Why Conservatives Perceive YouTube and Facebook as Censors: A Comprehensive Analysis

The perception that social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook are censoring conservative content has been a topic of ongoing debate and discussion. Conservative users often characterize the absence of their comments or the banning of their accounts as 'bias' rather than breaches of social network guidelines. This perception is shaped by a variety of factors, including the confirmation of bias and a desire to be seen as victims of the system.

The Confirmation of Conservative Bias

Conservatives frequently view content moderation and content removal as a form of bias. This is often rooted in a confirmation bias, where they selectively interpret information that supports their preexisting beliefs and dismiss information that contradicts them. For example, when a conservative comment is removed or a video is blocked, they tend to attribute it to the liberal-leaning bias of the platforms rather than acknowledging the violation of established rules.

This perspective is further reinforced by the presence of alternative content sources that align with conservative views. These platforms, such as or Breitbart, often serve as a counter-narrative to mainstream media, and their existence can make conservatives feel marginalized or subject to suppression by mainstream platforms.

Bias and Confirmation Serve as Shelves for Victimhood

Conservatives have a strong tendency to perceive themselves as victims of a system that is unfairly targeting them. This desire to be seen as victims is often rooted in a broader narrative of persecution. They argue that conservative content is unfairly removed, profiling it as a form of censorship, while ignoring the fact that other content, including potentially extreme or inappropriate material, is also removed. This selective interpretation allows them to maintain a narrative of victimhood and evade responsibility for their actions.

The is a notable example of how conservatives engage in self-righteousness. This platform attempts to present a version of Wikipedia that aligns with right-wing views and conspiracy theories. It is constructed using a variety of logical fallacies and discredited sources, making it a dependable source for conservatives seeking confirmation of their biases. This reinforces their belief that they are victims of a larger conspiracy to silence them.

Public Standards and Community Standards

Contrary to the perception of bias, platforms like YouTube and Facebook have clear and publicly shared standards for content. These standards are designed to ensure a safe and respectful environment for all users. When conservatives argue that their content is censored, they often overlook the fact that both liberal and conservative content can be removed for violating these standards. For instance, content that violates non-harassment policies, includes vulgarities, or goes against community standards on communication is regularly blocked or banned.

Terms like 'breaking the rules' or 'civil discourse' are often sidelined in these discussions. These standards apply to all users, and any content that falls outside of the acceptable norms is subject to removal. This is not a form of censorship but a mechanism for maintaining a healthy online community where users can express themselves freely without fear of harassment or abuse.

Conclusion

The perception of social media platforms as censors is primarily driven by confirmation bias and a desire to position oneself as a victim. However, it is essential to recognize that these platforms operate under clear guidelines designed to ensure a safe and respectful environment. The desire to hold the platforms accountable for content removal while ignoring the broader issue of rule adherence contributes to this perception. Understanding these underlying factors can help in fostering a more nuanced and informed discourse on content moderation and online freedom.