In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has admitted that the “Biden” White House pressured Facebook to censor Americans, and that Facebook knuckled under to that pressure and engaged in large-scale, widespread censorship.
In 2021, “senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House,” wrote Zuckerberg, “repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.”
Although the “pressure” from the “Biden administration,” was intense, Zuckerberg maintains that it was ultimately Facebook’s decision to “take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19 related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure.”
Zuckerberg states that he regretted “that we were not more outspoken about it.” Apparently, he does not regret his decision to censor; he only regrets that he didn’t complain more loudly about the government pressure. Zuckerberg claims that he felt “strongly” at the time that Facebook “should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction,” but he did it anyway.
Meta is “ready to push back if something like this happens again,” Zuckerberg noted. So Zuckerberg is now saying that he will not carry water for the next administration, as he did for the “Biden Administration.” Hmmm. What does he know about who will win in November?
He also explained that the FBI “warned” Facebook about a “potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election,” adding that in “retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the [Hunter Biden laptop] story.”
The backstory is that the FBI pressured Facebook to bury, in the run up to the 2020 presidential election, the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop, claiming it was “Russian disinformation.” But in Biden’s trial for firearm’s offenses a couple of months ago, the laptop was introduced into evidence, and an FBI agent testified that the laptop was Biden’s. We now know that the FBI had linked the laptop to Hunter Biden’s icloud account in November, 2019! So they knew with certainty, a year before the election, that the laptop was not “Russian disinformation.” They lied to Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, choosing to engage in blatant, outrageous election interference.
Zuckerberg also addressed the “Zuckerbucks” scandal, his private contribution of some $400 million to key states and counties, which tainted the 2020 election. “The idea here was to make sure local election jurisdictions across the country had the resources they needed to help people vote safely during a global pandemic,” he wrote. While the contributions were “designed to be non-partisan,” he noted that “some people believe this work benefited one party over the other.”
That is an outrageous lie. The contributions were very deliberately designed to help Democrats and Joe Biden win the election, and they did just that. The contributions were targeted at Democrat stronghold precincts and cities in a few key swing states: Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and they facilitated the ballot harvesting/anonymous ballot dropbox operation that secured the election for the Democrats. In his letter, Zuckerberg promises not to make any such contributions this cycle, but for the most part the systems remain in place, and have been refined and fortified in some states.
When asked for a comment, the White House fully admitted the censorship efforts, stating that the “administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety” during the COVID-19 pandemic. “Our position has been clear and consistent: we believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.”
Comment: Let us leave to one side the FBI corruption issue and Zuckerberg’s election interference in 2020.
Most of the social media censorship was about Covid and the Covid “vaccines.” As discussed here and here in greater detail, the drug companies can effectively control mainstream media with advertising purchases, and program sponsorship. They can largely control scholarly and peer-reviewed publications, also with money. They control congress through donations and lobbying—pharmaceutical companies spend far more on lobbying than any other industry. They have captured the regulatory agencies with the revolving door to lucrative positions in the drug companies after the regulator leaves the government. In addition to these factors, the government, the media and the drug companies were all ideologically aligned during Covid, as well as feeding at the same money trough.
What this means is that social media—Facebook, Twitter/X, Snapchat, Tumblr, etc.—were the last redoubt, the last free and open sources of information, about Covid and the “vaccines.” When the social media companies also began censoring truthful information about Covid—whether because of government intimidation (as Zuckerberg now claims) or simply because they shared the same ideology as the other societal elites—we entered a totalitarian nightmare in which no one could get basic information about these topics.
All we got from mainstream sources was the mantra, “safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.” But in reality the Covid vaccines were neither safe nor effective. They did not prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death, and millions were injured, killed and (it is increasingly becoming known) made infertile by the clot shots.
The Covid atrocity has never been resolved; it is an open, festering wound. Despite Zuckerberg’s insincere pleading, social media’s censorship of Covid-related stories continues in full force today. We are still not allowed to post counter-narrative Covid and Covid vaccine articles on Facebook.
To make matters worse, by ruling that the plaintiffs lacked “standing,” the Supreme Court killed a lawsuit that had resulted in an injunction forbidding the “Biden Administration” from communicating censorship requests to private corporations. Amy Coney Barrett’s strangely heightened “standing” requirement means that there will be no judicial remedy for the government’s denial, by intimidation of non-government actors, of our freedom of speech. So the censorship regime will continue into the foreseeable future, barring some miracle, such as the election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency.