Which social media platforms have suspended or banned Candace Owens since 2020 and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Social media companies have taken multiple enforcement actions against Candace Owens since 2020, most prominently temporary suspensions or strikes on Twitter in 2020 and repeated enforcement by YouTube in 2023–24; the stated reasons in public reporting center on policy violations for promoting rule-breaking and for hate speech, particularly anti‑LGBTQ+ content [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows a pattern of platform enforcement tied to explicit policy breaches while Owens and allies frame those actions as ideologically motivated censorship [4] [3].
1. Twitter: suspension tied to urging people to violate a state order
In May 2020 Twitter flagged and suspended Candace Owens’ account after she posted a tweet criticizing Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer’s stay‑at‑home order and encouraging people to violate it; news reporting states Twitter flagged the tweet as violating the site’s policies and that Owens appealed the action [1]. The public explanation in contemporary coverage frames the enforcement as a response to content that encouraged non‑compliance with public‑health directives, not as a broad political ban [1].
2. YouTube: strikes and suspensions for hate-speech policy violations (2023–24)
YouTube issued strikes to the Candace Owens Podcast channel in September 2023 for content that YouTube said violated its hate‑speech rules by promoting hatred against protected groups, specifically the LGBTQ+ community, and temporarily barred Owens from posting or appearing on Daily Wire channels per reporting from Media Matters and YouTube statements relayed by outlets [2] [3]. Subsequent coverage in 2024 described a demonetization and strikes tied to an interview and reported simultaneous strikes arriving after mass‑reporting campaigns, a claim made by Owens’ representative while YouTube cited policy enforcement and strike procedures [4].
3. Facebook: earlier temporary suspension but no documented platform ban since 2020 in the provided reporting
Coverage shows Facebook temporarily suspended Owens in 2019 over a flagged post that the company later said was mistakenly acted on and restored [5] [6]. The current set of sources does not document a Facebook suspension of Owens after 2020; absent further reporting, it is not possible to say Facebook later suspended or banned her based on these sources alone [5] [6].
4. Platforms versus governments: travel bans and consequential refusals of entry
While not a social‑platform suspension, governments have acted: Australia banned Owens from entering the country in 2024 and New Zealand refused a visa because of that other ban, with officials saying she “has the capacity to incite discord” and citing controversial remarks about the Holocaust and Muslims [7]. These are sovereign immigration decisions reported alongside platform enforcement but are legally and operationally distinct from social‑media suspensions [7].
5. Why platforms acted — stated policies, contested grounds, and possible incentives
The proximate reasons platforms gave in reporting were violations of site rules — Twitter for encouraging rule‑breaking during COVID restrictions [1] and YouTube for hate‑speech violations targeting LGBTQ+ people [2] [3]. Owens and her representatives have characterized enforcement as targeted censorship or the result of mass reporting campaigns [4] [3], an alternative framing that platforms dispute when they cite written policy breaches; media watchdogs and business analysis suggest a commercial incentive for provocative content to generate engagement, which complicates the public debate over enforcement motivations [8].
6. Caveats, contradictions and open questions
Reporting across outlets documents specific enforcement episodes but does not provide a comprehensive log of every platform’s actions since 2020; for example, these sources do not include a contemporaneous, authoritative list of every temporary suspension, demonetization, or reinstatement across all networks, nor do they include platform internal deliberations beyond public statements [5] [1] [2]. Where Owens disputes platform rationale, that claim is part of the public record but not independently corroborated here [4].