As early as Thursday, Facebook has seemingly begun to block content that paints Biden or Harris in a negative light. As we pointed out in a previous article, the social media Goliath clearly has a political opinion, favoring anti-freedom socialists and condemning pro-freedom individuals. This would be relatively acceptable if they were not granted special government protections reserved for totally neutral platforms. 

The websites ‘’ and ‘’ are seemingly blocked from appearing on Facebook in nearly all posts and comments. If you attempt to comment or post with the link to the sites, Facebook may refuse to post it, and it will give you this message: 

“YOU CAN’T SHARE THIS LINK”, says Facebook, despite them promising to be a neutral ‘platform’ that doesn’t censor speech and promises that they are not a ‘publisher’ which chooses what to publish. 

The URL leads to a website that educates voters about many of Biden’s political views, including his opposition to gay marriage, his support for imprisoning more Americans, his support for unpopular foreign wars, and many more unflattering facts about the 50-year politician. The site also highlights many of his acts of sexual assault.

“Joe Biden is back to take a hands-on approach to America’s problems!”, the site’s homepage reads.

The Democratic leadership chose Senator Harris, a California progressive socialist as the vice presidential candidate for Joe Biden. While they surely know that she is unprincipled and not even a real liberal, they figured that her color, gender, and younger energy could energize the base and enough independents to at least have a shot in November. educates voters on some facts that mainstream media is conveniently neglecting to report about her. As Attorney General of California, Harris kept non-violent prisoners in prison even after their release was ordered by a judge. According to Harris, she did this in order to continue to benefit from the prisoners’ labor. Yes, she literally enslaved prisoners, even after they were supposed to be released. Yet, hardcore Democrats seem to be okay with some slave-owners, as long as they are running against Trump.

The site also highlights how Harris enjoyed imprisoning parents when they did not send their children to government-operated schools. Harris also supports ‘civil asset forfeiture’, a practice by which law enforcement seizes any property they want anytime for any reason. While this practice is hugely unpopular among all Americans, hardcore Democrats will surely ignore the issue for the next few months when they hold their nose and vote for authoritarian progressives in order to beat the moderate Republican in office. Ironically, Trump seems to be more liberal on criminal justice than Harris. But don’t try to tell that to progressives!

Facebook also warns users when they attempt to share posts that are less than flattering about Democrats. Among the warnings are excuses such as ‘this article is more than one years old’ and ‘this post has been determined to be misleading by independent fact-checkers’. Of course, the fact-checkers are not independent. They are progressives who hate freedom and conservatism, just like Zuckerberg. 

During the writing of this article, Facebook seemingly began to allow the Harris link to be posted, at least by some commenters. However, many posts such as this true statement are labeled as ‘false’ simply for being unflattering to the socialist senator, such as the image to the right:

To the best of our knowledge, Facebook has not censored (or even placed a ‘warning’ over the images or links to) any anti-Trump posts or sites. We will update this article if we find such a case.

For the time being, if you post anything negative about Harris or Biden on Facebook between now and election day, you can expect to have it censored or completely blocked.


On August 18th, we noticed Facebook beginning to show warnings on posts that some leftists might feel are out of context. We noticed this warning for Clinton and Harris, but not for any conservatives.

As of August 21st, 2020, Facebook censored this picture. They called it ‘false’ though their ‘fact check’ article said that the picture had not been edited. If a picture is real, how could it be false?

Categories: News