damages unless there’s a very specific action against you… no way this kind of thing would go anywhere.

      2. avatar Charles5 says:

        No. Since you are not paying them anything, they have no liability for not following their guidelines.

    2. avatar Satchmod says:

      Facebook is not private – it’s listed on NASDAQ.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        It is still a private business, even if its shares are publicly traded. Same as with all of the other companies listed. The public/private issue is whether the forum is like a public forum (street corner) where the First Amendment applies. /Think of it as the distinction between public property and private property. In some circumstances, even private property can be subject to rules applicable to public fora, and the issue is whether Facebook may have crossed that line and lost the right to control legal conduct.

      2. avatar Charles5 says:

        Common stock is traded on a public exchange, but it is still a private company, meaning that it is not a government entity.

        1. avatar Juan says:

          However, being a publicly traded company, they do have a responsibility to their shareholders. So if the gun groups can get together and buy a significant stake in the company, perhaps they could sue on those grounds. I’m not a lawyer or a stock broker, so maybe it wouldn’t work, but I’m just thinking out loud here.

    3. avatar Jose says:

      May have to look into that, Facebook is a Publicly traded company now.

      1. avatar David Morris says:

        Again, a publicly traded company is still a private company. The distinction between public and private for the purposes of legal rights and protections is the distinction between a government owned or controlled entity versus one that is completely owned and controlled by private citizens. The public streets, the courthouse, public school systems, the post office… those are public entities. Facebook, Google, IBM, etc. are all owned and managed by private citizens. While they may trade shares on a public exchange, that does NOT make them public companies in the sense that the Bill of Rights applies to them. Remember the BoR is designed to restrict what the government can do to us, the citizenry, and not what the citizenry can do to each other.

        Private businesses are required, with some exceptions, to adhere to specific civil rights protections with respect to protected classes such as race, religion, age, etc., but they are not required to honor your freedom of speech, for example. You CAN be fired or barred from a business who doesn’t like your particular speech. In this case, Facebook certainly has the right to limit certain speech. And we as customers have the right to do business elsewhere.

        1. avatar CoolHand says:

          If bakers MUST bake cakes for everyone, under pain of severe legal penalties, then Facebooke Et Al MUST serve every customer in exactly the same manner or face the same.

          YOU might think that it’s OK for them to censor us, but THEIR OWN RULES say otherwise.

          With the right legal team this could absolutely be brought before a court and argued successfully.

          Rules for Radicals people, learn it, use it. Make them live up to their own standards.

          The rules are being used against us every day, it’s time to take the fight back to these bastards.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          >> If bakers MUST bake cakes for everyone, under pain of severe legal penalties, then Facebooke Et Al MUST serve every customer in exactly the same manner or face the same.

          The bakers don’t have to bake cakes for everyone; the law requires them to do so for specific protected classes. Gun owners are not one of those classes, neither on federal level, nor in any state.

    4. avatar HP says:

      There are fledgling pro-gun social media sites, though I don’t how heavily used or worthwhile they are, at least yet. I stumbled across one called Gun District a while back. Created an account but haven’t really bothered to check back.

      1. avatar Floyd Bailey says:

        All should watch what they join. The gun web sites you join can be used as a databaae for future gun geabs. Wvwn the government has hackers.

  4. avatar Vhyrus says:

    I have been without a job and have had difficulty even getting an interview in recent years. Recently, someone noted a comment I made on a website to this effect and left me a note on facebook claiming that my gun content and my ‘middle eastern’ name (it’s Jewish but I don’t expect much from people anymore) are probably scaring potential employers off. I have removed all gun stuff from my timeline and made all my content private. The sad thing is that I rarely use facebook. I really only used it for the free gun contests.

    Facebook is probably the single most dangerous threat to personal freedom that I have seen in my lifetime. The government could never in a million years put together such an effective and far reaching information machine even if they made it compulsory.

    1. avatar OODAloop says:

      I’d agree. With the recent “FB investigated our trending news and other accusations of our suppressing people and groups and we’ve found we did nothing wrong” is no different than HRC saying that her email investigation is just an administrative going-over. Progs don’t understand the intrinsic evil in these acts, because they don’t see their news being round-filed, so they don’t see any issues.

      As mentioned earlier, most social media is owned by Lefties which needs to change. Will it? Meh, maybe not. If you look at your standard conservative, most are “stay outta my business and I’ll stay out of yours” and don’t need to the constant buoying up of political/social positions like the insecure Left. We just don’t care what most others think.

      Fortunately, there are some #AltRight getting pissed off at the state of things and are actively working to change it.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Actually Google is at least an order of magnitude worse.

      How anyone ever fell for/signed up for Faceplant/Fakebook is impossible to understand. Worst than NO redeeming value. “No redeeming” being a neutral characteristic.

  5. avatar Wade says:

    That sucks but honestly it’s a private company and can promote or suppress anything it wants on its site.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      True – but it has published terms of service and it can be held to them.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Most ToS have some sort of “notwithstanding” provision that basically gives the site operator the ability to do whatever the hell they want. The purpose of ToS, after all, is to limit what the users/customers can do, and provide companies with a convenient legal recourse. Why would they voluntarily limit themselves if they don’t have to?

      2. avatar Charles5 says:

        No. You are not paying anything for the service, therefore there is no breach of contract for them not following their terms of service. Any attempt to bring suit would be immediately dismissed, as well it should be. Nobody has a right to Facebook or any other social media platform.

  6. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Hmmm…I rarely visit yer fakebook page. No freedom to comment. Suckyberg’s cash cow-his rules. No matter what “bi-ass” stories he spins…btw FB wants total control as my wife has resisted putting all of her effort in FB from her (very) successful decorating blog. She puts up a blog post and gets 5 comments-FB gets 100. No EZ answers here…

  7. avatar ron cassano says:

    to all gun papers/books and gun people.its there way of promoting there agenda,and denying anything that they don,t like.so hurt facebook in the pocketbook,use other medias and don,t use/buy/ or do anything thru this bias unamerican web site,its all part of ovomits/satan and others agenda21{new world order}we will be telling everyone we know around the world,to hurt facebook in the pocketbook use other medias.we know facebook and some others,take there orders from the agenda21{new world order people}like the bilderberrys soros the british royalty the dark money billionairs the saudis and a few others,so use other medias.

  8. avatar Can'tBelieveTheWhining says:

    So, other than reach/engagement dropping, do you have actual proof that your site was penalized because of its content?

    Do you have any proof that this was not because of an algorithm change? Such as people were not engaging with your content, so it was merely demoted as a natural course of events?

    And, even if Facebook targeted you because of guns, what is your basis of filing a lawsuit? Is Facebook still part of the free market? Can they not run their business in any way they wish, or are you looking for some sort of enforceable quota of gun related content?

    Everybody knows Silicon Valley leans left. If you don’t like it, don’t use it or start a competitor.

    1. Please read the press release. We were told directly by someone very prominent at Facebook that we are being “penalized” – her word – for “promotional” content. She said this was not due to an algorithm change. The reduction was due to readers reporting ours and other gun-related sites’ content to them…all at the same time.

      Clear enough?

  9. avatar Rick K says:

    Just like the IRS wasn’t targeting conservative groups looking for 501C3 non profit status.

  10. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:


    1. avatar Charles5 says:

      Since they are not a government entity, they have no duty or responsibility to honor the first or second amendment or any other amendment for that matter.

  11. avatar River Walker says:

    You go to the enemies playgound to bball and you expect a fair shake ? Fools…

  12. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I spend vastly more time here than there.

  13. avatar Jack Noel says:

    One idea just for thinking about: Why not a lawsuit directed at forcing ALL companies offering “public access” to provide clearly stated political preferences and antagonisms? If they’re going to use their money-making “free access” web platforms to advance or restrict any given political agenda then they should make that clear so that potential user/subscribers may choose before actually subscribing.

    1. avatar Charles5 says:


  14. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I am not sure about the actual rights we as a group have on it howevewer we need to make it known that they are not an unbiased source. A suit may be such an avenue.

  15. While may page has a comparatively small audience I have not seen reach change significantly. It goes up and down, sometimes depending who shares posts through the page. A larger page sharing a post can make a significant difference. On March 13th facebook does show a large number of people hiding a post (this story: http://q13fox.com/2016/03/13/machete-swinging-attacker-shot-and-killed-by-customer-at-7-11/ ). Which is incredibly strange.

    That being said, I have been asked by facebook a number of times to take their survey where they show a number of ‘sample posts’ and the user is supposed to rate the posts on how much they think it looks like an ad. I don’t recall rating any of TTAG posts as being ‘adlike’, but some of the other pages I did. Because they were ads. I’m not going to mention the page names here but I’m sure many here know some of the ones I am talking about.

  16. avatar Bob315 says:

    Sounds like Democrat Party operatives digitally “SWATed” TTAG. What I mean is they found a way to submit a bogus complaint in order to get Facebook to silence the messenger. This dirty tactic is normal for the Democrat Party and other Liberal Fascist organizations.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    I’ve said this before: FB is going to cut off TTAG sooner or later.

    Plan ahead.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      ^ This. Again. Still.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “FB is going to cut off TTAG sooner or later.”

      I expect that to happen shortly after the election, no matter who wins.

      I’ve never had an F-Book page, but recently have toyed with the idea, strictly as a matter of convenience, but after *this* bit of news, I *never* will…

  18. avatar IAmSeaMann says:

    Nah, it’s more than likely your unchecked blood thirsty users who declare everyone a liberal or progressive if they have a different view point on any issue, regardless of their stance on guns.

    This is supposed to be the truth about guns, not the truth about rabid impotent conservatives.

    1. avatar Sam in NC says:

      Say what you will about TTAG and it’s readers. Least you are free to post comments. Unlike so many “Progressive” FB and websites who block users who have a different view from them. Believe that’s called intolerance.

      So have a cup of freedom that provided here. Kindly provided by quite a few TTAG readers who are current or former LEO and soldiers whom you label rabid.. FN troll

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Hey, now! FN had nothing to do with this guy.

    2. avatar Stu in AZ says:

      That reminds me, I haven’t satiated my thirst for blood this week. All those guns locked up in my safe sure are thirsty!

  19. avatar Warren says:

    And this is why I rely on RSS feeders, and not facebook, to follow what’s going on with my various favorite websites.

  20. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Given the choice between syphilis and FaceBook, I’d choose syphilis.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” …I’d choose syphilis.”

      A wise man you are.

      At least will have gotten something for what you got in return… 🙂

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Plus, all you have to do to get rid of it is to just give it away. Trust me, I’m a medic. ; )

  21. avatar lonesouth says:

    buh bye facebook. I’m not going to be a part of your social engineering anymore.

  22. avatar Slayer of Sacred Cows says:

    Come check out MeWe if you’re sick of facebook. They respect your privacy, you own your content, there’s no suspensions over hurt feelings, and there’s absolutely no restrictions or censoring of guns (or anything for that matter).


  23. avatar pod says:

    Is Facebook suppressing gun content?

    – Yes. Despite some diamonds in the rough (their chief engineer is unabashedly pro-gun…) they suppress gun/conservative content.

    Facebook also suppresses other content to a lesser extent unless it’s paid for. Simply put, just posting something on your FB fan page doesn’t do much unless you put money behind it.

    I administer a Facebook page with 200,000 followers on it. If I post something “organic”, it rarely gets viewed by more than 1000 of those people. If I put money behind it, many more people view it.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “If I put money behind it, many more people view it.”

      What exactly do you mean by that?

      1. avatar pod says:

        If you have a business page, i.e. facebook.com/thetruthaboutguns – when you make a post as that page, there’s a button that says “Boost Post” – from there you define your target audience, and the length of time this boosted post will be boosted for.

        Then you pay for it. The more people you want to reach (both fans of your page, and people interested in things you target) the more you pay.

        Just hitting “post” pretty much guarantees the content will go nowhere.

        Facebook is pay-to-play for businesses nowadays. I suspect though that gun-based businesses probably are paying a lot more for exposure though.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:


          I did not know that, thanks.

          If I’m not too rude, roughly what does that end up costing, per ‘push’?

        2. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Facebook will not boost a firearms-related page’s post. How about that? And don’t get me started about Google AdWords.

  24. avatar IdahoPete says:

    The difference between leftists and conservatives:
    If a conservative does not like a website, TV show, book, radio program, etc., he does not watch/read/patronize that source.
    If a leftist does not like a website, book, etc., he wants to ban that source.

    It is called “intolerance”. Leftists like “diversity” in everything except opinions.

  25. avatar Denny says:

    Zuckerburg spends millions every year on his armed security detail.
    He is all he worries about.

  26. avatar Pascal says:

    Well, this kind of BS is finally getting the attention it deserves.

    People are spending much less time on social media apps: Report

    People in general are starting to quit social media — and it is about damn time. Between spying on every word and being biased and censored, maybe people are finally starting to take notice. If it closes down tomorrow maybe it would be a benefit to society because would actually have to your know — talk to each other — I know, scary!

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      True ‘social media’ use is dropping, meaning ‘new’ is popular a while and then gets old and dies off (like ‘My Space’) but F-Book is far beyond social, it’s fiscal.

      I predict it will lumber on for *years*, every so often popping up a ‘New Tide Detergent’ face, but the base formula of identity marketing will be the same as always…

  27. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    On the hunting side of things, I’m still seeing lots of news feeds. This includes a ton of firearms related postings.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ‘On the hunting side of things,’ how’d your recent Texas hunt go?

  28. avatar CLarson says:

    It seems as these companies fail at their core mission: connecting content creators with content consumers, people have started to abandon these platforms. How stupid to cut your own throat for petty prejudices.

    Just like these platforms burst into the scene; new ones will replace them just as quickly.

  29. avatar BDub says:

    Quit arguing with the owners of the pool, about how long you can swim and whether or not you are allowed to dive. It won’t get you anywhere. Its their fucking pool.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Best analogy I’ve seen/heard on the subject yet. I will certainly use it in the future.

  30. avatar MiniMe says:

    I’m more surprised that y’all expected ANY kind of fair shake from bergzucker’s book-of-face at this day & age. LOL!

  31. avatar gs650g says:

    I bet frat boy’s army of private guards aew armed to the teeth so he doesn’t have to worry about his or the family.

  32. avatar Bob R says:

    Real reason: “Too much firearm content.”

  33. avatar Roger says:

    “After being pressed, Facebook tells us that readers had designating our content as “too commercial”. ”
    Please start proof reading…verb tense errors and errors like this one normally arent picked up by spell check.

  34. avatar nio says:

    Sometimes it pays to have friends who are lawyers. I read the comments about how FB was a private company and therefore could block accounts based on its desires. Knowing that its stock is traded, I asked a lawyer I know what his opinion was. He got back to me a few hours later after talking to another lawyer who specialized in stock market type law. Here is a summary of the info gained from lawyer 2.

    FB, being traded on the stock market, is a public entity. A private company is one that does not trade on the stock market and whos shares are controlled totally by an individual, a family, or a small group. No idea what constitutes a small group. As a public company, it is beholden to the shareholders. If the shareholders can prove that the company, FB in this case, is performing actions that are restricting the company profits, the shareholders can file a class action lawsuit against the company for fiscal malfeasance. Also, someone that is transacting business with the company, in the FB case it would be the each person and website that uses FB, who is able to prove that they have suffered a monetary loss because of the company actions may be able to file a lawsuit against the company for damages incurred because of the company’s actions.

    I cannot say for certainty that this is all correct since I am not a lawyer, but I tend to take the advice of my family lawyer when I am involved in legal matters.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      And here is another facet of the legal landscape involved here: facebook can afford to spend literally 100s of millions of dollars on attorneys to obfuscate, delay, and stifle any lawsuit targeting them.

      Realistically, I don’t see how anyone could successfully sue facebook for anything short of Zuckerberg openly (on streaming video) ordering a subordinate to have sex or get fired.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        There’s an old saying in politics that applies to male politicians:

        “The only mistake in politics you can’t get out of is to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy.”

        (NOTE – This does not apply to Ted Kennedy or Senator Larry “wide stance” Craig.)

  35. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Darn that Zuckerberg!

    I think you should ask for your money back.

  36. avatar A A Ron says:

    Then why do I keep seeing Ruger, Glock, Leupold, Aero Precision, Ballistic Advantage and Green Mountain Barrels on my feed?

  37. avatar mark s. says:

    I agree with most everything being protested here concerning Facebook and I do not have a personal account with Facebook , but it is smart to have a business Facebook account if you have a business and your ability to reach people with business rerated news has never been cheaper or easier , so I’ll keep my business account , and TTAG does have too many promotional pop ups and auto play stuff and just silly extras when it could and should have more gun related and topic related stuff . >>>>>>>>>>>> only my opinion , and I’ll put up with a lot to get the stuff that I think is done well .

    1. avatar mark s. says:

      I just subscribed to the news letter to show my appreciation for the new format and the easier to use systems .
      Keep on improving , evolve and grow , that’s the intent of life .
      GOOD JOB !

  38. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I think I will create a teenage girl sock puppet account on Fakebook like my daughter’s High School Spanish teacher did.

  39. avatar Shwiggie says:

    Talk about hypocrisy. Too much promotion? That’s half of what FB amounts to these days.

    Coincidentally, that’s actually why I unfollowed TTAG on FB. Why clutter my already jammed to bursting news feed with links to articles I’ve already or will soon read and contribute to a second thread of commentary? RSS does fine for the former, and the latter should be unified.

  40. avatar Donald says:

    I have gone back to the stone age. I have quit all social media because liberals control most of it and edit what they want out there. Kinda like what Katie does with her so called “documentaries”. At 69 years of age I really don’t need it.

    1. avatar mark s. says:

      Mega dittos and Amen .

  41. avatar Hipster - Past Tense says:

    Why any male has a Facebook account is beyond me. Leave the attention whores to themselves.

  42. avatar Keystone says:

    Liberals trying to silence their opposition? Say it ain’t so.

  43. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    You know, it occurs to me that with this sort of stovepiped thinking on FB’s part that it becomes increasingly easy to game them into huge embarrassment and reputational damage.

    All that is needed is some shiny, slick phony PR team of two or three people, some web programming smarts, and knowing how to write up “research” and press releases that grab FB’s attention. Heck, even incorporate as a 501(c)(3) and start raking in the anti-gun donations… which are then diverted back into pro-RKBA groups through a cut-out.

  44. avatar My name is Brian T. Oshiro, I am a 37 year old local male to Honolulu, Hawaii and the local neighborhood watch groups tried to rape and murder me under direction of H.P.D. and the "Federal Police" and it was covered up. says:

    I made a FB page detailing the horrific things my mom was going through because of the incredible local corruption. Nothing to do with guns, just a corrupt local senator and state court system. And what the Mexicans would call a “death house” run by the “Federal Police”.

    I had posts blocked, pictures swapped around, posts disappeared. I was homeless at the time because of the local cops and whoever the “Federal Police” are threatening my life and pulling all sorts of cointelpro sh1t. As soon as I would update my mom’s FB page from a Starbucks or something, I would get swarmed with cops.

    My mom was living on a property, 4011 B Kaimuki ave., illegally rented out by local senator Clayton Hee. The local neighborhood watch was luring what the locals who inherited money and property would consider poor and homeless men to this property and had a “gimp” who would try to rape and murder them, all under intense video and other surveillance. They would watch it all like it was a TV show. They would also attack the usually poor and elderly renter on the cottage my mom was renting.
    By the way, Clayton Hee’s wife is the head of the local Judicial review board, the “boss” of all the appointed judges.

    This is not the first time this sort of thing happened to me, and not the last, and all of it is designed as subterfuge, and they will try to say I am crazy. Until I present video and court documents, then they will say I am a dangerous terrorist whatever the current media boogeyman is.

    1. avatar mark s. says:

      Wow !
      I feel better about things now .
      Good luck !

  45. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, better done than usual on responding to the F B restrictions.

    The leverage is the P R associated with any legal, or other action. The game is free media, which you get as part of the “balanced” commentary once “everybody knows” about F B’s misdeeds.

    The “social media” shops have remarkably quickly become ad-supported mass media going along to get along with the overlords. Thing is, doing that dumbs down yr content, dirties up yr reoutation, n drives off the most valuable parts of yr audience.

  46. avatar Anti-Bolshevik Cynic says:

    The solution is simple: Facebook is a publicly-traded company. Buy FB stock – even just one share – you are now an owner of FB, and as such, you have a say in how the company is run.
    If enough stockowners band together, then you have an increased influence, and also standing to bring court action on the grounds that FB actions have hurt you, the stockholder.
    FB doesn’t particularly care about its users – they are just cows to be milked for every single drop – but, BY LAW, FB MUST care about its stockholders; FB has a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders, and if you can show that FB actions harmed you as a stockholder (or even better, a class of stockholders), then you have them by the gonads, and you can twist and twist and twist…. And there is nothing that Sugarturd can do about it.

  47. avatar CA says:

    All this rhetoric, STOP USING IT!!!!
    It’s a liberal based, biased media, they do not like you, your business, your thoughts, your rights or any other part of your existence. Go back to a .com regrow your base and you’ll do fine. Wake the hell up people. It’s only going to get worse in the next four year.

  48. avatar Clay Wynn says:

    Facebook is the work of evil anyway. The Orlando shooter was pausing to look for his notoriety on FB, and Smart phone texting, photoing, etc. midway his shoot. When I tried to e-mail you just now, the http language wanted me to boot up MS Outlook, which meant, I needed to mount MS Office…more evil intrusion.

    What you need to spend your time on is developing alternatives to these highly controlled, highly intrusive communication paths, alternatives that are robust and immune to such heavy handed controls, so you can communicate your stuff to your target audience. Of course, Zuckerberg and the FCC (definition of true Fascism) will come against you for doing so. See now infamous photo:

    [It may look like a scene from dystopian sci-fi movie, but this image is, in fact, a glimpse at our future. It shows Mark Zuckerberg breezing past rows of devoted followers, each plugged into virtual reality headsets, while he looks on with a slightly menacing smile. The photo was taken at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona

    ‘This photo of our new overlord marching amongst his plugged in subjects is really something’, wrote technology journalist Owen Williams. The image has been compared to movies such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and a zombie apocalypse in which vegetative crowds are controlled by an elite group.
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3458780/A-terrifying-glimpse-future-Mark-Zuckerberg-s-image-Facebook-zombies-reveals-virtual-reality-lives.html#ixzz4Bw083f6F“]

  49. avatar Jay says:

    Why don’t you guys all band together and start moving to unseen? I left Facebook a long time ago. I may like your products but I’ll never see them cuz I won’t go there.

  50. avatar gene says:

    Sorry Guys, but your already in spam. Yes when I want to read something from you I go to spam but you and a few others were cluttering my email box. Blaming everything on liberals makes you sound like a bunch of schoolyard crybabies. Not everything is a conspiracy, and yes I own moire guns than the average American.

  51. avatar Charles says:

    I left this story on my Facebook Page along with a Link to this story…

  52. avatar Danny Dabney says:

    FB is not the criminal here. They offer a free forum for US, the world. Think about what is happening here… Hillary and here band of Circus Clowns, cronies, gun haters and just plain stupid peeps are trying to get the fight going. You blame FB and FB blames the “cronies” when the whole pot is being orchestrated from above, or so she and they consider themselves. This is part of a bigger picture to disrupt any continuity between a any form of media, that they don’t control and the unawares public. Spend more time searching out the real culprits here, do a little more homework send findings to FB and hopefully FB will figure out that they are being played, by the “Rhinos”.
    100% disabled Vet, 100% disabled citizen, CCW permit owner and Proud American. The disabled part, makes things move more slowly and easier to see. How to beat the A-holes is to keep our kool, stress less and see what is really going on in our little piece of the proverbial pie. I Love this country, I Love my family,but because of this kind of crap, I fear for “Our” future generations. Let’s thank FB for the service they provide and hope that they don’t fall prey to the other media groups!

  53. avatar Mike Munro says:

    I am an owner of one (1) 40 cal Ruger semi-automatic pistol for self defense and practice shoot only. I have a FB account not for defense, but for personal reasons like family and friendship relations. I could give a dam if gun nuts who sit on the toilet drooling over the next and latest weapon to do mass slaughter with. I am a Marine combat veteran who understands completely what it’s like to be on the wrong end of an AK-47. A MILITARY WEAPON TO FIGHT WARS WITH PEOPLE. It has nothing to do with the growth of your manhood. It’s a well known medical fact. I also believe Mark Zuckerberg has enough money and uses it properly instead of worrying about soliciting market sales from manufacturers and the odd gun nut who wants to sell his gun.
    The second amendment will maintain it’s wording without the sale of assault weapons. Paul Revere never worried about it.

  54. avatar Dave says:

    Another Lord Acton verification, this time by Zuckerberg. He is the boss, the “buck” stops with him. If Facebook is hampering use on Facebook by law abiding gun sites, all this proves is Zuckerberg doesn’t have the integrity granted to a cockroach. –former 0302

  55. avatar 5WarVeteran says:

    The Zionist bastard does it all the time.

  56. avatar John W says:

    I say we have a GUN WEEK on FB 100’s of thousands of people posting PRO GUN, Links, pics, banners, Etc..
    How about over the 4th of July week ??? At least we will keep em busy trying to take down all those posts !!!

    What do you say ???

  57. avatar OP Resident says:

    Posted a post on the difference between the AR15 & AR16 on Facebook went back to my FB Acct the next day and the post was Deleted by FB, someone at FB was offended by a factual post on the differences between an AR 15 Semi automatic rifle and an AR 16 a fully automatic rifle.

  58. avatar anonymous says:

    The president of Alien Gear holsters was interviewed in Fox Business and said it was a problem with the FB algorithm that allowed anti-gun groups to list gun promotions as unwanted. Not FB itself.

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