What Social Media Gatekeepers Now Call ‘Violations’ Will Leave You Scratching Your Heads

Can somebody please explain how these ‘offenses’ could POSSIBLY violate the new rules?

You can find all kinds of craziness on the internet — some of it is pretty outrageous. The internet is (or at least WAS) kind of a Wild West of content.

That all changed after the last election. It was all in the interest of ‘fairness’ and decency of course.

Sites on the right (like ours, and others) that either, through standard journalism, dig up their own stories or use well-cited sources for those who have done so get blasted as ‘fake news’.

Trending: Watch: Cute Girl Turns Her Long Wait In An Airport Into A Viral Sensation

Any biases we have are openly acknowledged. Our explicit opinion pieces are marked as opinion, and even the ‘slant’ on our news take are usually pretty clearly spelled out. For example, our site says:

ClashDaily.com is a mosh pit of breaking news, edgy opinion, lots of attitude, and a call to action for God- and country-loving patriots. Yes, ClashDaily.com loves America’s founding documents and its Judeo-Christian worldview, and we will defend the aforementioned with an unapologetic zeal and an irreverent sense of humor.

But sources like NBC, CNN and ABC tell us they are ‘objective’ and they get the benefit of the doubt. Even though CNN fired staff over bogus stories and NBC just ran a totally bogus story about wiretapping the President’s lawyer.

(Meanwhile that ‘wiretapping’ story that POTUS and Mark Levin pointed out — drawing strictly from media sources last year — eventually proved substantially true, despite the way the ‘traditional media’ Hammered them both day after day after day.)

So, if you thought life here in the brave new world of censorship would be fair, you’re dreaming in technicolor.

But how can even the most cynical leftist POSSIBLY justify THESE two examples of ‘violations’ that our sites were flagged for?

EXAMPLE ONE:

Remember this story? You can even see it in the rage on his face. Here is the clip the story was written in response to:

Corey Booker was engaging in cheap political theatre, and taking personal shots at a Government Official’s integrity when he tore this strip out of the DHS secretary.

He was trying to score points, demanding that she tell him that the President said a particular swear word.

He took shots at her PERSONAL life, a reference to her ‘first husband’, and we called it unwarranted bullying of an elected official. The clip had millions of views because it was newsworthy.

And if any man with an (R) after his name spoke to any woman like that, there would be outraged cries of “misogynist”! Those cries would be louder still if there was an ethnic difference angle the reporters could exploit to disadvantage their political opponents.

But when we report the political bias of ‘traditional news outlets’ — with a title like this one? WE get flagged? But Booker gets a pass? Go figure.

Oh, and can you guess what the Official Google complaint about this story was? In a story where Booker entirely threw unsubstantiated accusations of racism at a government servant?

Dangerous or derogatory content

As stated in our program policies, Google ads may not be placed on pages that contain content that:

• Threatens or advocates for harm on oneself or others;

• Harasses, intimidates or bullies an individual or group of individuals;

• Incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization.