This past weekend, Shaun King, the possibly biracial but definitely controversial figure who has posed as a civil rights activist in the current past, found his Instagram account, which once boasted 6 million followers, gone just like those donations for his various ventures.
While some may call it a win, because, well, a grifter gone is a grifter gone, Meta removing someone for their pro-Palestinian stances is a bit troubling, to say the least, because, well, it is not just King who has been targeted, and as much as you don’t like a guy, “an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.” That was the other King who said that, Martin Luther, to be exact.
🇵🇸🇮🇱 Shaun King had one of the biggest Pro-Palestinian accounts on Instagram.
— Censored Men (@CensoredMen) December 25, 2023
Yesterday, Meta banned him.
Talking about a Genocide gets your account banned on Instagram. pic.twitter.com/8fbwsBRPCJ
According to a Meta spokesperson, “The account was disabled due to multiple instances of praise for designated entities in violation of our policies.” In typical Meta fashion, they have not been super specific about what those entities are or what the actual violation is, seeing as how it may change depending on the person. Just because Meta has censored someone that many people agree has done harm does not mean they have censored him for the right reasons, and in fact, the reason for his censure is troubling, to say the least. Back in October, Meta removed the page eye.on.palestine, which at the time had 6 million followers. It was subsequently reinstated days later, with Meta stating that it did not remove the account for political reasons but because it showed signs of compromise.
Funny they should use that word.
It now has just shy of 10 million followers. King’s posts have been pro-Palestine, including his posting about his facilitation of the release of two Palestinian hostages, claims that the hostages deny. This is not the first time King has come under fire for his portrayal of a righter of wrongs and a doer of goods. Tamir Rice’s mother, Samaria Rice, condemned Shaun King and called him an “imposter” for pretending to raise money for her son. If Shaun was going to lose his platform, it should have been for things of that nature.
According to Human Rights Watch, between October and November of this year, they documented “over 1,050 takedowns and other suppression of content Instagram and Facebook that had been posted by Palestinians and their supporters including about human rights abuses.” After soliciting cases and receiving 1050, they found that all but one involved peaceful content that supported Palestine, “that was censored or otherwise unduly suppressed, while one case involved removal of content in support of Israel.” I guess they had to throw that last one in to throw off the scent. I mean, Markie Z is a diabolical genius, so it tracks. This is not the first time Facebook/Meta has received criticism for their biased censorship. I personally have been put in Facebook prison for posting screenshots of what racists have sent to me, but Facebook miraculously found their content to be suitable—yes, the same content that got my account censored was not seen to go against community standards when originally posted.
Back in 2017, Best-selling NYT author, Ijeoma Oluo tweeted a joke about hoping to make it out of Cracker Barrel alive, she subsequently received death threats and a slew of racist messages, the messages were not taken down, but her posts about them were. Sidenote: I love how racists deny the existence of racism by being racist, a move standard for their community. There is a good argument that Shaun King is not a good person and should be banned for that alone. When the ‘forefathers,’ wrote the constitution, I am sure that social media was not on their minds, although white supremacy coincidentally probably was. Censorship, to some extent, is very important and necessary (i.e., Andrew Tate), but it can also be a slippery slope, based on the whims and fancies of the person with the ability to put the black bar over someone’s mouth, especially when it is issued with a white hand.
Shaun King being off the internet is a Christmas miracle 🎄✨❤️
— Ernest Owens (@MrErnestOwens) December 25, 2023
At the end of the day, King had 6 million followers, and his posting about the genocide, no matter what his intentions were, gave the matter an incredible amount of visibility. Does he deserve the opportunity to grift? Absolutely not, but posting vital information is just that. If he were deplatformed for accepting donations for causes that he never intended to fund, that would have been the best-case scenario, but that is not the reason and his banning could spell potential harm for others whose intentions may be purer, even if their platforms are smaller. Do I believe anything King says? Eh… not so much, but that does not mean I believe he should be punished for his pro-Palestine posts. He posted that he was “safe,” while informing people of his page being banned, via a friend’s social media, which is wild, because when were you ever in danger, Shaun?
Ridiculous. Palestinian people are their own best advocates for Gaza. Not Shaun King. Grifters gonna grift.
— Ambereen Dadabhoy 🪬 (@DrDadabhoy) December 25, 2023
That said. The systemic silencing of Palestine advocacy accounts on social media is concerning. The repression machine is at work because they are losing the media war. pic.twitter.com/S9gZXEhnbd
But at the end of the day, no matter how much you do not like him, there are white supremacists still roaming the internet streets, making the world undeniably worse. King may not go down as being on the right side of history, but at the end of the day, his perceived political stances are, and that is what has been getting him and others banned. People can celebrate his removal but what does that say for others who are removed for the same reasons, who genuinely are there to fight the good fight?
The ends don’t justify the means if it means they can end us all.
