Anyone banned on one social media platform should be banned on all of them

On July 16, 2021, Jen Psaki, the White House Press Secretary (the official public voice of the Biden-Harris Administration), said that if anybody is banned from one social media platform, they should be banned from all social media platforms.

So when you are thinking about your company, your posts, or even your social media platform, should you be concerned? Even a blog that is attached to EasyBet Casino is technically considered a social media platform, because it allows back and forth communication between the company and the public (its customers or potential customers). Almost every company has a blog attached to their company website. It is the main source of news that a company uses to dispense information to its investors, employees, and current and potential customers.

How would this affect companies like EasyBet Casino?

In the United States, the legal age for gambling is 18 or 21. Most social media websites tend to have a default policy of PG-13+. The content should be age appropriate for children ages 13 and above, but since gambling sites cannot openly market to children ages 13 to 18 (or 21), if EasyBet Casino is banned on Facebook for openly putting up ads, Jen Psaki (mouthpiece of the Biden-Harris administration) is saying that EasyBet Casino should be banned on all platforms.

Is that really fair to EasyBet Casino? Somebody on the EasyBet Casinos advertising team tested the water, failed, so they should be banned from the internet forever? Regardless if you are pro-gambling, anti-gambling, or just support social gambling, that should concern you.

Today EasyBet Casino is the target of the Biden-Harris Administration (hypothetically speaking). What makes you believe that tomorrow it will not be your and your company or just that somebody does not like you personally? You let your dog poop on their grass, so they convinced Facebook to ban you … you get the idea.

But what about Parlor or Gettr? Are the rules for Parlor and Gettr different from the rules for Facebook and YouTube?

Yes, obviously. Before Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and Google went insanely crazy with their banning of anybody who the owners of these platforms disagreed with, most individual people and companies were happy with Facebook, Google, YouTube, Instagram, etc. and did not have a problem that these companies essentially had a monopoly.

Everybody knew that companies that paid for advertising of keywords placed higher than “regular” searches. But since every company knew what the rules were, and the rules were applied equally, it was in its own way a “fair” system — even if you disagreed with their business model. But these “leader” companies abused their leadership position, and alternatives have been popping up one by one. Some will succeed and some will not, but change is coming.

The bottom line is that companies like Parlor, Gettr, and Tumbler have different rules that are different from the rules that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have. That is the whole reason why they created their sites in the first place. Essentially what the Biden-Harris Administration is saying is that the rules that Facebook is “following” all social media companies should be forced to follow.

The problem is that many people do not like Facebook’s rules. It is a feeling that has been brewing for many years, but this feeling was really cemented with the whole banning of COVID information and the banning of Trump in a coordinated effort.

What does Parlor and Gettr have to do with Jen Psaki and the Biden-Harris Administration?

By Jen Psaki (Biden-Harris Administration) saying, “If a person is banned from one social media platform, they should be banned from all social media platforms”, Jen Psaki (Biden-Harris Administration) is giving the green light to coordinated bullying of the social media current “leaders”.

Going back to our EasyBet Casino, what if Biden-Harris decided that too many people wasted their stimulus checks on Gambling instead of using that money for paying rent, and then became homeless (hypothetical scenario). So instead of focusing on “people need to be taught how to safely gamble”, the Biden-Harris administration decides that all references to Gambling should be banned everywhere (hypothetical scenario).

Facebook takes the lead and bans every mention of the word Gambling, regardless of the context, and everybody who posts the word Gambling is banned from social media forever. By Jen Psaki’s own words, Parlor and Gettr should also ban all references to gambling and EasyBet Casino.

Parlor and Gettr take a different position and say that references to Gambling are okay, as long as the ad is rated 21+, and can only be displayed on pages that specifically say that they support ads rated 21+.

Both accomplish the same thing, protecting children from being exposed to gambling websites until they are old enough to handle that content, but both are accomplishing it in two different ways.

But with Jen Psaki (Biden-Harris Administration) comments, she is saying the Facebook way is the only acceptable way.

What about the sixth amendment, trial by jury and everything else that goes with it?

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

So in the situation that the Biden-Harris administration have created is that they are giving the government green light for private companies to “punish” people (aka, put the them into cyber jail) without a specific written law, without formal charges, without a trial by jury of their peers, without the ability to confront the witnesses against them (in this case, literally, the Biden-Harris administration), and without the assistance of a defense council.

The reason why I say the accused is the Biden-Harris administration is that the Biden-Harris administration has publicly admitted that they are reading social media posts and specifically telling Facebook which posts to censor and which posts to not censor. But since Facebook becomes judge, jury, and executioner, the Biden-Harris Administration believes that they are not violating the 6th amendment.

What about the fifth amendment? Grand jury, double jeopardy, witness against oneself?

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

First, let’s define “Capital Crime”.

“Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes, capital offences or capital felonies, and vary depending on the jurisdiction, but commonly include serious crimes against the person such as murder, mass murder, aggravated cases of rape, child rape, child sexual abuse, terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, along with crimes against the state such as attempting to overthrow government, treason, espionage, sedition, piracy, and aircraft hijacking. Also, in some cases, acts of recidivism, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping, in addition to drug trafficking, drug dealing, and drug possession, are capital crimes or enhancements.”

According to Biden, “COVID misinformation on Facebook is killing people.”

So people are being accused of murder with no grand jury that looks over the evidence to indicate if there is enough evidence to do charges. But yet the Biden-Harris Administration is telling not only Facebook to punish these people, but every single social media site in the world.

And that does not scare you? Today it is COVID-19 vaccine deniers? But who will it be tomorrow?

But aren’t Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc private companies that can make their own rules?

The Biden-Harris Administration (the government) is giving them marching orders while at the same time, protecting them from competition through Sec 230 protections, as well as huge tax advantages.

Can you see the conflict of interest? Facebook, Google, Twitter do what the Government is forbidden from doing in exchange for huge financial rewards. These financial rewards come in the form of laws that restrict competition and huge tax advantages. There is a word for that. It is called a “quid pro quo” arrangement.

Yes, a “quid pro quo” arrangement were the charges that the Democrats did against Trump during his first impeachment trial. And no, the Democrats will never in a million years impeach somebody from their own party.

What about the first amendment, freedom of speech? How does that fit in?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The problem arises when two of those freedoms conflict with each other. Let’s use our example of EasyBet Casino again. Should EasyBet Casino be given freedom of speech?

One side will argue freedom of speech is freedom of speech. There should be no restrictions.

Another side will say that too many people have the potential to lose their life savings through gambling, so EasyBet Casino should be forbidden from advertising anywhere.

A third position is that EasyBet Casino should be allowed to advertise with some restrictions. The open ads could have to be behind a paywall that makes efforts to restrict viewing by children under age of 18 or 21. And all ads have to have a disclaimer at the bottom that includes a link to gambling addiction prevention information. As far as I know, these are not actual laws, I am still talking hypothetically.

So who is right and who is wrong? In an open and free society, both sides present their arguments and people make up their own minds.


I personally classify this whole discussion as the same as the communism discussion. Communism sounds great in theory, but is horrible in reality. Human nature (for better or worse) will always take over, including the government doing anything and everything to work against human nature.

Restricting freedom of speech in the name of protecting the public sounds great in theory, but is horrible in application. It restricts the free flow of ideas. Without the free flow of ideas, we do not have advancement. With no advancement, society becomes stagnated.

As for the COVID-19 discussions……

Vaccines have their place, but they are not 100% effective and appropriate in all scenarios. My sister has allergies that restricted which vaccine she could take. 2 would have caused serious problems, but the third was fine. But for other people, it was the opposite. If speech in this area is restricted, my sister in consultation with her doctor would not have had the information to make an educated decision. The end result could have been a dead sister. (not hypothetical, my life)

The same is true with masks and early cures. They are not 100% effective and not appropriate in all scenarios.
The only way to truly fight COVID-19 is through the free and open flow of ideas, and then allow the public to make health decisions based on their individual needs and circumstances.

Become a Fan

Log in

Or pick a name

I'd rather post as guest