Bounding Out of Facebook

Bounding Into Comics’ John F. Trent alleges Facebook administrators have taken down his site’s companion page there “due to the nature of the content we cover and post” — “CENSORSHIP: Facebook Completely Removes Bounding Into Comics’s 250k+ Strong Fan Page”.

Trent displayed screencaps of messages from Facebook:

As you can see, Facebook did not provide us with any actual concrete examples of the alleged violation. In fact, the reason why we are writing this article today, instead of yesterday, is because we attempted to reach out to Facebook believing the removal of the page was inadvertent. However, Facebook has not responded to any of our Help Center inquiries. They stopped responding in an email thread with a Publisher & Media Support team representative once the page was identified.

Given recent reports of Facebook and Twitter removing pages that do not align with their views, I think it is safe to assume that Facebook is likely targeting Bounding Into Comics due to the nature of the content we cover and post.

Bounding Into Comics contributors are not afraid to offer a critical look at the current entertainment culture as it pertains to the comic book industry, Hollywood, and video games. We are on the front line of highlighting the behavior of a number of the executives in these companies whether it’s Marvel’s Sana Amanat who unabashedly stated that “Mexicans, Jews, Muslims, women, native America, the environment, science, and KIDS” are all things “TheRepublicansHate.”

Bounding Into Comics, which publicizes comics from JDA and Vox Day, and applauded Marvel firing Chuck Wendig from a Star Wars project last fall, often claims industry professionals are trying to silence them.

For example, in October when the Forum Administrator declared a “New Ban: Do Not Post In Support of Trump or his Administration”, Trent responded:

…They also try to state they won’t be targeting Republicans and conservatives, but have openly banned support for the duly elected Republican administration. That sure sounds like targeting of conservatives and Republicans. They actively banned support for them!

However, as a culture warrior Trent does not confine himself to playing defense. Last month Jim C. Hines documented Bounding Into Comics’ deceptive criticism of Fonda Lee in “Bounding Into Comics vs. Fonda Lee”.

Her Tweets got a lot of attention, leading to an article by John Trent at Bounding Into Comics that derides Lee and accuses her, among other things, of criticizing Tolkien. Not that Lee ever did this. Her second Tweet in that thread said, “Before you @ me about the importance of classics, I love LOTR too, okay?” One might almost suspect Trent’s comment, “Lee isn’t the first person to criticize Tolkien,” of being an attempt to stir up shit.

Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

24 thoughts on “Bounding Out of Facebook

  1. Another bunch of ‘conservatives’ who have no idea what censorship actually is.

  2. If I look at the Spider-Man trailer on their website, it’s branded with a Bounding into Comics logo. If that was on the Facebook page and he states that it happened right after he posted the same trailer there, that’s a clear violation of what Facebook trademark infringement policy is and that appears to me with what he’s accused of doing. You cannot claim the property of someone else as your own.

  3. See item 9 in the following Scroll. I remember when the far right was all about property rights; I haven’t been hearing so much about that aspect recently (not that I’ve been paying much attention to their maunderings…).

  4. Chip, they’re all about property right when it’s their property. When it’s somebody else’s property, that’s another matter. I’ve had to file more the one copyright infringement claim for use ofa full review on websites controlled by authors who leaned decidedly righted who failed to credit Green Man as the source of a given review. That sites in question took the reviews and attached a fictional name to the review. Bad authors.

    (I have sharp teeth and will bite. Ask the few who tried to bully me by threatening to sue GMR.)

  5. It is nonsense for a social media company to have a policy about allowable content, and then ban accounts without providing an explanation as to how the content violated those terms.

    FTR, I thoroughly enjoyed Jade City and thought her observations were being a bit overblown by her critics.

    Tronatology 101 – Never let the smoke out.

  6. Dann665 says It is nonsense for a social media company to have a policy about allowable content, and then ban accounts without providing an explanation as to how the content violated those terms.

    Well we don’t know that Facebook didnt tell him why he was banned. We only have his word that that they didn’t. And to honest, I don’t really trust him to tell truth on anything as he’s far more interested in playing the conservative martyr than being banned for violating copyright law.

  7. As far as I know they have permission to host trailers on their website just like most of the bigger comic news sites do. Maybe that does not extend to Facebook as well or maybe Facebook made a mistake about it. Who knows since Facebook refuses to give a reason.

  8. Magewolf saysAs far as I know they have permission to host trailers on their website just like most of the bigger comic news sites do. Maybe that does not extend to Facebook as well or maybe Facebook made a mistake about it. Who knows since Facebook refuses to give a reason.

    Most of the time no one save the major players hosts anything on their site. What you get most times is a link back to the corporate server. Apple hosts trailers as does a handful of comic book and media sites. I hardly think his site qualifies as one that Sony would want hosting anything.

    We don’t know that Facebook didn’t give him an explanation. It’s to his advantage to spin it that Facebook shut him down because they don’t like conservative sorts like him. Playing the victim is so much more interesting than being guilty of copyright violation.

  9. I’ve never seen Facebook gives reasons through their report system so I wouldn’t be surprised if they hadn’t done so in this case. And, to be fair, when someone’s been banned there probably isn’t a reason for them to do so. For a suspension it would let people adjust their behaviour to avoid future penalties, but telling someone with a permaban just invites them to argue with you about it and I doubt very much that Facebook is interested in having that argument, even where the ban may have been inappropriate.

    I am intrigued by the ban, though. It seems more proactive than I’m used to from Facebook. I’d like to know the reasons just for that. I just don’t expect to get any.

  10. While I do think Facebook has too much power and is not held responsible for how they use it, it is hard to take this as an example of misuse, given the people responsible for the page.

    Facebook has a history of banning leftist media and organizations critical of US foreign policy, but I do not think “giving reasons” would change that in anyway, so I do not agree with Dann665 that they should give examples. Breaking the company up would be a better start.

  11. @Cat Eldridge

    You are correct about this specific case. The ban may have been for thoroughly legitimate reasons. Since Facebook (and pretty much all the other social media platforms) won’t say why they took the action, no one will know.

    Within the current larger context, suspensions and terminations of normal conservative and/or libertarian accounts are pretty common. Glenn Reynold’s, of Instapundit fame, had his Twitter account suspended for something pretty normal. There was a guy who got his account dumped for posting a photo with Donald Trump Jr. at the NRA convention. And there are a few other accounts I follow that run into “trouble” for innocuous postings.

    Also within the current larger context, there are extremist accounts on the left that remain active despite their violent rhetoric. Useful examples being some Antifa accounts, terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and individuals that go beyond normal trollery and wander into advocating violence against individuals.

    If the social media platforms were enforcing their Ts and Cs in an evenhanded manner, then it would be a lot easier to dismiss this guy’s claim. He’s VD adjacent, so it isn’t hard to see where he might have crossed a line.

    But when social media platforms discount leftist-sourced intolerant and violent rhetoric, it becomes a little easier to believe that his activities may have been unworthy of their action.

    From the year 7290, where the next ice age is in full swing and Michigan is covered in ice a kilometer thick.

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

  12. The timing does coincide with facebook cracking down on truly extreme right wingers, but this site is not the sort of place that would have been on their radar. I suspect a copyright violation is *much* more likely than a “Eeek! a conservative!”

    Hampus: Also true. At barest minimum, facebook should not be allowed to own *any* other social media sites (eg. Instagram) that would otherwise create competition and give them a reason to start catering slightly to actual requests by users instead of rolling out changes that seem to have been made with zero consultation. (I grant you, twitter is worse for the latter). I’ve been trying to imagine how to break up facebook itself into smaller pieces and it’s hard to imagine.

  13. Hold on. In what way is the Muslim Brotherhood leftist?

    Free market economy and strong private sector don’t sound leftist and neither does Sharia law.

  14. @Lenora

    They aren’t leftist. But they are at the very least “terrorist adjacent” and some of their social media presentations definitely cross the line in being anti-Semitic.

    The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. – Isaac Asimov

  15. Let me put it this way: I don’t want terrorist groups on my social media, and you could argue they are a terrorist group, or terrorist adjacent, and if facebook is removing Infowars (GOOD RIDDANCE) and ignoring them, this is an issue.

    It is not, however, a “Facebook ignores lefty threats” issue.

    You listed ONE potentially dangerous leftist organization, (and I think there’s a lot more argument for antifa not being a terrorist organization than there is for the others, but it’s not a hill I will die on today) and two really-not-even-arguably-leftist ones, and tried to make it a left vs. right situation. This, not that Hamas or the Muslim brotherhood have issues, is my point of dispute.

  16. If I started counting all rightwing terrorist organisations with accounts on Facebook. The list would just go on and on. Also add extremist accounts with violent rhetoric like NRA, Likud, JDL, Sovereign Citizens… the list would go on forever.

  17. @Dann

    Glenn Reynold’s, of Instapundit fame, had his Twitter account suspended for something pretty normal

    I wouldn’t consider someone saying Charlottesville counter-protestors should be run down to be “pretty normal”, and it throws your other claims about conservatives getting nobbled for innocuous postings into doubt. Especially considering that your examples of leftist extremist organisations had more not-left organisations than leftist ones. Your argument isn’t built on solid ground.

  18. It wasn’t Charlottesville though, was it? It was Charlotte, another occasion that happened earlier.

  19. @Lenora Rose and Meredith

    I apologize for the delay. Mostly busy these days. Let’s see how brief I can make this.

    1) As “antifa” is comprised of lots of little groups, I would not be surprised to find those that are not prone to violence under that label. There are lots of those groups that are quite willing to engage in threats of violence in the social media space and purposeful/intended violence in person. Those would be the groups that bring helmets, chains, bike locks, M-80s, and similar accoutrement to an event they allegedly plan on “protesting”. There are also lots of deplorable individuals on the left, just as there are plenty of hate-filled/spewing folks on the right. Getting into an inventory of who did/did not get banned for what seems like an unproductive use of time, IMHO.

    2) Social media companies are particularly prone to leftist politics. Modern American leftist politics includes a toxic strain of identitarianism. That strain doesn’t exist everywhere among the left. But it does seem to drive social media companies. The point of bringing up terrorist organizations was not that they are leftist (although in the case of some antifa units, they are) but to point out an area where leftist politics drive social media companies to enforce their TOS in an uneven and discriminatory manner.

    3) Social media companies appear to be pretty intolerant of diverse perspectives. (e.g. Google recently shut down a committee looking at ethics in developing AI because one invited member was pro-life. The committee wasn’t looking at pro-life perspectives, but Google employees were intolerant towards any deviation from their thoughts on that unrelated issue.)

    4) Glenn Reynolds comment was in response to violent BLM protesters that were vandalizing the Charlotte area, stopping vehicles on city streets and interstate highways, threatening stopped drivers and committing assaults. He later explained that his intent was to suggest that in the circumstance where violence had occurred and violence was still being offered, motorists had no duty to stop, but also that they should do their best to avoid hitting anyone. (this was totally separate from the events in Charlottesville)

    5) Lastly, I modestly submit that this issue isn’t something you see because your media filters do not include anyone (perhaps other than me) that are bringing it to your attention. That is not a criticism of your choices. It is just an observation.

    I get exposed to plenty of leftist positions every day via the NYT, NBC, NPR (sadly, they used to be better), Mother Jones, the WaPo, etc. ad infinitum. There are lots of sources that point out this problem that simply are not covered by those outlets.

    Might Mr. Trent’s issues have more to do with copyright than politics? Sure.

    But given the demonstrable habit of disparate enforcement of TOS, it might well be that he fell afoul of social media political preferences.

    Sorry. Brief isn’t in me.

    ‘There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches.’ Ray Bradbury

  20. @Dann

    Okay. What his tweet said was: “Run them down.” Twitter was right to suspend him, you were wrong to call it “pretty normal”, and you were very wrong to try and obscure what he said in order to make it seem like he was unjustly persecuted.

    You were also wrong to say that two right-wing organisations were left-wing, and continuing to claim that these right-wing organisations haven’t been banned because of left-wing somethingsomething, and that this is evidence of left-wing bias, is reaching at best. They’re right-wing organisations. If you think they should be banned and they haven’t been, then that’s evidence of bias in favour of right-wing organisations, not against them.

    You suggest there’s loads of evidence where we haven’t seen it, but the evidence you’ve presented doesn’t support your argument. It’s hard to believe that you deliberately chose the weakest possible options of all that’s out there, and you haven’t presented any new evidence after that was pointed out, so I can only conclude that the rest of that evidence doesn’t really exist.

  21. Point to anything resembling gaslighting or just say you don’t want to respond. Or say nothing. Not bothering to argue further is much more mature than an unwarranted snipe and flounce.

Comments are closed.