Unilever Threatens to Pull Ads from Facebook, Google and Twitter…
…if they don’t tackle ‘toxic’ content and ‘fake news.’
The problem is when left-wingers define what is toxic content and fake news
Unilever, one of the world’s largest advertisers, is threatening to pull its investment and marketing from tech giants such as Google, Facebook and Twitter if the platforms fuel “hate” and create “division” — a suspicious accusation considering the accuser’s left-wing motivation.
“As one of the largest advertisers in the world, we cannot have an environment where our consumers don’t trust what they see online,” said Unilever’s chief marketing officer Keith Weed.
Executives from Facebook and other tech companies have admitted that they could do more to combat “hate,” “abuse” and “extremism” on their platforms. Considering that these terms are never leveled at left-wing activity, the accusation of “hate,” “abuse” and “extremism” speaks volumes about the accuser. Of course, this is not to deny that there are hate, abuse and extremism among some right-wingers — the Catholic effort to rehabilitate the Inquisition through a Marxist revisionism is an example. But such extremism is rejected by the overwhelming majority of conservatives, while among left-wingers hate, abuse and extremism — the worship of Che Guevara and other communist killers — are not rejected.
“Unilever will not invest in platforms or environments that do not protect our children or which create division in society, and promote anger or hate,” Weed said. “We will prioritize investing only in responsible platforms that are committed to creating a positive impact in society.”
Weed called on the technology industry “to improve” their actions against “fake news” and “toxic” online content. The problem always is that Facebook and Unilever, dominated by left-wingers, never apply such terms to left-wing news and content.
Unilever said it is committed to tackling “gender stereotypes” in advertising and will only partner with organizations that are committed to creating “better” digital infrastructure. Better for whom? As ever, for their left-wing ideology.
“Gender stereotypes” is, in Unilever’s view, an excuse to protect children from Bible and conservative views. Actually, Unilever thinks that the lack of homosexual indoctrination makes children “unprotected.”
When Unilever says that it “will not invest in platforms or environments that do not protect our children,” it means that the only protection children need is from conservative ideas.
It is a miracle the conservative presence in Facebook, because this left-wing company is doing everything in its power to censor conservatives. And now Unilever wants Facebook to increase censorship.
Unilever was heavily criticized last year for a Dove advert, massively denounced by Facebook users, biased against mothers.
The Dove advert celebrated what Unilever sees as real moms “whose diverse parenting styles shatter stereotypes about motherhood and prove that there are no rules about how to be a parent today.”
The “real mothers” in the Dove advert were two biological men who identified as women. For Unilever, such propaganda “creates a positive impact in society.” For Unilever, two homosexual men are just as capable of being mothers as biological females are and to be a real woman is not a requirement for being a mom.
The Dove advert faced a massive backlash from users, who used extensively Facebook, Google and Twitter to denounce, through conservative articles and posts, Unilever’s propaganda against real mothers.
Now, in vengeance, Unilever is pressuring Facebook, Google and Twitter to tackle users’ backlash tools against its pro-homosexuality propagandas by banning conservative posts and the share of conservative articles.
Facebook, Google and Twitter would be more than happy to do as Unilever wishes. When these digital platforms complain of “hate,” “abuse” and “extremism” among their users, in no way they mean pictures of Muslims beheading Christians, homosexual activists reviling and mocking Christians or left-wing bigots attacking Christians who support Trump’s conservative stances. In an Orwellian misrepresentation, they mean Muslims, homosexual militants and left-wingers being attacked by Christians!
Just as a case in point, right now I am blocked on my own Facebook profile. Facebook’s justification for the block was that two posts, of 5 years ago, are now deemed “offensive,” because they had links to two articles on my blog. One article against Islamic invasion in Europe, denouncing Islamic violence. And another article exposing how homosexual groups in Brazil explore taxpayers by receiving millions to spread their immoral lifestyle.
You can read Facebook’s blatant censorship here: Why Does Facebook Harass and Censor Christians?
I have been banned for thirty days. This is the third time, in just six months, that Facebook has imposed a 30-day ban on my personal profile.
If, as Unilever wants, Facebook should do much more to tackle users who backlash against Unilever’s immoral propaganda, then will conservative users be censored, banned and expelled from Facebook?
In 2015, Faith Driven Consumer — representing 41 million Christian consumers who spend $2 trillion annually — labeled Unilever, with Microsoft and Apple, one of the companies most disrespectful to biblical worldview.
As a Facebook user, I strongly disagree with Unilever’s propaganda portraying two homosexual men as “real mothers.” I will do everything in my power, as a user on Facebook, Google and Twitter, to express my view against such perversion. And Unilever is doing everything in its power to ban my view.
Will Unilever prevail over the conservative public’ will?
Will Facebook, Google and Twitter prevail over their conservative users?
With information from FoxNews, Reuters, Charisma and BusinessInsider.
Portuguese version of this article: Unilever ameaça retirar anúncios do Facebook, Google e Twitter se não atacarem conteúdo “tóxico” e “notícias falsas”
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.