MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Libertarian Banned from Facebook for Tide Pod Joke That Mocked Liberals

Chew on that.

Tide podScreenshot via The Liberty ReviewFacebook doesn't seem to think Tide Pods are a joking matter.

Tom Champlin, who owns the libertarian news aggregator The Liberty Review and runs its associated Facebook page, was slapped with a 30-day Facebook ban for posting a Tide Pod meme. His post showed a screenshot of a teen who was stupid enough to bite into a Tide Pod; the caption said, "This is why I can't pay for your health insurance."

Facebook sent Champlin a message telling him that his post had violated the site's community standards and he would be temporarily locked out of his profile as a punishment.

"I can't use it for anything," Champlin says. "I can't friend, message, post, or operate pages."

Facebook usually takes this step after another user reports content that violates the company's community standards. But it's not clear what Facebook policy was undermined by the meme, which is clearly using the Tide Pod Moment to make a political joke. Facebook prohibits "content that promotes or encourages suicide or any other type of self-injury, including self-mutilation and eating disorders," but the post wasn't actually advocating self-harm of any sort.

As a private business, Facebook is within its rights to restrict content for any reason it wants. But the company claims to "allow humor, satire, [and] social commentary," and Champlin's post clearly fits the bill.

Maybe Facebook is just being extra-super-duper cautious about Tide-Pod-related content, given all the recent attention being paid to the alleged craze. As with so many other internet memes, there's no logical origin story here. A bunch of social-media-using teens apparently decided that challenging each other to "drink bleach" was so 2017; in 2018, we should eat Tide Pods instead. (Some people think a two-year-old Onion article about a toddler who desperately wants to swallow a Tide Pod may have inspired the meme.)

It's sadly true that thousands of kids ages six and younger eat highly poisonous Tide Pods each year, though only a handful of them die as a result. But those were accidents involving little kids who didn't know better. Aside from a handful of yo-yos on YouTube, it simply isn't the case that a host of teenagers are deliberately eating Tide Pods. It's a joke, akin to the faux public mourning of Harambe the gorilla.

No one should be freaked out about Tide Pod jokes. That includes you, Facebook.

Clarification: Champlin's primary Facebook profile page was suspended; he is currently using alternate accounts to circumvent the ban.

Photo Credit: JRos / Dreamstime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Aside from a handful of yo-yos on YouTube, it simply isn't the case that a host of teenagers are deliberately eating Tide pods.

    I read somewhere recently (maybe CNN) that YouTube is going to be pulling all the videos. I wouldn't be surprised if FaceBook is trying to lump in with the same "safety" concern.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So the thought is, the joke says chomping down on a Tide is a dangerous, foolish act, therefore it is promoting suicide. That truly is a stunning logical conclusion, if so.

  • esteve7||

    To a leftist anything conservative or libertarian can be twisted into their requirements for censorship somehow.

    And don't give me this crap about facebook being a private company, they bill themselves as neutral, then apply everything 1 way, just like journos.

  • Finrod||

    Yep. Facebook and Twitter are going to find themselves regulated by the government eventually and it'll be their own damn fault for being fucking idiots.

  • IceTrey||

    If thousands have eaten pods and only 1 has died how can they be described as highly poisonous? I'd call that barely poisonous.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Off the top of my head, how "poisonous" something is, is probably based on the "no treatment" outcomes. So the fact that most of those kids that ingested laundry soap got sent to the ER where they were stomach pumped and had charcoal shoved down the throats doesn't mean it's not poisonous, just that we know how to handle such things.

    That said, it's probably just media rhetoric rather then an official scale. Whatever the real "scale" is probably differentiates between "will probably make you very sick, but wont' kill you" and "it's gonna kill you dead bitch".

  • Hillary Clinton||

    The ld/50 is known.

  • EscherEnigma||

    When was the last time you saw an article that wasn't in a scientific journal that referred to things like LD/50?

  • Careless||

    I read a lot of Wikipedia.

  • Griffin3||

    According to the MSDS and the pod mass of 25g, and you know, math:
    The anionic surfactants which make up ~30% of the tide pod are the dangerous ingredient, so for a 50kg (110#) teenage moron, the LD50 would be: 7 tide pods. Maybe 5 pods if you got an especially strong batch (range 15-40% surfactant, not impressed with their ISO9000 processes, there).

    So you'd have to not only be stupid, but multiple-times stupid, in order to get 50% dead.

  • VinniUSMC||

    How dead is 50% dead? Are we talking Wesley from Princess Bride "he's only mostly dead" and needs to swallow a giant chocolate covered rock?

  • ThomasD||

    Shorthand lingo.

    Of a group of teenage morons (of approximately 50 kg each) who each ate 5-7 tide pods about 50% would not survive the adventure.

    That's why it's an LD50

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    No one in Amerikkka has adequate healthcare, our outcomes are shit, and Cuba beats us at everything. So it sounds like swallowing one must have no effect.

  • DarrenM||

    And people are dying in the streets making it really annoying having to step over the corpses. Why can't America be like that Utopian paradise, Venezuela?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    That which does not kill us makes us stronger. Having crap health care makes us the most mighty of the planet earth's inhabitants.

  • Longtobefree||

    I believe the actual quote is "That which does not kill me merely postpones the inevitable".
    Or was that the Despair demotivator?

  • epsilon given||

    Seriously! This is *exactly* why Americans are fleeing to Cuba by the hundreds of thousands per year, braving exposure to the elements, on pretty much anything that kindof floats, in shark-infested waters!

  • ATXChappy||

    Dang it. I submitted the same thing. But, you got yours in first.

  • ||

    I'd call that barely poisonous.

    Assuming the women didn't affirmatively consent to being poisoned, I don't see why highly venomous isn't appropriate.

  • ||

    Aaand... now I kinda want a 'No et Tid Pod' flag.

  • mpercy||

    As a kid I learned that "If you bite something and get sick or die, it was poisonous. If something bites you and you get sick or die, it was venomous."

  • Citizen X - #6||

    People under the age of 60 still use Facebook?

  • Hillary Clinton||

    Crossfitters do.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    MySpace will make a comeback any day now, then you'll have all your friends back.

  • Mongo||

    I'm serious saying this but MySpace was vastly superior to FB.

  • ||

    GET OFF MY LAWN!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What's Facebook?

  • Rhywun||

    "I can't use it for anything," Champlin says. "I can't friend, message, post, or operate pages."

    Wait... he's complaining about this?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tom Chaplin should be given an award for promoting Darwinism.

  • ATXChappy||

    "It's sadly true that thousands of kids ages six and younger eat highly poisonous Tide pods each year, though only a handful of them die as a result."

    Maybe I'm a bit slow. But, how can you categorize something as 'highly poisonous' when 'only a handful of them die as a result" of eating them. Let's not blow the toxicity of Tide Pods out of proportion. That's how we end up with these ridiculous meme's to begin with.

  • SQRLSY One||

    ATXChappy, I do NOT think you understand the profound DANGERS we all face here!

    The Tide Pod People are taking OEVR, and we do NOT know WHO they are! Your neighbor might be a Tide Pod Person!!! Your kid's Sunday School teacher might be a Tide Pod Person!!! Be YE HEREBY WARNED!!!

  • Agammamon||

  • JeremyR||

    Because they get very expensive medical care?

    You know, like the whole point of the dudes picture that this article is about?

  • Darth Soros||

    Not that I'm supporting Facebook in this, but . . . is being blocked from Facebook that crippling? I belonged to it at one point and found it mainly one big timesuck. I pretty much stopped using it, until a friend of mine, vacationing in Europe, went Missing in Action. I don't have Liam Neeson's "set of particular skills," but I did go on Facebook to contact my friend's Facebook friends and see if they'd had any word from or about her. (Turned out she had gotten sick and was in a hospital in Germany.) My sudden upsurge in Facebook use after about a year of letting it lie fallow triggered off an alarm at Facebook HQ and, thinking my account might have been hacked by terrorists, they shut my account down altogether. I tried to get them to re-activate it but the process started to get so complicated and laborious I eventually decided, "Screw it."

    My life has been fine without Facebook.

  • Arcxjo||

    Considering how many other sites use Facebook login, it can be quite devastating. Hell, there are companies where you can't apply for a job if you don't have a Faceban login.

  • ThomasD||

    While I do not have a problem with companies who choose to do business that way, I do find it surprising that that sort of behavior has not attracted scrutiny under existing workplace discrimination law.

  • Longtobefree||

    You do not want to work at any of those companies. They have other bad policies as well.

  • Seamus||

    The Hit and Run combox is an even bigger timesuck.

  • Darth Soros||

    Not that I'm supporting Facebook in this, but . . . is being blocked from Facebook that crippling? I belonged to it at one point and found it mainly one big timesuck. I pretty much stopped using it, until a friend of mine, vacationing in Europe, went Missing in Action. I don't have Liam Neeson's "set of particular skills," but I did go on Facebook to contact my friend's Facebook friends and see if they'd had any word from or about her. (Turned out she had gotten sick and was in a hospital in Germany.) My sudden upsurge in Facebook use after about a year of letting it lie fallow triggered off an alarm at Facebook HQ and, thinking my account might have been hacked by terrorists, they shut my account down altogether. I tried to get them to re-activate it but the process started to get so complicated and laborious I eventually decided, "Screw it."

    My life has been fine without Facebook.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You got some really dumb shit that you're itching to post, huh?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Don't get mad just because i was right.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What's my dumb shit, chopped liver?

  • SQRLSY One||

    ANGRILY: I am TIRED of yer dumb shit!!!

    Slyly: Now can I have some of yer piss?!?!?

  • ||

    Curious, does Facebook ban left-wingers who do similar things? Serious question.

    "As a private business, Facebook is within its rights to restrict content for any reason it wants."

    They're still fucken assholes though.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah man... +1... With emphasis one the third line...

  • Fred Z||

    Private business? Sort of like a Christian bakery?

    My point is that the "private business can do what its contract allows" claim is incorrect. Contract must bow to law, as the hapless baker discovered. A contract purporting to allow one party to do illegal things is an illegal contract and the offending parts are void.

    Were conservatives not cheap cowards we'd be suing Facebook every time they pulled a stunt like this. Let the bastards pay gigantic legal fees on 400 or 500 lawsuits and we'll see if process punishment doesn't work on them too.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Facebook is a private company, and can do whatever it wants.

    If you don't support universal healthcare for all, then you're killing babies, and that's bad, so you get banned.

    Why don't you get that?

  • Brandybuck||

    Facebook can indeed ban anyone they want, but that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in a liberal groupthink mentality that needs to be called out for the bullshit it is.

    Likewise, Reason can post whatever they want, including mocking people who aren't in direct violation of the sacred N.A.P.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Facbook has its own Net Neutrality thing going.

  • Longtobefree||

    If you support abortion, you are killing babies. And that's the truth.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "I can't use it for anything," Champlin says. "I can't friend, message, post, or operate pages."

    I dunno, seems kind of liberating to me.

  • Arcxjo||

    ... I can't get the code on my phone that allows me to authenticate logging in to my bank to pay my mortgage.

    Because nothing is so liberating as homelessness.

  • Agammamon||

    Because not being able to shitpost on Facebook or not stay up to date on a half dozen people posting stupid shit is the same as not being able to pay a bill online - while still perfectly capable of mailing a money order in or, you know, going to the fucking bank to get the problem sorted?

  • Mongo||

    I've eaten pad thai and thought it was pretty good.

  • Brandybuck||

    I've eaten what I thought was a Brillo Pad, but it turned out she was just French...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's like being confronted by the Unabomber when she pulls her pants down.

  • Brian||

    And his anti-Medicare-for-All meme got more publicity then it ever would have on his facebook page.

    Well played, Tom Champlin.

  • Brandybuck||

    If only Facebook were not blocked here at work, I would be immediately reposting that image.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Make friends with your network administrator.

  • Brian||

    Give us your username/password; we'll post it for you.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Facebook prohibits "content that promotes or encourages suicide or any other type of self-injury, including self-mutilation and eating disorders," but the post wasn't actually advocating self-harm of any sort.

    It could have been interpreted as such, either out of maliciousness or stupidity.

    One of my original accounts on the local news rag got banned because I was posting on an article about someone who got jacked up by the police because he was sitting in his car in front of his house at 3am.

    The copsuckers came in and indicated that anyone sitting in their car in front of their house at 3am was up to no good so cops actions reasonable... anyhoo, this led to that, and I said "You wouldn't think that if you got tazed and beaten by a cop..."

    He reported me as "making threatening comments" and *poof* banned. So even the newpaper staff couldn't tell the difference between a threat and a description of a hypothetical.

    Bottom line, a bunch of tweens hired to be Mark Zuckerberg censorship stormtroopers aren't going to be very good at making critical decisions based on nuance.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "You wouldn't think that if you got tazed and beaten by a cop..."

    If you're the boss in charge of the cops, I could think that to be a threat... Otherwise, if you give NO indication that the cops report to you, if I call that a threat, you might be justified to say that I am tripping on LSD...

    (Actually I am a masochist, can you send them over to beasty-beat me up? I am wearing lace-decorated handcuffs as we chat here...)

  • Arcxjo||

    "The copsuckers came in and indicated that anyone sitting in their car in front of their house at 3am was up to no good"

    A woman afraid to sleep in the same bed as her abusive husband who just staggered home drunk.

    Of course, the copsuckers don't want to sticking up for the cop's wife, so scratch that one.

  • DarrenM||

    .. . either out of maliciousness or stupidity

    There's no reason it can't be both.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    Related comment--I had thought this was media hype, but I happen to be taking a university course with a bunch of traditional undergraduates, and yes, several of them had actually done this. They thought it was no big thing. I don't know exactly how dangerous it actually is (probably better than a dishwasher tablet--that stuff is caustic) but it's somewhat worse than goldfish. Or am I showing my age.

  • BYODB||

    I suspect that those undergraduates...

    ...did not swallow.

  • Longtobefree||

    At least not without enthusiastic, ongoing, consent.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's sadly true that thousands of kids ages six and younger eat highly poisonous Tide pods each year, though only a handful of them die as a result.

    Talking about the parents here is:

    [ ] racist
    [ ] victim blaming
    [ ] shilling for KKKorporashuns
    [ ] victims of the Era of Trump

  • Juice||

    Well, that meme is problematic.

    I had a rare encounter with a couple of straight up 23 year old millennials and they were touting the wonders of socialism to me. It seemed every time I countered one of their claims or made one of my own, "well, that's problematic." Just about everything else that came out of their mouths was some sort of millennial stereotype. "What about past oppression?" "What about privilege?" etc. Also, whatever point they made they'd say it with a smirk and a smug tone as if what they just said was the coup de gras and they just got me good forever. I have only run into people like this online. I never thought they were real people, but there they were, actually speaking to me face to face. It was interesting.

  • BYODB||

    23 is the new 16. They think they know everything, and it's because they haven't had a job yet.

  • Tony||

    But what about past oppression?

    They're smug and annoying but they think more deeply about things than a libertarian, whose goal in life seems to be finding easy answers for everything, especially if they benefit them personally.

  • Agammamon||

    What about past oppression? Then you go get the people who were oppressed in the past and the people who did the oppressing in the past and you sort it out.

    You don't point at me and say 'you have vaguely the same color skin as one of those groups therefore you must pay out or be paid out to'.

  • Tony||

    In my opinion it only matters to the extent that it affects current ability to achieve. You're selling a market in which anyone can become a success if he just tries hard enough. If past oppression leads to present society-wide imbalances, it's not something to simply ignore. Unless you're willing to admit that market outcomes are informed largely by vast injustices and are thus nothing to celebrate as some kind of optimum.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Clearly, children excel at figuring out how the progressive adult world is supposed to work.

    I credit our universal education system.

  • Juice||

    If past oppression leads to present society-wide imbalances, it's not something to simply ignore.

    No one said you had to just ignore it outright, but skin color or ethnic heritage doesn't place some kind of special obligation on anyone.

  • Tony||

    It might place an obligation on society.

  • epsilon given||

    Yes, exactly! Which is why I oppose Socialism, and anything that looks vaguely like it, so much!

    Because Socialism has done more to oppress people than anything else mankind has yet devised.

  • Juice||

    Wow, Agammamon, that was pretty much my reply.

  • Finrod||

    Sounds like two people begging to be punched in the face repeatedly.

  • Juice||

    It's a joke, akin to the faux public mourning of Harambe the gorilla.

    FAUX? How dare you!

  • IceTrey||

    Dicks out for Harambe!

  • Tony||

    "As a private business, Facebook is within its rights to restrict content for any reason it wants. But . . ."

    Sorry, you chose this life. No buts.

    Otherwise you won't be able to shut down entire volumes of discussion about worker rights and such with just this excuse.

  • Juice||

    When has Reason ever shut down any discussion?

  • Longtobefree||

    When your posts or responses seem to vanish into thin air, yet other posts or responses, without 'certain words' go straight through?

  • epsilon given||

    No, the "but" here is pretty substantial.

    If Facebook wants to be content neutral, then it CANNOT engage in political censorship. Period.

    That doesn't necessarily mean we want the Government to crack down on Facebook, mind you. It DOES mean, however, that we're going to call out Facebook when it isn't neutral.

  • Ornithorhynchus||

    Somehow, I had never heard anything about this Tide Pod fad until Friday. There was a musician playing in a bar who made several jokes about it. I had no idea what he was talking about.

  • croaker||

    #PutZuckerbergInJail

  • JeremyR||

    I eagerly await the article from Rico Soave calling this guy a "snowflake" for complaining he was being censored...

    Oh wait...

  • JeremyR||

    Also, what's the deal with Tide pods to begin with? Is it that hard to pour some detergent into a cup?

  • VinniUSMC||

    I would suggest mixing it with Sprite in that case. Probably easier to get down.

  • ||

    Don't trigger the snowflakes!

  • Cloudbuster||

    Any teen dumb enough to eat a Tide pod is doing the gene pool a favor if he manages to die from it. Chow down, kids!

  • All Seeing Eye||

    Why are so many libertarians on the speech quashing, libtard agenda pushing, CIA fronts known as Facebook (and Twitter) anyway? I'd encourage you to look at the free speech based Gab instead. No censorship of any kind except by the individual account holder who can choose what to view or not view.

  • Irwin Chusid||

    Facebook supports Net "Neutrality," so this must be some kind of aberration. "Neutrality" is a great word. It's all about fairness. Like adding the word "Affordable" to a piece of legislation.

  • ||

    Sorry in advance to Facebook users but you would have to be an idiot to be on Facebook/Twitter/Gmail these days. There are others but why in the world would someone put their entire trust in such an evil company who does not care how they affect you with a ban?

    Boycott facebook now. If they haven't violated your trust yet, they will!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Robbie still confuses Comstock law conservatives with libertarians. The difference was published in the YAF newsletter in 1980. Libertarians aren't out to coerce anyone, not even females. Comstock blue law christianofascists still believe condoms kill babies, as in 1873, but reserve their carpet-biting fits over the thought of females exercising individual rights by other means. Ron Paul? Randal Paul? conservative republicans. John Hospers? Toni Nathan? Libertarian. Roe v. Wade decision? Copied from 1972 LP platform.
    Face it, the Prohibition party pushing the Comstock laws is still around, and mystics don't have minds to change.

  • John Galtt||

    Silly libbies, pods are for laundry.

  • Perry de Havilland||

    And the moral of the story is not that facebook is wicked, it is why the f*uk are you still using facebook? There is a whole internet out there that is not within Zuckerberg's patrolled & carefully marketed playpen. Stop being someone else's product.

  • Eman||

    Kids eating laundry detergent while rome burns. Diverting!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online