Big Tech Got Andrew Tate, But Banning Social Media Commentator Is Not The Right Answer

Big Tech got Andrew Tate. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter (again) have all banned the social media commentator over the past week. Each platform, in its own words, has called Tate a hateful misogynist.

Tate had amassed over 11.6 billion views on TikTok. "Misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated on TikTok," a company spokesperson told NPR of the decision.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, called Tate a “dangerous individual."

Tate became one of the most searched individuals of the summer. He's a kickboxer and "Big Brother" contestant turned online sensation. He gained fame by opining on the roles of women in the workplace and at home.

Andrew Tate: Opinionist, Grifter, Or Both?

Tate's commentary has ranged from honest opinions that run afoul of the politically correct to a form of sensationalism.

He supports traditional household roles such as the male working and the woman minding the house. That's his opinion, a view various households share across the country.

He said on a podcast with Barstool founder Dave Portnoy that he inherently prefers males to fly airplanes and women to run nurseries.

https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1560854894776438785

Tate's more amplified videos include one in which he said men ought to have authority over female dates because women rely on men to protect them.

“You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you," Tate said as he argued that men deserve uncontested power in a relationship.

Tate insisted that OnlyFans stars owe their boyfriends half of their profits because " belong to him."

Traditional household roles have value. An anonymous poll would find most Americans in agreement that they'd rather leave their child with a female babysitter and their car with a male mechanic.

However, comments comparing women to dogs and that OnlyFans models owe their boyfriends money easily align more with creeps and fringe Reddit users.

Nonetheless, these are his opinions. Regardless of how bold or extreme, they are just that: opinions. They are not threats or even "misinformation."

Viral social media star Jake Paul astutely laid out that disagreeing with Tate's opinions should not resort to censorship:

https://twitter.com/jakepaul/status/1560998764743376896

Removing Tate From Social Platforms Is Not The Answer

I've long maintained that online platforms should stay out of the thought-policing business. The lone exception is those encouraging criminal behavior, such as calling for violence. Of course, those who threatened Justice Clarence Thomas following a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade remain active online.

The very companies that banned Tate for life allowed a CIA director and media personalities two weeks ago to endorse the execution of Donald Trump. While calling for the government to murder a former president might not be "sexist," one could consider it "hateful" and "dangerous," the buzzwords social media used to justify removing Tate.

TikTok answers to the Chinese Communist Party. A Beijing-based engineer has oversight on all content. In other words, a communication service that works on behalf of modern-day Nazis committing genocide against an ethnic group decided that Tate's videos are inhumane.

But inconsistencies and room for debate do not apply. Instead of trying to expose Tate for his rather shallow hypotheses, the social media hall monitors called for his removal. Facebook agreed, pulled the trigger, and the other services followed in lockstep.

Andrew Tate is now exiled from public platforms.