BIG TECH CENSORS SET THEIR SIGHTS ON HARMING THE HUNTING COMMUNITY

Here is what happens when a Facebook user tries to post a link to the Hunting Consortium.

BY CORINNE WEAVER

ASSISTANT EDITOR AT MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER

Social media companies, especially Facebook, are targeting the hunting community with censorship, even if hunters don’t break the rules. Censorship is no stranger to the conservatives and others advocating a traditional lifestyle on social media. Former President Donald Trump and his campaign have been assaulted with innumerable instances of censorship. Multiple figures in the media have been suspended, banned, or suppressed in some way online for expressing opinions that the left deems offensive.

It’s not just politics: guns, discussion of gender, and even religion are enough to get a user banned from social media. The hunting community falls into this category.

Companies that arrange hunting trips, hunters, and hunting enthusiasts have repeatedly been removed, covered up, or suppressed by social media. Even if users adhere to the letter of the community guidelines, it doesn’t seem to matter.

The Media Research Center has taken on the job of fighting for free speech online for conservatives. Through CensorTrack, the nonprofit organization provides numerical evidence of online censorship.

Facebook attacked The Hunting Consortium, an international hunting agency, by censoring it into a state of paralysis. “The Hunting Consortium, (@huntingconsortium) has recently fallen victim to the censorship issue that has been plaguing the hunting community for some time now,” stated Vice President of the Hunting Consortium Rob Kern. “In July, we experienced a censorship issue greater than anything we, or any of the experts we have talked to, have encountered.”

According to Kern, between 1,000 and 1,500 photos were removed from the agency’s Facebook page. What is more troubling, however, is how links to the website are treated on Facebook, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram Direct Messaging. “Our URL www.huntcon.com has been banned on both Instagram and Facebook, to include Instagram messenger and Facebook Messenger,” he said.

The nonprofit Media Research Center reached out to Facebook to intervene on behalf of the Hunting Consortium and was partially successful. However, even though some censorship was addressed, the Hunting Consortium is still under fire today, months later. Facebook refuses to fix the rest of the problem.

HYPOCRiTiCAL HUNTiNG CENSORSHiP

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg hunts animals, according to his own testimony. In 2011, he admitted to hunting “wild boar” with a bow and arrow. That personal detail does not seem to make Facebook sympathetic to the plight hunters face online. But the Hunting Consortium is not alone. In 2014, Facebook deleted a series of hunting photos from the account of cheerleader Kendall Jones.

Later, in 2016, Facebook also reportedly deleted a photo of a man holding up a hammerhead shark that he had caught while fishing. “We remove reported content that promotes poaching of endangered species, the sale of animals for organized fight or content that includes extreme acts of animal abuse,” said a Facebook spokesperson in 2014 to Mashable. However, hunting itself is not poaching, organized fighting, or extreme animal abuse. It seems as if Facebook is interested in removing all photos of hunting, regardless of the settings.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook’s Community Standards do not explicitly ban hunting. In fact, while content calling for violence against animals is banned, Facebook specifically states that hunting is allowed: “except in cases of hunting, fishing, religious sacrifice, food preparation or processing, pest or vermin, self-defense or redemption.”

Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) own shares in Facebook. This ownership allows PETA to “enabling the group to submit a shareholder resolution, attend the company’s annual meetings, and ask questions of executives there.” PETA complained that the warning labels on the organization’s posts had become too numerous, prompting them to become shareholders. “The move comes after the social media platform upped its use of warning screens on PETA videos showing real-life incidents of routine cruelty to animals, significantly limiting the group’s ability to expose animal suffering to a wide audience,” stated the PETA press release.

SWEPT UP iN THE GUN BAN

Facebook is not the only platform that objects to the hunting community. YouTube has implemented a blanket ban on guns and gun-related media, which has swept hunters up into the fray.

YouTube banned gun videos that show repairs, upgrades, and tutorials. “YouTube also doesn’t allow live streams that show someone holding, handling, or transporting a firearm,” state the YouTube policies. Companies like Brownells Inc.’s channel, a gun-parts supply business, were banned from the site after the new policies were put into place. Brownell’s was eventually reinstated, but other casualties remained.

The NRA issued a statement in response to YouTube’s ban, saying the site was “engaging in politically motivated censorship and alienating the millions of people who turn to the website for education and training.”

Facebook also bans guns, gun-related content, and gun sales on its platform. A Florida state representative had his political ad pulled for gun-related content. State Rep. Matt Caldwell’s 15-second advertisement features him skeet shooting and saying, “I like guns. I love the Second Amendment. And I support our former president. That’s why I’m endorsed by the NRA.”

When Callie Wolverton, PR manager for Girls With Guns, tried to run an ad for her show on Facebook, she was rejected for saying the word “gun” several times. Facebook informed her that this was “promoting violence.”

DEVASTATiNG CENSORSHiP

“Today we are addressing a glaring issue - Facebook and therefore Instagram have blocked us from posting original content,” wrote the Consortium on Aug. 13 in a public Facebook post. “We are forced to ask, is hunting violating community standards? We are taking a stand against this inexplicable measure. We have not received any form of feedback or support from Facebook and see ourselves forced to make the issue public.”

Facebook ignored several requests for responses when the Media Research Center reached out on behalf of the Hunting Consortium.

This kind of censorship does not stop with the Hunting Consortium. “We have suffered a devastating blow with this censorship and have been in touch daily with some of the biggest hunting organizations and advocacy groups in the world,” said Kern. “We will not take this lying down and will fight to have Facebook and Instagram remove the censorship of our page.”

Kern continued, “Although we do see posts within the hunting community that could be considered sensitive, it is not fair, ethical, or moral that a social media user can witness a human being violently assaulted or even murdered, yet hunting related content is removed. Hunting has become one of the most important tools in the saving of endangered species and the habitat these species require. It is recognized as such by the IUCN, CITES, and other conservation groups throughout the world. This can be substantiated with facts on the increase of wild populations of endangered species all over the world due to hunting.”

Hunting organizations aren’t alone. Even influencers cannot post images of their hunting to social media. Conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair said Instagram removed a hunting photo and threatened to delete her account. ★

Corinne Weaver is an assistant editor for the Media Research Center’s online censorship branch, TechWatch. If you’d like to contact us, visit our website at newsbusters.org/techwatch, or censortrack.org.