Posted on: April 16, 2021 Posted by: Anna Lee Comments: 0


Fb brand on a smartphone display. (Dado Ruvic/Reuters)

Fb banned a New York Submit report on a BLM co-founder’s actual property purchases, however hasn’t taken motion in opposition to the same Submit article written the identical day by the identical journalist.

The banned New York Submit article particulars Patrisse Khan-Cullors’ “million-dollar actual property shopping for binge.” Fb mentioned in a press release that the article “shared a number of particulars which may establish the residence . . . in violation of her privateness rights.” However the social media platform has not blocked one other Submit profile specializing in certainly one of Khan-Cullors’ a number of residences, revealed the identical day and by the identical journalist because the banned story.

Submit reporter Isabel Vincent revealed a narrative on April 10 primarily based on a nugget from a star weblog which famous that Khan-Cullors, “a self-described Marxist,” spent $1.4 million on a mini compound in Topanga Canyon, an unique secluded neighborhood in Los Angeles.

That article, titled “Marxist BLM chief buys $1.4 million house in ritzy LA enclave,” can at the moment be freely shared on Fb.

Khan-Cullors has referred to as critiques of her life-style “wanting.”

“I see my cash as not my very own,” she defined. “I see it as my household’s cash as effectively.”

Hours after publishing the brief information merchandise specializing in one of many activists’ many properties, Vincent revealed an extended profile of Khan-Cullors, noting that property data — public info — present how the BLM chief has purchased “4 high-end properties for $3.2 million within the US alone” since 2016. The Submit detailed the purchases and in addition cited “an actual property supply” who mentioned Khan-Cullors and partner Janaya Khan had been noticed buying at an elite Bahamas growth, although it’s unclear in the event that they bought something.

“Individuals who purchase on the Albany are shopping for their fourth or fifth house,” an unidentified resort employee advised the paper. “This isn’t a second-home residence. It’s extraordinarily high-end, and individuals are coming right here for full and complete privateness.”

Nevertheless, Fb eliminated that story “for violating our privateness and private info coverage,” in accordance with an organization spokesperson.

When requested by Nationwide Assessment why the primary Submit article on Khan-Cullors’ actual property ventures doesn’t violate Fb’s insurance policies, whereas the second does, a spokesperson didn’t try to make clear.

Ship a tip to the information group at NR.





Supply hyperlink

Leave a Comment