Claiming that Big Tech is dabbling in ‘election interference’, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has voiced intense criticism against Meta. This stems from Meta’s swift response to curb a number of social media posts, which it denoted as ‘misleading content’ about Vice President Kamala Harris. Vibrantly expressing their discontentment at this move, the NRA was widely known for having grilled Harris upon her broad liberal gun control views.
Harris, as the Democratic presidential nominee, has strategically striven to minimize attention towards her previous stand on gun control. This attempt comes in the backdrop of the NRA’s stern denouncement of her ideologies. On the 18th of September, the NRA went on to shed light on a 2007 clip which showcased Harris, during her tenure as a San Francisco District Attorney, delineating her robust strategy against handguns.
Resolute in her stance, Harris stated, ‘Merely because you have obtained a gun legally and have it securely stored within the sanctity of your home doesn’t mean we’ll refrain from inspecting your home to ensure you’re acting responsibly.’ The sentiments expressed in this clip essentially expose the acerbic chasm between her and the NRA, thereby cementing the organization’s disapproval.
Harnessing the power of captions, the NRA stated, ‘Kamala Harris is dedicated to the radical confiscation of your legally acquired guns.’ The NRA further extrapolated on their interpretation of the Vice President’s position stating, ‘Kamala Harris vouches for sweeping gun confiscation and is staunch about mobilizing the government to infringe your residence and confiscate your legally obtained firearm.’ However, this narrative was strongly rebutted by Meta.
On the 24th of September, Meta flagged the post with a ‘false information’ label on both Facebook and Instagram. Met with continuous jabs from the tech firm, users were greeted with disclaimers from third-party fact-checkers. These warnings denounced the NRA’s interpretation of Harris’s stand as unfounded, giving users the option of viewing the controversial posts.
Instagram users shared the same fate, with the platform stating the content of the post was effectively false. To further buttress these claims, Meta provided a link to an article from ‘FactCheck.org’, a prominent establishment engaged in debunking misinformation that tends to plague social media platforms.
Unmasking the real narrative behind Harris’s stance, ‘FactCheck.org’ cited her viewpoint during the 2020 Presidential race. The Democratic nominee had indeed expressed her support for a mandatory buyback program solely for what’s known as ‘assault weapons’. However, as the competition heated up, her campaign made it clear that she would no longer demand that Americans surrender weapons they had purchased legally.
Attributing to the ongoing discourse, Harris herself affirmed at the presidential debate, ‘We aren’t confiscating anyone’s firearms.’ The ‘FactCheck.org’ article echoed this view, debunking NRA’s portrayal of Harris’s current gun policy. Moreover, they underscored that the NRA was guilty of twisted interpretations of her policy.
Remarkably, another contentious NRA social media post referred to Harris as simply wanting to ban firearms altogether. This too was branded as ‘missing context’ on Instagram. The video attached to this post showcased Harris’s heated exchange about universal background checks during her media interaction.
Defending the NRA’s indomitable spirit, Randy Kovuch, executive director of the NRA’s lobbying arm, NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action), qualified their actions as critically impactful given the dwindling timeline to the election. Kovuch targeted ‘FactCheck.org’ and other organizations for leveraging Meta’s policies to put a damper on the NRA’s crucial messaging systems.
He fiercely tagged these actions as an ‘information operation’, bearing an unnerving resemblance to ‘election interference’. Kovuch didn’t refrain from making bold allegations against Meta, accusing them of a systematic bias in censoring certain viewpoints, despite their past acknowledgment of such practices.
Asserting his standpoint, Kovuch fervently remarked, ‘We truly hope that Meta won’t continue to serve as a puppet in this manipulation act. The people of America rightfully deserve clarity on the potential threat looming upon their rights to possess and carry arms in this election.’
Firmly lodged in this battle of perceptions and interpretations, the NRA and Meta are caught in an intricate web. Both parties are engaging in a strategic tug-of-war, seeking to shape public opinion. As this unfolds, the wider conversation on gun control persists, riddled with complex narratives and powerful interests.
NRA Accuses Meta of Election Interference Amid Facts Obfuscation appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
