All I did was share some information about covid vaccines -- information gleaned from government agencies as well as medical journals and research papers -- in the hope that people would do their own research before deciding whether to roll up their sleeves and get the covid-19 vaccine shot(s). And especially for those who have already had covid-19 and are fully recovered.
No one disputed the facts I shared. Thousands of deaths (and even more serious illnesses) have been reported in connection with receiving covid-19 vaccines; the length of immunity provided through the vaccines or by contracting the illness is yet unknown; and there is much research that suggests those contracting and recovering from covid-19 have immunity as good as or better than those not having had the disease but being fully vaccinated.
But even presenting the facts is too much for some who wish to suppress science and information to promote their political agendas. And, I might add that politics and medicine are not always a good mix.
Why do I say this? Because the Eagle Observer often posts links to its articles on the eagleobserver.com website on social media to let people know the articles and stories are there and can be read. I did this last week and all the article links posted on Facebook show the number of people reached and how many engaged in the article by clicking on the link -- well, all except the editorial piece I wrote asking people to look at the reports on the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) on the government website or at https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data and urging people to read the research data available on both government and medical research and journal sites.
For those wishing to read last week's editorial, it is still available on the newspaper website: https://www.eagleobserver.com/news/2021/jun/08/opinion-should-i-get-the-shot-or-not/.
Facebook did not show how many people were reached or how many engaged because, I can only assume, it did not automatically share that post with followers of the Eagle Observer. And, to make matters worse, it added a box covering up part of the original post with a link to a Facebook page telling anyone who sees the article on the Eagle Observer page where to get the vaccines and with articles encouraging people to get the vaccine.
I tried a repost in case it was a fluke, but the results were the same.
It is true that Facebook is a privately held company and is under no obligation to give posts that do not reflect its social or political agenda any audience. It is free to block posts, hide them or remove them entirely. But what is concerning to me is that people trust Facebook to provide them with news and information when Facebook is far from fair and impartial in what it allows users to post and what it allows users to see.
This was shown to be true in regard to political views and opinions relating to the last general election, and now it also appears to be true in regard to sharing any negative information regarding the safety or effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines.
To be a trustworthy news source, one needs to publish all the facts and give all sides a fair hearing. To censor facts and information just because they do not reflect the political views or agenda of the news source disqualifies that source as trustworthy, and especially so when the information is backed up with reputable sources and research.
If you don't care that Facebook is mining your personal information for targeted advertising and maybe also for targeted promotion of its political agenda, you can use Facebook for free. Just know that it is not really free, fair, and impartial; and you are likely only seeing what Facebook determines you should see.
And, sad to say, Facebook is not the only company censoring the news we are allowed to see.
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.