Since the outcome of the election was not what the left wanted, something must have gone wrong. This cannot happen. And whatever it might have been that caused insolent Americans to not vote as the left wished, this horrid thing must be found, must be isolated and must be killed.
Of course, another approach would be, say, next time nominate a better candidate, offer better ideas and do a better job of persuading people to vote for you? Nah! Ban something! That's the left's response to losing because every leftist knows that if things had been fair, right and just, they would have won.
And their new target this week is something called "fake news sites." This, they're convinced, accounts for Donald Trump's margin of victory. You see, people were sharing links on Facebook from purported news sites that actually report "fake news," which may actually be false information or might just be a source of opinions the left doesn't think people should hear. At any rate, they're pressuring Facebook and other social media to ban so-called "fake" news sites from their advertising networks, and having some success. The problem, of course, is that the definition of what constitutes a "fake" site vs. just a site liberals don't like is quite subjective. And if it's left to the discretion of lefties, who do you suppose might end up on the list?
Take a look at this piece from the Daily Dot, which purports to authoritatively identify 130 "fake" sites. Among those listed are James O'Keefe's Project Veritas, which is not fake at all but uses hidden-camera video to expose wrongdoing by left-wingers. Also listed are Breitbart, Twitchy, Red State and The Blaze - all of which are basically conservative opinion sites that make no pretense of being anything other than that. What makes them "fake" and thus deserving of a ban?
To be sure, the Daily Dot is just offering its take, and no one is saying that Facebook is going to necessarily ban the sites on this list. But this is the problem with trying to decide what's fake and what's real, as opposed to simply letting readers decide for themselves. I realize the problem with that, of course, is that there is a lot of nonsense out there and a lot of people believe it.
But what about the nonsense that comes out every day from CNN, MSNBC, CBS and the New York Times? What about the nonsense that comes from the Huffington Post? Or Slate? Or Salon? Should they be banned as "fake" because much of what they say is utter garbage?
This is what happens when one side of the political spectrum decides it should have the right to dictate who can communicate with others, and how. It's the beginning of a purge that would ultimately marginalize all sources of information that are not pleasing to the political left. You can't do it by sending in government brownshirts to shut them down, but you do it by pressuring those on whom they depend for distribution not to give it to them.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose because people believed fake news about her. She lost because they believed real news about her - that she is a corrupt liar who ran an illegal e-mail server, was guilty of gross negligence in the handling of classified information and ran a bribery ring disguised as a charity. No one needed to be told any lies to know what a terrible president she would be. The truth was damning enough.
And we'll be going down a dangerous road if we now presume to decide what's real and what's fake. To be sure, there are sites on The Daily Dot's list that I know are phony scam sites. But a lot of perfectly legitimate sites would get caught up in this giant fishnet.
Besides, there is no problem to be solved here, contrary to what the left seems to think. We had an election. Someone won and someone lost. That's how it's supposed to work. Is is not a crisis, and is certainly not cause for bans, that the left's candidate didn't win. The left's candidate didn't deserve to win. What they need to do is come to grips with that and make a better choice next time.
