Fakebook to stop tagging posts it doesn't like as "disputed," will use other countermeasures instead

Fakebook's owners, execs and staff are 100 percent leftist and Dem-supporting.  After the company's employees and execs noticed that conservative users were using their pages to post news that cut against Democrat interests, shortly after Trump's inauguration they came up with a brilliant, totalitarian plan:  Fakebook would tag any content that cut against The Narrative as "disputed."

Take that, conservative haters and Trump supporters!

See, once conservatives started popularizing the term "fake news" to apply to Lying Media lies, the Lying Media and their allies at Fakebook were desperate to take that term out of use.  So they adopted the term, but applied it to news being circulated by conservatives that libs didn't like.

Well... yesterday the company announced it was dumping the policy of tagging posts it didn't like as"disputed."  The company quickly added that the only reason they'd implemented the tagging in the first place was to reduce the spread of what it claimed was "fake news."  Seriously, they said that.

The reason they gave for dumping the tagging policy was that it appeared that tagging a post was actually causing more people to read it--i.e. the opposite effect from what Fakebook intended. 

Of course Fakebook's press release didn't say that.  Instead the press release said

The flag may have actually reinforced users’ "deeply held beliefs" rather than achieving the goal of creating an environment of critical thinking.  Link.

Of course, comrade.  Can't have conservatives using actual events to "reinforce deeply-held beliefs."

So now, instead of tagging an article damaging to Dems as "disputed," the company will simply "populate" such stories with lots of links to counter-articles, under the heading "related articles."  Fakebook says this "is a more effective way to help people get to the facts."

Oh yes.  Certainly.  You bet, comrade.

The "related articles" strategy will join Fakebook’s other tools for suppressing posts that hurt Dems, such as having computers flag "questionable" posts and passing those to human fact-checkers for suppression.

If Fakebook's staff decides a post "should be" suppressed, Facebook can then "deprioritize the story in the news feeds."

Wait, what does that mean?  Ah, they mean that if a post or story they don't like has made the "trending now" list, they'll remove it--which  Fakebook has been caught quietly doing often in the past.  And not surprisingly, getting pulled off the trending list greatly reduces the number of views: Facebook claims removing a post from "trending now" cuts the number of people seeing it by over 80 percent.

The company quickly added that because they're, like, totally fair and non-partisan, they generously won't completely remove stories they don't like from the poster's news feed. 

Wow, that's so generous of 'em.