Mark Zuckerberg facebook
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Hannah McKay/Pool via AP)
Previous Post
Next Post

The Houston Chronicle has published a piece about the cancellation of The Truth About Guns Facebook page. You can read that story here. Full props to the Chron’s Erica Grieder who quoted me accurately and did a fair and balanced job of reporting what happened.

Maybe the most interesting aspect of the story was the fact that Grieder managed to get a hold of an actual human unit who works as part of the Zuckerborg. The unnamed drone she quoted had this to say about nuking our Facebook page:

A spokesperson for Facebook on Friday confirmed that The Truth Against (sic) Guns’ Facebook page had indeed been taken down, “as part of our ongoing work to remove coordinated inauthentic behavior.”

“coordinated inauthentic behavior”

If you’re not clear what that meaningless wordvomit means, you’re in good company. It’s every bit as devoid of meaning as the usual excuse Big Tech gives for disappearing users with whom they disagree: “they violated our community standards.”

In point of fact, TTAG uses — sorry…used — our Facebook page to reach about 400,000 people who followed us there. We regularly posted links to our current posts accompanied by a short, snappy intro to catch the reader’s eye.

That’s it. No “coordination” with anyone else. No “inauthentic” content (TTAG happens to be NewsGuard approved for our publishing standards and practices). No use of the “stop the steal” hashtag or any mention of the controversy that followed the November election.

In the end, of course, that didn’t matter. All that mattered is the fact that TTAG’s content runs counter to the politics of Facebook and its legion of millennial marshmallows who run the social network. So it was an easy choice for them to flip a switch and make our page disappear.

We’re at least grateful to Grieder for getting that much out of the faceless Facebook monolith. When you work for one of the largest daily newspapers in the country, Zuckerberg’s minions apparently feel obligated to deign to reply to your requests for comment. That’s far more of an obligation they think they have to any of their 2.7 billion users.

Again, we weren’t the first firearms-related site to be deplatformed and we won’t be the last. We hope that you’ll sign up for our email list as a way to keep in contact now that Facebook no longer appears to be an option.

In any case, the truth will not be silenced.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Digital book burning! Call it what it is!!!! I’ll bet Zoikerbugger and Dorkey read Mein Kamph till it was worn out!

      • Wasn’t there a crazy person pissed off at YouTube last year? As I recall, she didn’t really accomplish anything except getting herself condemned by everyone in spite of what may have been a legitimate beef with them.

        • Yeah she definitely went up to swing in that respect – I think it’s more that there will inevitably be some crazies who start to seriously escalate that action. We already had that one weirdo on Christmas that blew up shit, there are likely many more lurking in the shadows.

          Not that I support that action of course, but I admittingly would simply shrug if it happens and I hear about it and move on with life. History repeats itself after all.

    • It baffles me that 2A oriented sights are still on Facebook and the other liberal sites, providing them with even more money and power to take even more of our freedoms. We must take a stand now and stop this crap! Get off these sites and take as many people with you as you can. Stop buying from their supporters. I would rather go without than give Amazon or Facebook one penny to use against us.

  2. While I find it disheartening to see pro2A/RKBA stuff disappear from various sites, isn’t that their right as a business? “We don’t feel like doing business with your anymore. Begone!” or some such. It wasn’t government regulations or even political pressure brought by anti-gunners against these corporate entities.

    • Like it or not Facebook and Twitter have become virtually Public Utilities like the phone companies. The Government has even given them protected status so that can be a public forum. Since they’re now a publication they should lose that status.

      • I wonder if you’ll sing the same tune if act 230 were repealed and various bloomburg legal outlets sued TTAG into the absolute ground over things comments left by random people in this section.

        It doesn’t matter if they win, no outlet like TTAG would have the capital to defend against numerous such lawsuits without sec. 230 providing an easy out.

        It’s amazing how shortsighted that politics makes people.

        • Oh? You think they aren’t planning on doing this to the survivors of their digital armageddon? They won’t be satisfied until the only media available is the CCP programmed crap that they love. The problem with that is it will likely kick off a real balkanization of the US possibly kicking off an actual shooting war. Idiots like Swalwell think they will “win” when in fact we all loose, the only question is how much.

        • “I wonder if you’ll sing the same tune if act 230 were repealed and various bloomburg legal outlets sued TTAG into the absolute ground over things comments left by random people in this section. ”

          Bloomberg can sue TTAG already; 230 not an issue. Bloomberg can sue anyone, anytime, anywhere. Doesn’t matter if he wins.

        • Oh, bullshit.

          There are two publication standards.

          1. Curated content. This is TV, radio, magazines, etc. Since you control what is published, you’re responsible for the content.

          2. Open content. This is bulletin boards, phone lines, open mic nights, etc. Since you’re providing a forum and NOT curating content, you’re not responsible for what is shared there.

          Currently, the major social media companies act like 1 but are protected like 2. It MUST stop.

        • There is a huge difference between a publisher and a public forum. The former can be held liable for libelous postings, the other is simply subject to the first amendment without being liable for the content of the speech.

    • “While I find it disheartening to see pro2A/RKBA stuff disappear from various sites, isn’t that their right as a business?” Y’all need to read more actual news, and less leftist propaganda. The Left purely HATED ‘big corporations’ . . . until they brought them to heel, and made them do their bidding (I’m lookin’ at YOU, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Google, et. al.).

      We made a DEAL with these punks in 1998 – we’d let them have free run of the Internet, and PROTECT THEM FROM LAWSUITS (Section 230) if they behaved as “platforms” (i.e., let people publish whatever, and didn’t “moderate”) rather than “publishers” (edited and monitored content). Do you REALLY believe Facebook, Twitter and Google function as “platforms”?? If you do, I’ve got some nifty beachfront property in Arizona I’ll sell you.

      If Facebook, Twitter, et. al. are happy to get rid of section 230, I don’t give a s*** what they do. If the want to keep Section 230, they can start actually being platforms, not “publishers”.

      Now, tell me how that’s unfair? If they want legal protection, they can freakin’ EARN it, by keeping the promises they made to get the protection in the first place.

    • The problem is they’ve been given immunity from lawsuits over their content because they’re not ‘publishers’ and don’t ‘edit content’, except that’s exactly what they’re doing, but our leaders in DC won’t do anything about it because they’re a) lining their own pockets with Facebook and Twitter cash, and b) they don’t want the algorithms slanted against them. It’s a little like the drug cartels, you can take their silver or you can take their lead, only it’s digital lead and it won’t physically kill you, only your political career. Meanwhile the liberal useful idiots will cheer them on for abolishing conservative content because they’re too stupid to realize that communists routinely eat their own. The only good thing to come of this is that they’re cutting their American user base in half, but they’re not concerned because there’s a billion Chinese people waiting to replace us. I say, let China have them. We’ll move on.

      • I agree. They claim to be a public forum, but they’re operating as a publisher. They should lose the legal protections that forums have.

      • Freedom of speech works both ways. I don’t like the New York Times any more than I like these clowns, but it’s an illustrative example.

        The Times has zero obligation to publish any particular letter to the editor. They also have every right to publish any such letter they choose, no matter how kooky or wrong.

        They may do so altruistically, to broaden or invigorate public debate; to inform their readership how much hate and craziness is out there; or even just to get people riled up in the hope of angry counterarguments (and more readership) – for whatever reason they want, because it’s theirs. That would be true even if they were a small-town paper with no local competitors, too.

        As long as it’s on a “Letters to the Editor” (or similar) page, and it’s clear that the publisher itself is not assigning and paying people to write hate letters, they are not liable either – nor should they be, ever, no matter how nasty.

        How is this any different? Because narcissists have become “dependent” on the product of others’ labor, literally created out of nothing but electrons, that didn’t even exist when they were born? Is any rational person in 2021 actually more dependent on one or two (of many albeit smaller) platforms, than a small-town resident in 1787 (pre-ALL telecommunications) was on his local paper?

        • It’s different because these mega-platforms are much bigger than any collection of news sources. They fill the same role that telecom companies did in the 20th century. They need to be held to the same standards that applied to Ma Bell and AT&T.

          • Ing,
            No – those were monopolies – not in the whiny sense that socialists and failed competitors apply to Microsoft or Walmart. I mean the only literal, truthful sense of the word – the kind granted by governments.

            Recognizing that they couldn’t have every entrepreneur and his brother pile-driving poles, tearing up streets for gas lines, or tearing up parallel swaths of farmland for railroads or toll highways, they’d grant one or two of the first and/or best providers a priceless exclusive privilege in exchange, basically, for most of their property rights (i.e. for acting like a gov’t utility).

            Nothing of the sort happened here. These guys literally created this stuff out of imagination and subatomic particles. Countless commenters like me, who have zero use for their shit, give the lie to the argument that it’s a necessity like power or water. The many (even if less popular) services advocated by tech-savvy commenters demolish any argument for exclusive license. The fact that they use infrastructure no more makes them quasi-governmental services or charities than buoy and channel usage does for boaters.

            Nor does their size relative to today’s newspapers matter. When the Constitution was written (and for many years thereafter) people had far fewer sources of information than today (mail, gossip, and the local newspaper) – and it never once occurred to the Founders to add an “obligation to publish your enemies’ opinions” provision to 1A.

            And Gov, the opposite is true. Remember Harriet listening in on people’s phone calls on “Little House on the Prairie”? No warrant, no tech-ninja expertise or equipment, just a nosy operator in the middle of your [every single, potentially] call.

        • They need to be held to a much higher standard, Ma Bell could have never dreamed of monitoring and censoring your conversations on your princess phone.

        • Umm… You’re off base on a couple of things here.

          For one, if the telecoms were government-granted monopolies, why did the government have to break them up? They were in fact private enterprises that became true monopolies.

          For another, it’s not merely about newspapers and the size thereof or about the ownership of structure of the company; it’s about the fact that these gigantic companies are the carriers of *everyone’s* business and communication — and they see it as their business to deny service based on politics. Meanwhile, they take cover under a law that was designed to prevent monopolistic gatekeepers from doing exactly that. They claim the legal immunities of common-carrier platforms (and have taken over that function) while accepting none of the responsibilities.

          The only thing more fundamental to modern business than internet communication is electricity itself. Go ahead and build a successful business that can reach a broad geographical customer base without them. I’ll wait. (Actually, no, I won’t, because we’d both die of old age first.)

          • Telephone and telegraph companies – just like private gas and electric companies – were (are) private companies granted extensive, exclusive (and indispensable) monopoly / oligopoly privileges by the government in exchange for submission to quasi-public regulatory structures like price controls.

            Similar things could be said today for Internet Service Providers, and your counterargument would be strong if either I or this article were discussing ISPs, but we weren’t. Life without narcissisticdouchebook ≠ life without the internet.

    • Publishers can choose what gets posted, but have liability for it. Platforms cannot and do not. Which one is Facebook?

        • A tip ‘o the hat for Chip who came up with “Schrödinger’s Gat”…

      • I could publish a post right here saying that some politician is a pedophile. That is per se defamation and entirely actionable. What do you want to happen to TTAG because I, a random internet person, writes such a thing? Are they required to know what is defamation and what is not for every post? How many lawyers do you want TTAG to hire to do this? And what about the costs of defending even frivolous lawsuits?

        If 230 goes away, TTAG and similar sites are gone. There is a lot of money set up that could take down the site- and any others with content sections that they don’t like- in weeks. There would be only three choices. First, eliminate the comments entirely. Second, go over every single bit of user generated content and only allow those that you know are uncontroversial- effectively go full publisher and have pre-moderation on every single remark. Third, defend against the inevitable lawsuits from those that are questionable. Good luck doing that on a budget.

        Bloomberg orgs with legal teams on retainer will simply launch one lawsuit after another against sites like this (and gun forums, etc) until they are overwhelmed. Without section 230, TTAG would have to defend any comment based on the merits of the case, rather than simply having the action dismissed because it is against the site and not the actual content creator (i.e. me). That is an untenable position. No site except the largest- like facebook, for example- could withstand such legal liability.

        In effect, this would turn back the clock on the internet as we know is back to a world where the only way you can have anything published is to either do it through major accepted publishers or do it entirely yourself, in which case you have no audience.

        Don’t worry, this is exactly what Biden wants, as well as pretty much any major politician R\D over the age of 40. They want to be the only ones controlling information and your’e not part of the club. You’ll probably get your “repeal (or ‘reform’) section 230” under a democratic administration and the change will immediately be used to make sure you never see a comments section like this again. Good job, you played yourself.

        • This is why the only people agitating for the repeal of Section 230 are idiots and politicians.

          All we really need is a sane and balanced application of that law as it already exists (they functionally are common-carrier platforms, so they must behave as such or else be liable for their publish/don’t-publish decisions). But unfortunately, the power to make that fair, just, and legal determination is held by…politicians and idiots.

          • “This is why the only people agitating for the repeal of Section 230 are idiots and politicians.”

            Think I missed a turn somewhere. Thought the discussion over 230 was about enforcement, not repeal.

        • I would think that any politician at the federal level that is in his/her second term wants this. Don’t be so fast to sell out boomers(or to paint them with the same brush. There is a huge difference between those that were draft bait(born before 53), those that were born in 54-60, and those born later.
          The way they were taught in school made a difference, the life experiences of the drafted vets and their women, the disenfranchised white males that could not buy a real job(because of quotas or the point system given to the vets), and those born after 60 who did not have a clue what the war was about, and were able to get the better long term jobs(like working civil service, utilities, oil companies, other mostly layoff free jobs).

          Many of us boomers saw the light many years ago. We realized that the Republican party would leaves us out like trash and the Dems were glad to give us relief(but don’t try for anything more). They put up rules to keep us from working for ourselves, we could not just sell clothes at the beach from an old service station. They required us to put up more money than ever to open up brick and mortar stores if that was what we wanted to do. That was the 70s and 80s. Now, we have food trucks everywhere, mostly run by illegal aliens(or at least the workers are). We have no place at that table, either.

          Trump was our savior. He got production back in this country, many people got jobs because of him and now they will be back on relief or flipping burgers.

        • It occurs to me that an enemy of TTAG (or any platform) could attack the forum by intentionally posting libelous content and then himself reporting it to the FCC to have the forum closed down. Sort of like some evildoers did by triggering S.W.A.T. reactions on their opponents.

    • KV, under most circumstances, yes but I think a good lawyer could make an argument that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are the equivalent of the public square these days and that while some will argue that the First Amendment protects us from government infringement, no one at the time expected companies to have more power than government. The early 20th century fights against monopolist behavior by companies gives us some hope there is a limit. Early 21st century examples exist with civil rights lawsuits pushing back on private companies. As he has standing, Trump could do a lot of good by starting the lawsuits against these tech giants as every American benefits from pushing back on abuses against our enumerated rights.

    • Tell that to the bakers who tried to say they reserved the right to do business with whomever they chose and ended up sued out of business for not baking gay wedding cakes.

    • They have received special immunity in exchange respecting 1st Amendment rights. Give it back then.

    • @ KV – then they have the right to be Sued in court and Do Not deserve “Section 230” protection ! FYI Section 230 is to Protect FREE Speech! > Which they were all censoring. Now they are outright Banning !

      NTexas – Really? Lets see you back up that statement with facts !


      TWo, oR MORe, CaN PlAY aT ThIS GAMe!

  3. 5 years from now no one will be using Facebook or Twitter outside of China. And everyone will be smart enough to stay as far away from Amazon’s cloud servers as possible.

    • The only ones I know who use facebook are grandmothers who post pictures of their grandkids (who no one really cares about, but then, those grandma’s also post grandkids pictures).
      I don’t know any millenials who use it anymore. They did in college/highschool. I don’t, never did. Not looking for any old boyfriends….lol.

      • After college you do a job interview and they ask you about your Facebook account… which is about the time you realize you shouldn’t have had one.

        Then the HR folk at the next company act all shocked that you don’t have a Facebook account because that’s suspicious these days.

        • For someone of your age, it would be unusual.

          Thanks to being a generation older, no social media doesn’t say much about me.

          Just for fun, if asked, I should give them a random PornHub channel, and tell ’em it’s mine…

          *snicker* 😉

        • “Then the HR folk at the next company act all shocked that you don’t have a Facebook account because that’s suspicious these days.”

          Was actually dismissed during an interview at a tech company. Replied that I had no social media account anywhere because my private affairs were intentionally that. Without the social media, the manager couldn’t determine if I was a good fit for the job.

        • Sam I Am,

          Unbelievable, although I do believe you. I’ve done my share of hiring and would NEVER consider social media in assessing a candidate. Heck, I even assume 50% of the candidate’s resume is exaggerated. Why would I believe anything in their social media presence?

          OK, maybe social media could be a good tool for weeding-out the wackos, but I can usually pick up their wackiness through careful interviewing.

          Anyway, I hope you bounced back from that unpleasentness.

          • “Anyway, I hope you bounced back from that unpleasentness.”

            Oh, indeed. There were only two of us candidates interviewing that day. The other was a perky, cute, energetic binary female; she was selected. Three weeks later, I got an invitation to re-interview for the same position. Seems the binary didn’t work out, after all. I declined to re-interview, informing the manager that I wasn’t qualified three weeks prior, and nothing had changed in the mean time.

        • “I declined to re-interview, informing the manager that I wasn’t qualified three weeks prior, and nothing had changed in the mean time.”

          As the great sage and warrior-poet B. Real noted; “Fuck ’em and feed ’em/I won’t join ’em if I can beat ’em…”.

        • Sam I Am — I was overseas for 20 years working for the USAF and alphabet agencies in the collection, analysis, and reporting of foreign intelligence information. We had random urine tests (Golden Flow) to check for illegal drug use. I never, ever used illegal drugs, not only because I didn’t need to, but also because it would end with a dishonorable discharge. A dishonorable discharge would follow a person for the rest of his life.

          So, I return to the U.S. and start looking for a job. The H.R. persons had me fill out forms, each of which asked me about my drug use, providing options for daily, weekends, never. I always checked never, and never got a call back. Then one time, the H.R. person asked me if I had lied about never using illegal drugs. I said I had told the truth, and he said, “Come on, everyone smokes a little dope now and then.” I again said the only “high” I ever experienced was in an airplane, flying over rice paddies and through river valleys over Vietnam. The guy said he didn’t believe me, and he sent me away. Apparently, they would hire a drug user but not a decorated veteran who they had deemed a “liar.”

          It took me a year of searching to find a job in the states, even after being trusted with the most highly classified information in the world, and I worked with top level personnel in the White House.

          I speak Chinese Mandarin, Korean, and Japanese, so I once responded to an ad seeking a bilingual person. The H.R. lady asked how long I had been speaking Spanish. I said I didn’t know Spanish but I was rated at near-native in Chinese Mandarin. She blew up at me and accused me of wasting her time. Huh! Bilingual means speaking two languages, and I speak four, but apparently she doesn’t have a firm grasp of her own native language.

          • One wonders at civilians. I think the message from HR in the first instance was they would hire a druggie who was honest, but not one who was dishonest (which they presumed was you).

            When I retired from the AF, the only two skills I had were flying, and adapting to leadership positions, regardless of my actual background. As you know, the military trains people to become leaders. The civilian world seemed highly skeptical that the best leader might not be the “chief wrenchbender” in the unit. Had to be creative in translating military skills to believable skills in the civilian world. Ended up working in software management, project management, career transition coaching, warehousing, and eventually civil service in contract management.

            Glad you were able to find success, too !

          • Speaking of language skills, worked with people from Belgium, Holland and Spain. One of them asked if I knew what to call a person who sopke three languages? I replied, “Tri-lingual”. Then was asked about bi-lingual. “Bi-lingual” was my reply. Then asked about a person who spoke only one language. That one stumped me, and the colleague replied, “American”. Had to really laugh at that one.

  4. You use a leftest private company platform and then are surprised when they delete you.

    • “You use a leftest private company platform and then are surprised when they delete you.”

      Didn’t really infer any “surprise” in Dan’s post, just an announcement.

        • “Surprised enough to write about it and make an “announcement” ”

          Providing information about ongoing operations, or developments of interest constitutes “surprise” ?

          OK, I guess.

  5. “A spokesperson for Facebook on Friday confirmed that The Truth Against Guns’ Facebook page had indeed been taken down”
    The Truth AGAINST Guns ? How many people even noticed that?

  6. In a way, all of this de-platforming and censorship will have a good result: the growth of truly open, free platforms and forums. BUT, they will need mass support and deep pockets to withstand:

    — The sophisticated, 24×7 techno-assaults the commie-left will perpetuate

    — A barrage of legislation designed to curtail freedom of speech

    — A never-ending portfolio of lawsuits designed to drain funds from operations.

    • While preserving an avenue for the truth to be spread is obviously a good thing, this is a major step in bifurcating the American population. Liberals will still be ignorant because they’ll continue to trust the people who have been lying to them and hiding the truth from them for years. They believe it when they’re told that Biden won an honest election because they don’t know that (e.g.) there were 200,000 more votes for president in GA than there were voters, or that a commission in WI found 200,000 illegal votes cast in a state that Biden won by 20,000 votes. Inconvenient facts like these are what’s prompting the communists to purge it’s ranks of dissenters lest echos of facts and truth reach their sheeple’s ears. Creating our own echo chambers won’t actually fix anything.

      • It will help the part where the “progressive” left intends to deny our ability to speak with each other. That’s not nothing.

      • Gov,

        I get your point, BUT, when conservative media grows to have the same extensive, pervasive reach as leftist media, then censorship by either side will become less effective.

        • Don’t get me wrong, having truth and lies equally available to the public is certainly better than only having access to lies.

      • Gov. — We on Conservative sites tolerate the Leftist trolls, but I’ve been banned from Leftist platforms for posting civil and polite comments that were obviously from what they would view as a Far-Right-Extremist Troll. So, where are we to somehow magically educate Leftists on truth, facts, and the American way?

      • “…because they don’t know that (e.g.) there were 200,000 more votes for president in GA than there were voters, or that a commission in WI found 200,000 illegal votes cast in a state that Biden won by 20,000 votes.”

        Gov, got a link on that?

    • “In a way, all of this de-platforming and censorship will have a good result: the growth of truly open, free platforms and forums. BUT, they will need mass support and deep pockets to withstand:”

      Say, what?

      Follow along here, using the Twitter example :

      Twitter closes an account, was told to start your own company.

      So they did, Parler. Amazon’s cloud services dumps Parler.

      Noticing a pattern yet?

      Wherever we go online, they will be hounding us, pressuring ISPs and anyone else to dump us.

      What’s the peaceful resolution here?

      • Geoff……….,

        Censorship and deplatforming will cause the growth of hosting services whose business model is to make money, not push politics. Amazon’s competitive weakness is that it is NOT politically agnostic. Hosting services that will simply provide servers and storage for a fee will have a viable business model.

        • Precisely. And, we will have to seek refuge on those platforms.

          Now, then, those platforms will also host sites with which we disagree. Leftist sites; child pornography; international terrorists. We won’t be happy patronizing those platforms.

          Shall we fund start-up platforms which will host our “righteous” sites and refuse the patronage of leftist sites, etc.?

          The only way out of this dilemma is to find platforms which will be content agnostic. We hold our noses and rely upon these. Very few individual speakers – such as Rush Limburg – are rich enough to fund their own personal platforms and refuse to accept the sites of any other speaker who isn’t perfectly aligned with his (the owner’s) views.

        • “Now, then, those platforms will also host sites with which we disagree. Leftist sites; child pornography; international terrorists.”

          Kiddie porn scum and actual terrorists will be investigated by LE.

          The fact other channels may be there hosting content I find repulsive is irrelevant.

          I won’t be visiting those forums…

  7. Simple blog sites like this should be looking to decentralize while retaining some level of discovery.
    Spry, Sia, etc.. for the site.
    Gab, Mastadon, etc… for the social.
    Make plans now before somebody else makes them for you.

    • Once these alternative sites become too big the Big Boys will shut them down. I suggest spreading the TTAG words via smoke signals, Morse code, and secret handshakes.

  8. It was probably going to happen sooner or later, this was just the excuse they used. Just like almost every gun site on YouTube was defunded, but they still show a tone of commercial interrupting the videos. I left Facebook five years ago.

  9. Doesn’t “coordinated behavior” have another name, like ‘collusion’?

    • Yes, but collusion has a legal definition that might be used against the Zuckerborg.

      “Coordinated behavior” is amorphous enough to let them claim it in virtually any circumstance — and to practice it among themselves when it suits them — without getting into legal jeopardy or making the herd nervous when it’s culled.

    • Ralph,

      I am sure you will agree it is still worth fighting for. We lose ONLY when we stop fighting.

      • The actual land of America and infrastructure is still worth fighting for. The seventy million people who were actually shive and voted for Kameltoe Harris and her Senile Sock Puppet Biden are not. The really nice soft of neutron bombs is that they are extremely effective at killing people in a densely populated area without doing much blast damage or leaving any long lived residual radiation. Now back to my gas centrifuges.

        • The really nice thing about my PerpetualNeutrinoFussionBlomb is it vaporizes the vapor from the vaporized Universe

          • “The really nice thing about my PerpetualNeutrinoFussionBlomb is it vaporizes the vapor from the vaporized Universe”

            Oh yeah? That’s just a child’s toy compared to 6.5 Grendel.

        • “Ha, Ha”, Put 6.5 on anything and it’s kinda like fake butter. You think, Anything’s better with Blue Bonnet on it. Although I think it taste like butter but it snot, it’s Chiffons ish

          • “Put 6.5 on anything and it’s kinda like fake butter.”

            Oh yeah? Oh yeah?

            Your toy is earthbound. 6.5 Grendel can blow a hole in the time-space continuum. Can rip the atmosphere right off the planet.

        • I’ve been wondering how many American patriots will be allowed to enter Texas as refugees after it secedes from the Union. I hope to be one, but my wife isn’t willing to leave her job for at least 5 more years, when she retires.

  10. This isn’t the same as a Muslim artist declining to paint a caricature of the prophet Muhammad. These companies are able to do what they do by using government infrastructure and government subsidies. Everyone knows it isn’t a coincidence that they’re going after the opposition of one particular political party. They’re private companies working on behalf of and in league with the government. Wannabe authoritarians are cheering it on.

  11. Funny thing about the internet, He stole his way to riches now he is tearing it apart himself. Nutbook isn’t the only domain out there.

  12. I certainly hope that literally no one was expecting an honest, concrete example of something TTAG had done wrong…

  13. Whoa…
    Word vomit is right.
    I’m like wait wut?
    Remember when all the gun stores got taken offline for no apparent reason other than their “algorithm” got messed up apparently?
    Well this isn’t even that. They are going after the bog accounts that don’t cut the color of the story they are trying to tell. They are in process of retro on their platforms. Those aren’t my words but Jacks.
    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
    At least the big tech companies and the leftist politicians who publicly urge them on are dropping the pretenses.

  14. I don’t use Facehole or any other communist media. And I will not use the so called Cloud big tech can and will some day loose all your saved photos, documents ETC if they don’t like what you have saved.. Save it some other way!!!!!!!

  15. Why would any pro gun group use Facebook or Twitter. They earn money by your presence, money used to fund the communist efforts to strip Americans of their gun rights.

  16. I never thought yer fakebook page meant anything…I guess I’ll sign up for Email. Which I rarely use. Good luck to ALL of us😖

  17. If you want to b=gives views to Slate here is what they say about the word salad.

    For those who do not here is part of the spiel

    Such casual use of the phrase is remarkable when you remember that it was only invented, by Facebook itself, around two years ago. It’s more remarkable still once you know, as former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos told me on The Lawfare Podcast, that the company was going to call it “coordinated inauthentic activity” but thought it probably best to avoid the acronym CIA, showing the arbitrariness of how some terms of art get created. And perhaps what makes it most remarkable of all is that no one really knows what it means.

    And Fakebook has this

    20. Inauthentic Behavior
    Policy Rationale
    In line with our commitment to authenticity, we don’t allow people to misrepresent themselves on Facebook, use fake accounts, artificially boost the popularity of content, or engage in behaviors designed to enable other violations under our Community Standards. This policy is intended to protect the security of user accounts and our services, and create a space where people can trust the people and communities they interact with.
    Do not:

    Use multiple Facebook accounts or share accounts between multiple people
    Misuse Facebook or Instagram reporting systems to harass others
    Conceal a Page’s purpose by misleading users about the ownership or control of that Page
    Engage in or claim to engage in Inauthentic Behavior, which is defined as the use of Facebook or Instagram assets (accounts, pages, groups, or events), to mislead people or Facebook:
    about the identity, purpose, or origin of the entity that they represent
    about the popularity of Facebook or Instagram content or assets
    about the purpose of an audience or community
    about the source or origin of content
    to evade enforcement under our Community Standards
    Engage in, or claim to engage in Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior, defined as the use of multiple Facebook or Instagram assets, working in concert to engage in Inauthentic Behavior (as defined above), where the use of fake accounts is central to the operation
    Engage in or claim to engage in Foreign or Government Interference, which is Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior conducted on behalf of a foreign or government actor.

  18. Facebook, a book about your face, the things you do, the things you like, the things you don’t like, what you wear,where you eat, what you like to eat, what you drive,why you drive, your dog , your cat, where you live, where you work, what you own, what you’d like to own, how much you spend, where you spend it, what kind of entertainment you like, what your friends do and don’t do. Facebook

  19. So they say “coordinated inauthentic behavior” is the reason. Let me define what this means. Inauthentic means not real or genuine. So, it is not real or genuine behavior. This means that the behavior not being real or genuine, does not exist. Since it does not exist and there is no behavior to speak of, there was nothing coordinated. Their statement is nothing less than I would expect from products of public education. They are authentic idiots coordinating their mindless behavior.

  20. I’ve always used the mail list to keep up with TTAG. I hardly knew you had any presence on Facebook at all.

  21. The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not prosecute folks for speaking their minds. The courts have ruled that some limitations (such as yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater) are Constitutional.

    That’s it. That’s all there is. Nothing about the First Amendment guarantees folks a public broadcast platform. For over two centuries after the First Amendment became reality, very few people had access to such platforms. It is only now, in the Digital Age, that folks seem to think that they are entitled to such platforms.

    The only reason such platforms exist is Capitalism. The folks that run these platforms are in it to make money. If some folks are perceived to be bad for business, they will get kicked off.

    There has never been a ruling that such businesses exist for the sake of public accommodation. Shouting your views to the world, or posting nearly nude selfies on Instagram, are simply not in the same category as interpersonal communication and commerce. Nor should they be.

    If you don’t like being kicked off a platform, find another one or build it yourself. I’m pretty sure that TTAG exists because Robert Farago and Company were not satisfied with the platforms that were available, so they decided to build their own.

  22. I’ve started sharing articles from here on the old book of faces. Let’s see how long that goes on before I get tossed in one of their concentration camps.

  23. They also hit the Open Carry Texas page at the same time. Funny thing is though, they also permanently restricted almost every member of the group from posting or commenting ANYWHERE for an “indefinite” time.

    A quick search for this type of restriction shows it is supposed to be used for “inauthentic behavior” aka spam bots.

  24. Does nobody understand that you don’t get rid of the 230 protection for everyone, but just for the abusers, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc.. Any that have abused their protection at all have it stripped. That’ll put all others on notice.

    • Silencing the right like this is precisely why no one wanted to allow Trump to do what he was trying to do with 230. Social Media is a tool of the left weaponized to force any and all conservative, republican, or pro-American individuals into submission. The right has been put on notice.

      When it comes to Facebook and Twitter; the only answer to not use them. They don’t want you there anyway.

  25. No matter how rich Zuckerborg gets he’s still gonna look like a dweeb. Deep down he will always be insecure in his masculinity. I bet his face gets real red when agitated.

  26. There’s a crossover line between a private business and a public utility. Facebook, Twitter et al are now PUBLIC UTILITIES and MUST be regulated taking into account FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
    Since private business cannot generally discriminate except for religious beliefs and other issues, these Titans cannot (should not) be able to do this.
    Read “1984” by George Orwell and “Berlin Diary” by William Shirer, about his time as an American Correspondent in Germany and Europe from 1934 up to the end of 1940. The similarities are astonishing.
    These morons forget, there were 81,280,000+ votes for Biden but 74,223,000+ votes for Trump. This was no landslide. The Wall Street Journal had an article on their editorial page that in 3 specific states, if 21,500 votes went for Trump instead of Biden, Trump would be celebrating his second term.

    I worked with a guy in the late 1990’s who said we were heading for a Revolution, sadly I think he is right.

    Regardless of cost, make sure you have plenty of ammunition and more than one firearm, 2 is 1 and 1 is none.

    • “Facebook, Twitter et al are now PUBLIC UTILITIES and MUST be regulated”

      Yeah, because imposing Big Government Regulation onto private business is what we Conservatives are all about!!!

  27. Allowing freedom of speech in your comment section…


    Anyone who still has Facebook at this point is either just stupid or complacent. Don’t use that “keep in touch with family” bullshit either. pick up the phone, send an email, write a letter.

    Get off the leftists censorship that is social media. Now.

  28. This site openly brags about banning commenters, and then whines about getting….banned on Facebook. Entertaining stuff.🤪

    • “This site openly brags about banning commenters, and then whines about getting….banned on Facebook. Entertaining stuff.”

      We are nothing, if not inconsistent. Probably because we are of the human species.

    • This site? Or people in the comment section?

      because what most of us know there are idiots that frequent here, we still don’t advocate banning them. We just ignore them.

  29. TTAG bans people all the time. If you cannot take the heat, go hide in the fucking freezer!

  30. My true life comments about crummy Leopold red dots were removed from another article.

    Complaining about censorship while censoring “the “truth” about guns.”

    Et tu Brutus?

Comments are closed.