While Twitter allows the Taliban free reign (without a single voice of protest from the feminists on its Trust and Safety Council), Facebook has done the responsible thing and cut off the Taliban. The media and foreign policy experts are unhappy about that.
Facebook’s Taliban Ban Will Prove Costly for Afghans – Foreign Policy
Never mind the nonsensical effort to hide this argument behind the Afghan people. The editorial claims that the Taliban may decide to ban Facebook for everyone if Facebook bans the Taliban.
As if the terror group might not do that anyway.
. The presumptive head of the new government, Taliban co-founder Abdul Ghani Baradar, is in the same boat as former U.S. President Donald Trump. Neither can post on Facebook—never mind that they were both principals to the so-called “peace deal” reached in Doha in 2020, which ultimately resulted in this month’s U.S. withdrawal. But this is where the similarities end. Baradar is the presumptive head of a government, while Trump is just a private citizen (albeit one who still gets a disproportionate amount of attention). Blocking access to an administration running a country or its leader, no matter how awful, is different from blocking an insurgency group or a terrible former president. It’s a valid question: Doesn’t the official leader of a country deserve to have a presence on Facebook?
Trump is a likely presidential contender. That makes the ban a matter of election interference.
The Taliban, whether or not it controls Kabul, is a Jihadist organization.
But the same media would like to see bans of conservatives also wants to give Islamists free reign.