Facebook, Twitter running fact-check interference for AOC after wealthy party, dress debacle

3 mins read

Facebook and Twitter are once again under fire for overly excessive censorship and politically biased fact checking. This time, it comes after U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accepted a free invitation to a $35,000 per ticket private party held in New York City.

Cortez used her access to the A-list “Met Gala” on Monday to make a political statement through her office as an elected Congresswoman, the New York socialist Democrat said before attending the gala held for the rich and famous.

Afterward, she was ridiculed by the right and now, she’s facing two separate Congressional ethics violation charges.

Now, Twitter is squelching its users who have expressed disgust in the Congresswoman’s attendance at the event, mocking her for wanting to rub elbows with Hollywood elite, just to sport her “Tax the Rich” dress.

Cortez attended the event, ate the food and drank the spirits at the invite-only event.

“Tax the Rich,” Barstool President Dave Portnoy tweeted. “But first, I’m gonna go have the time of my life partying with them all at the most extravagant over-the-top party of the year that is essentially a celebration of richness.”

Posts criticizing AOC were flagged as “missing context” by PolitiFact, which itself is under fire for bias fact-checking that favors Democrats and progressives.

“Well, there’s a number of reasons why I arrived at that conclusion. One of the facts I pointed out in the piece was that the University of Minnesota School of Public Affairs had actually done a survey of PolitiFact, and they evaluated all 500 statements that PolitiFact had rated from January of 2010 to January of 2011,” Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway said in an NPR interview. “And they found that of the 98 statements that PolitiFact had rated false, 74 of them were by Republicans. Now, I can think of a number of reasons why you might cite one party over the other more, in terms of, you know, who was telling the truth and who wasn’t. But doing that at a rate of three to one strikes me as awfully suspicious, particularly when, if you delve into the specifics of the statements that they cited, there’s all kinds of problematic things contained there, whereas they are, you know, like you’re mentioned, they’re often fact-checking opinions and providing counter-arguments to, you know, stated opinions.”

As for Portnoy after he was fact-checked and censored, he simply responded, “What?”