Below is my column in Fox.com on the admission of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg that Facebook yielded to pressure of the Biden Administration to censor citizens. The admission, however, appears more contrived than contrite.
Here is the column:
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.” Those words from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg came this week with an admission in a letter that his company, Facebook, did yield to pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor American citizens on a wide array of subjects.
For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg’s belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret of a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.
Zuckerberg’s sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the House Judiciary Committee.
Now forced to admit what many of us have long alleged, Zuckerberg is really, really sorry.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss Facebook’s record at length as a critical player in the anti-free speech alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces.
In prior testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and other congressional committees, I noted that Zuckerberg continued to refuse to release this information after Elon Musk exposed this system in his release of the “Twitter Files.”
Zuckerberg stayed silent as Musk was viciously attacked by anti-free speech figures in Congress and the media. He was fully aware of his own company’s similar conduct but stayed silent.
When the White House and President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, Facebook continued to withhold evidence that they too were pressured to suppress the story before the election.
When the censorship system was recently put before the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, the justices asked about evidence of coordination and pressure from the government. In Murthy, states successfully showed lower courts that there was coercion from the government in securing an injunction. The Biden administration denied such pressure and the Court rejected the standing of plaintiffs, blocked an order to stop the censorship, and sent the case back down to the lower court.
Zuckerberg still remained silent.
But Facebook was not silent when it came to censorship, or “content moderation” as the company prefers to call it. While Zuckerberg now expresses “regret” at not speaking out sooner, his company previously sought to sell Americans on censorship.
In 2021, I wrote about the Facebook commercial campaign in which the company attempted to rally young people to embrace censorship.
The commercials show people like “Joshan” who says that he “grew up with the internet.” Joshan mocks how much computers have changed and then objects how privacy and censorship has not evolved as much as our technology. As Joshan calls for “the blending of the real world and the internet world,” content moderation is presented as part of this not-so-brave new world.
Joshan and his equally eager colleagues Chava and Adam were presented by Facebook as the shiny happy faces of young people longing to be content modified. They were all born in 1996 — the sweet spot for censors who saw young people as allies to reduce free speech.
For years, young people have been taught that free speech is harmful and triggering. We are raising a generation of speech-phobics and Zuckerberg and Facebook wanted to tap into that generation to get people to stop fearing the censor and love “content modification.” It was time, as Joshan and his friends told us, to “change” with our computers.
Now, Zuckerberg and Meta want people to know that they were “pressured” to censor and really regret their role in silencing opposing voices.
It is the feigned regret that comes with forced exposure.
The Facebook files now put the lie to past claims of the Biden administration and many Democrats in Congress. For years, members attacked some of us who testified that we had no evidence of coordination or pressure from the government. At the same time, they opposed any effort to investigate and release such evidence.
The evidence is now undeniable.
The Biden administration has long demanded the removal of opposing views on a wide array of subjects. Democrats in Congress pushed Zuckerberg to expand the scope of censorship to include areas like climate change denial.
Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is an example of the chilling scope of this effort. Her agency was created to work on our critical infrastructure, but Easterly declared that the mandate would now include policing “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes combating “malinformation,” or information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
Consider that for a second: true facts are censorable if the government views them as misleading.
As I write in my book, President Joe Biden is arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. His administration helped create a censorship system that was described by one federal judge as “Orwellian.” Vice President Kamala Harris has been entirely supportive of that effort.
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was one of the principal campaign issues. It should be so again. Harris should have to take ownership of the censorship system maintained by the administration.
In my book, I propose a federal law that would bar the government from using any federal funds to support efforts to censor, blacklist, or suppress individuals or groups. It would take the government out of the censorship business. Harris should be asked if she would oppose such a law and dismantle the current censorship apparatus in the federal government.
Democracy is not on the ballot in 2024, as many have claimed, but free speech is.
Zuckerberg is not sorry. He is just whining that he got caught and is doing spin control.
What he is really saying is “I am a coward” and a “Fraud”. He knew it was wrong from the first and did it anyway. He is intelligent enough to know that this was illegal and immoral.
If he was truly sorry he would have matched Musk’s release of the twitter files and done the same for Meta but he did not. If he was truly sorry He would immediately offer 400-500 million $ to all the Republican campaigns and PAC’s and to the Red Counties to get out the vote like he did in Milwaukee, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit in 2020 for the Democrats. If he was truly sorry he would resign from Meta and all its affiliates and move to a small island in the Aleutian’s and live like a monk. If he was truly sorry he would fall on his sword (Well that will never happen because I doubt he has a sword and the cleanup would be costly).
In lieu of falling on his sword I suggest he stand in front of Meta Headquarters and let one and all drive by each day and throw office staplers at him. At least for 2 hours each day for a year, whatever the weather.
Penance is good for the soul. Even better if it’s public.
I would not want Zuckerberg in my foxhole.
@S.Meyer@turkey.com – fear not this kid and the majority of the mindless young people today will never enter a foxhole. In the event this nation needs men and woman to protect the homeland it will be the people they hate the most who will step up to the plate to offer all.
Zuckerberg’s letter is not really an admission of fault. He’s not apologizing for following their own policies. He’s acknowledging what has always been there. Government pressuring media to act on something. Government can inform social media certain claims are wrong or dangerous. It’s completely constitutional. That is not coercion. It’s no different than government telling the public certain chemicals are bad for your health or when your water supply is contaminated and not drink the water. If there were people posting on social media that the water is indeed safe because they say so contrary to government testing the government has a right to say “no, that is wrong, that information is harmful to the public”. Social media still has the choice on whether to remove the information or not. Not the government. If the social media company chooses to go with the government’s claim then that is NOT censorship. It’s a private company’s choice.
Call it like it is: compelled speech is fascism
Texas is suing social media to force them to carry the messages of politicians they kicked out. Are you saying Texas is being fascist?
What are you saying? Are they?
Thats what I thought. LOW IQ whataboutism, shoved back in your pie hole.
Thats what I thought. Just more low IQ whataboutism.
You all realize that term limits would solve the free speech issue in the government along with other things?
* no, there are millions of bureaucrats actually running the place. Every new Representative or Senator is utterly dependent upon bureaucrats for processes and procedures. Ask Betsy de Voss how that worked out.
Thats a bit overblown, its more like “thousands” who are actually running things. But your point is well taken.
Betsy De Voss?? Hell, ask Trump how it worked out…
Very soon, the Federal government will have more employees than our military. (currently 2.1M vs 2.25M)
Zuckerberg’s “oops, my bad” letter is inadequate given the harm he did. Thankfully Musk bought Twitter and released the files so we have some idea of what our governments did illegally “for our benefit.”
We have yet to hear from Google and other companies that suppressed the Biden Family Crime Syndicate truth as well as the later discussions that were not permitted around the Biden Administration’s Covid laws/rules.
Biden’s subsequent disbursement of our hard-earned tax dollars with a fire hose on unnecessary expenditures causing inflation and adding to the federal debt might have been prevented had there been free speech. Money was spent with no accountability; fraud was rampant. Government handouts — I still get multiple calls weekly trying to give me money for my employees due to Covid shut-downs. We suffered from shortages due to supply chain interruptions that should have stopped almost as soon as they occurred but didn’t due to bad policy. Nearly 4 years later, we still suffer the consequences. We have housing and stock market bubbles that have not been addressed. Young people cannot afford starter houses; the rest of us can’t move because we can’t find another house at a reasonable cost. Much of our government still does not report to work. They’re “working from home” while doing their lawns and other chores. Try and get a permit or get questions answered by those millions of new IRS agents!
Our government violated our free speech and shut down the country due to its Covid policies. But the separate violation that occurred in the suppression of the Hunter laptop truth took place when Biden was not yet president. Many if not most voters would likely not have voted for Biden if they had known the truth about his family taking money from other countries. The FBI/DOJ assisted in the cover-up when they knew the truth. The 51 signatories on the famous letter used weasel-words to try to avoid liability but their intent was to suppress the truth and get Biden elected. The irreparable harm caused by having a dementia patient for a president continues.
The badly executed Afghanistan exit would not have happened; the world would not be aflame. We would not be living in a dystopian world.
I hope that some of these malignant actors are held responsible for the harm they caused; I fear that they will not be.
I did not mention the incredible harm done to the education system due to bad Covid policies. Young kids suffered and continue to suffer. Every level of student from kindergarten to college was shortchanged. I hope that they will be able to overcome the loss of education at critical times and necessary opportunities for socialization that happened.
Free speech would have shown a light on these horrendous policies. Perhaps more states would have followed DeSantis’ lead.
“ In Murthy, states successfully showed lower courts that there was coercion from the government in securing an injunction. The Biden administration denied such pressure and the Court rejected the standing of plaintiffs, blocked an order to stop the censorship, and sent the case back down to the lower court.”
Ah, as per usual, Turley has taken liberty with the facts. In Murthy SCOTUS stated the states did NOT successfully show there was coercion. They did NOT show direct evidence of censorship. SCOTUS essentially said the lower courts were wrong and to try again. The states were not able to prove the government engaged in censorship. Pressuring social media companies to remove certain information is not unconstitutional. Only when there is a threat of punishment or outright efforts to stop social media companies by force such as legal action. None of that occurred. The government has a right to speak and to dispute information.
Turley as well as the rest of right-wing media tends to leave out the key problem with their argument that censorship occurred. In order for their argument to have merit they must prove that social media were given no choice but to obey a government request. They have to prove that they were threatened with punishment or legal action to remove or stop certain information from being shown to the public. That has never been proven to be the case. What has been consistent and shown by SCOTUS in Murthy, is the fact Facebook and other social media companies always had the final say on whether to remove, or prevent content. Turley left out Zuckerberg saying they had the ultimate decision on any government request and they often denied such requests. The fact that they did undermines the argument that facebook or other social media companies were coerced.
Turley forgets that government pressures media to not publish or hold off on articles ALL. THE. TIME, even during Republican administrations.
Allegations are NOT evidence and SCOTUS pointed this out as the flaw of lower courts. They wrongly interpreted allegations to be facts. This is why they sent the case back and determine on the FACTS, not allegations. That is why plaintiff had no standing.
George is up early today. Much more to scroll over.
GeorgeSvelaz is up early today. Much more to scroll over.GEB, whenever I see that Svelaz (George) has commented early, it’s confirmation that JT is once again over the target. When his comment is a reply, I make sure to read the comment he’s replying to and not the reply.
OLLY,
Yep. Just scroll past. Not worth reading.
Apparently ignorance is preferable than keeping an open mind.
Apparently.
Irony is lost on the low IQ
Ignorance is reading George’s cr-p though responding with fact isn’t. George is as dumb as a pile of rocks. I saw this on the way to Daniel’s post.
S. Meyer,
Well said.
It is not ignorance to ignore stupid fools. More like common sense to avoid wasting one’s time talking to a known fool.
As OLLY mentions below, it is wise to just scroll by. Just like we dont watch CNN, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow. Best and wiser to just change the channel.
Upstate, we’re performing a public service here. There’s a reason Svelaz and others like him change their ID, or use Anonymous. They no longer attract attention.
For many of us, time is not something we can afford to waste. Reading the likes of Svelaz, with their history of being proven absolutely anti-American and wrong, is purely a time-wasting activity.
The Anonymous commentors present a different consideration. Kind of like we make wanting to eat something. If you’re okay with empty calories, then go for it. But if you are looking for nutrition, it would be wise to just scroll on by.
George, you misunderstand completely what SCOTUS decided. As Turley said, it rejected the injunction because it found insufficient proof of standing. In particular, it concluded that there was not yet enough evidence showing that specific acts of censorship were traceable to specific government acts of coercion, or showing that further such acts were foreseeable. The judges who reached the merits found that the government was likely to have violated the First Amendment.
Most recently, in Kennedy v Biden, Doughty found that Kennedy had met even the stringent standing requirements set out by SCOTUS.
Daniel,
“ The judges who reached the merits found that the government was likely to have violated the First Amendment.”
Which judges? The lower courts? SCOTUS pointed out the lower courts findings were in error. They did not rule on the merits. They ruled based on the allegations which are NOT facts. That’s why they found the plaintiffs had no standing. They had no proof of their allegations.
The lower courts. SCOTUS did not find they were in error on the merits. It found that standing had not yet been established to support a preliminary injunction.
Daniel, the lower courts did not rule on the merits. Justice Barrett pointed this out in her footnotes,
“ She also charges the Fifth Circuit withy having been too credulous of the plaintiffs claims and drops a footnote that “many” of the district court’s factual findings “appear to be clearly erroneous.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/26/supreme-court-sends-message-with-narrow-standing-holding-in-murthy-v-missouri/
Her own words,
“ During the 2020 election season and the COVID–19 pandemic, social-media platforms frequently removed, demoted, or fact checked posts containing allegedly false or misleading information. At the same time, federal officials, concerned about the spread of “misinformation” on social media, communicated extensively with the platforms about their content-moderation efforts.
The plaintiffs, two States and five social-media users,sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to suppress protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit agreed, concluding that the officials’ communications rendered them responsible for the private platforms’ moderation decisions. It then affirmed a sweepingpreliminary injunction.
The Fifth Circuit was wrong to do so.”
The fifth relied on the allegations as proof instead of actual proof. That’s why they remanded the case and ruled lack of standing.
You retard. Lack of evidence and lack of standing are not related. AT ALL
Anonymous, no. Lack of standing as ruled due to lack of evidence of harm. The fifth granted an injunction based only on allegations, not facts (evidence). I don’t expect you to understand since your reading comprehension problem will never go away.
Oh, but that’s not at all what Georgie said this morning at 8:35–he didn’t even mention standing.
Lack of of evidence not equal to lack of standing.
Period.
Because of your poor reading comprehension. That’s not what is being said. No evidence was shown to support the claims is the reason for the lack of standing.
“and drops a footnote”
Bwahahahahaah cant make this up.
George gets his opinion from “reason.com”. That right there is HILARIOUS.
George, this was a standing decision by SCOTUS, nothing more. The lower courts found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. That’s why they issued the preliminary injunctions. SCOTUS concluded that at this stage plaintiffs had not established standing sufficient to support a preliminary injunction. It did not get to the merits.
Daniel: I agree with you completely. George has likely never read the actual opinion, but (as usual) relies on journalists’ renditions of content, context, and comprehension, as well as their (journalists’) isolated excerpts from the SCOTUS decision.
has ><likely
Lin and Daniel, To clarify and provide additional information to what George said, I note that the first sentence of a detailed footnote 4 of Barrett’s majority opinion states the following: “The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous.”
The Court takes note, in fn. 4, of an underdevelopment of non-erroneous fact. This relates to the ultimate decision of the Court that there is NO STANDING based upon “facts” presented to it. It REMANDs for further development.
It does NOT conclude or even opine or imply that the government could not be found culpable.
thanks
(I would add that SCOTUS also brings up the “empty chair” defendant, -manifest in plaintiffs’ failure to establish or separate causal nexus between govt action and plaintiffs, vis-a-vis platforms’ actions and plaintiffs.)
(hit Send before completing. Of course, platforms are free to censor, unless found to be “state actors.”)
Lin, what do you expect from George? He is limited, takes headlines (meant to provide misinformation), and then adds whatever sentences he thinks are related to the topic. It doesn’t matter if those sentences conflict with ones previously written or even those later in the same reply.
He needs reassurance that he exists and gets plenty of that here. Those responding to him give him a feeling that he is alive and sentient, which is a good thing.
Lin, I’ve read the actual opinion. Journalists condensing or summarizing what the opinion stated including direct quotes does not make them inaccurate.
Barrett did point out the lack of evidence and the states inability to show the government did what they claim. The overall context of the ruling clearly points out the lower courts based their rulings not on the merits, but on the claims without evidence to support them which is a requirement before issuing an injunction.
The “state actor” argument is completely irrelevant. Facebook was not funded by the government was under contract.
The court noted that Facebook was deleting anti-Covid content before the government requested it. It also was removing content that violated its TOS which is what the government was pointing out according to Facebook’s own policy on flagging content.
The states did not show evidence to support their claims. The error of the district court was to deem their claims credible without evidence that they were and the fifth circuit basically rubber stamping it.
George:
(1) It is my belief that you did not read the entire opinion until ex post facto your 8:35 post and you were challenged on some things. I may be wrong, and there is no way for either of us to prove it.
(2) My post would have been incomplete had I not mentioned to readers, especially non-lawyers or law students, the existence of a general exclusory understanding of platforms, unless proven to be “state actors” –AS I EXPLAINED when I said,, “Of course, platforms are….” clause.
Your adding it as part of your response to me is the real irrelevance here. SO, what point were you trying to make there? It escapes me.
(3) Nothing you say here does anything to refute or discredit any of my comment(s), so I’m not sure why you even wanted to respond to something not addressed to you?
(3) It has taken several comments on your part to “come around” and conform your opinion to what is truly the essence here. In each response, you conform a little more. Kind of amusing.
thanks anyway.
Thats what douchebag Svelaz-George does. Contstantly changing his spots.
Once again, he is on the carousel of stupidity and can’t get off.
“(3) It has taken several comments on your part to “come around” and conform your opinion to what is truly the essence here. In each response, you conform a little more. Kind of amusing.
thanks anyway.”
Lin, George frequently proves himself wrong. That is why I said his sentences conflict with one another. You pointed out that amusing situation much better than I did.
Daniel,
“ The lower courts found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. That’s why they issued the preliminary injunctions.”
The “merits” were allegations not backed up by evidence which is what SCOTUS stated had to be met FIRST before an injunction could be issued. Barrett pointed out that the lower court’s “facts” were in error because they based their ruling on claims (allegations) instead of evidence. The fifth as usual was also wrong because the district court’s error was not thoroughly scrutinized. The fifth basically rubber stamped the injunction and SCOTUS basically said, “nope, try again”.
The states failed to show the removals of posts was due to government pressure. They failed to show the government coercion they claimed.
Well they have new evidence now. Zuck admitted it.
Some people wish to create new laws to fix the problems faced by large platforms that have tremendous influence. Sometimes, it is best to get rid of laws or modify an existing law to obtain the same effect. So it is with section 230, which was heavily discussed on this blog a long time ago, and I provided Phillip Hamburger’s editorial multiple times.
Here is Hamburger again in a letter to the WSJ:
The ‘Tell’ in Zuckerberg’s Letter to Congress
He neither admits nor denies that Meta bowed to government censorship pressure. …
On the other hand, he distances Meta’s censorship decisions from the government pressure: “Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions.” Mr. Zuckerberg (and surely his lawyers) thus admits both the pressure and the social-media censorship but carefully keeps the two apart. The aim, presumably, is to avoid having Meta treated as a state actor for purposes of the First Amendment and then being held liable for damages.
Mr. Zuckerberg isn’t denying that the government caused some of Meta’s censorship decisions. The letter is too carefully drafted to say something so obviously untrue. So in saying that it was “our decision” whether to take down content, Mr. Zuckerberg doesn’t claim that such decisions were unaffected by the government pressure—that was the whole point of the pressure. …
Zuckerberg’s caution about causation speaks volumes about his fears (or those of his lawyers) that, if the truth were out, Meta would be legally vulnerable.
Yes, S Meyer, the letter was very carefully written. A decision can be one’s own even if it is caused by another. If your child is kidnapped and the kidnapper demands ransom and not involving the police or the child will die, your decision to pay the ransom and not tell the police is yours, though you made it because of the pressure from the kidnapper.
That’s a false equivalence. Facebook did not face punishment or threats if they did not remove content. Telling facebook that some content shouldn’t be on the platform or flagging content per Facebook’s policy is not illegal or unconstitutional. Plaintiffs could now show how the removal of content harmed them since they have plenty of other options to disseminate their claims. Facebook is not the only option.
Zuck said he was pressured. You have no say.
Hamburger is just saying the same thing the states are in Murthy. What he is not providing is proof that Facebook acted because of government pressure. That’s what they need in order to sue. Just saying Facebook’s decisions were due to government pressure is not gonna fly in court.
LMAO
You are such a stooge.
The SCOTUS has OFTEN ruled based on “the turtle didn’t get on the fence post by himself”.
Pressure—-Action
Cause—-Effect
Get a grip.
Zuck admitted it. Sorry.
Of course the goddam decision was theirs. How could it be otherwise? So stupid. They were pressured.
George, don’t pretend you know or understand what Hamburger said. Understand there are multiple levels of intelligence, and you are on the lowest rung.
HHAHHAHAHA!!! S. Meyer, you barely understand what you say. You are too stupid to understand the issue. Way too stupid. Look up Kruger-Dunning. You make a beautiful example.
George, I can discuss many different policy decisions while providing facts and logic. You can test me on that and go head-to-head. You won’t because you know you aren’t up to the task, lacking the intellect of an average adult.
It’s great that you receive recognition on the blog, even for your stupidity. Your ego is propped up, even by insults. You think people look with respect when you argue with John Say. They laugh as they see you as a stupid person who gets high off being noticed.
“Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents . . .” (JT)
The only thing he regrets is that he got caught.
As with the rest of the Left, his is the criminal’s psychology: Can I get away with it?
So maybe Z thinks Trump will win and he is saying to his Democratic friends that he won’t submit to Trump as he did to Biden.
But what has changed structurally? Z depends on 230 and is vulnerable to antitrust challenges. He does business with the Federal government and relies on it to protect him in Europe and elsewhere. As one of the big tech senior executives said, they have so many fish to fry with the government that they can’t afford to offend it.
In addition, the arrest of Pavel Durov in France is a warning.
Congress should act, to preclude the executive branch from seeking to censor or influence “content moderation” policies. It should also declare the big platforms to be common carriers and prohibit their censorship of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Trump would sign such a bill.
“Congress should act, to preclude the executive branch from seeking to censor or influence “content moderation” policies.” The First Amendment is already The Law. A new law reenforcing the First is unnecessary. Like guns laws, enforcing the ones already on the books would be the better option. This administration, far more often than past administrations, ingores existing laws and Court rulings outright. Like all criminals, The Left™ simply doesn’t care what laws say… they’ll do what they want until it hurts them politically (and financially). Not sure Congress’s passing another law, (even overriding a potential veto) that will also be ignored by Leftists will have the desired affect, Daniel.
The standing rules make it very hard to challenge censorship by big tech that results from government pressure. A law could remove that difficulty.
There are laws. All sorts of laws aabout government employees engaging in activities that are not their job/responsibility.
Especially activities that interfere with an election. That is 18 USC 29 Section 595
Then there is
13 USC 212
18 USC 1638
18 USC 641
43 CFR 20.510
18 USC 242
The standing decision was error
Regardless standing is not able to stop lawsuits
Just stop specific parties from bringing specific lawsuits
There are others with standing pushing the same case
Perhaps, but their is no getting around the fact that laws only affect the law-abiding. When government itself already defies the law and the Court rulings that support them (the laws, not the government), there’s little hope or expectation a new law will stop the continuing lawlessness.
“Democracy is not on the 2024 ballot.” I agree, the choice of Americans is whether Communist policy from speech suppression, to criminal persecution of opposition of Government policy, to the process of mandates and lockdowns are the way of the World and the adoption of “one World Order” (look to France, Canada and the UK for the examples). It is scary times……
I’m just about finished listening to “The Indispensable Right”. JT makes an ironclad case against government attempting to regulate the political infospace. His timing is good — even with Zuck’s mea culpa, it’s not certain that those attempts have peaked and are receding.
The one area the book only offers ambivalence on is how best to deal with deceptive fabrications pushed out by the powerful for political gain. The author rails about the Biden campaign in 2020 working with ex-CIA to dupe the electorate about the provenance of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Zuck admits now that FB fell for the con job. Michael Shallenberger said on Cuomo yesterday that the FBI’s political infowarfare team knew everything exposed by the laptop months in advance, and “primed” the social media giants with a prebuttal riff to be expecting Russian disinformation to smear Biden.
Here’s the rub. Throughout the book, JT argues that the 1st Amendment ought to allow the deliberate use of falsehoods in political discourse. He ignores the case of the most powerful political actors, even those in government, being the artful liars. He stands behind the oft-cited claim that “good info” will confront and disarm the “bad info”. But as we recognize in the laptop con-job, the whopper only had to work for 3 weeks until Election Day.
And it worked in spades. A lie circles the globe 7 times while the truth is putting on its running shoes. And, post-election polling indicated that up to 11% of voters would have voted differently if equipped with the truth at the time — enough to change the outcome.
The book is a great read, and is chock full of gripping stories about how freedom of speech has evolved the past 800 years. But, it presents a less than compelling argument that we should afford political hacks a wide berth to dupe us.
There’s something not right about govt. power deriving its legitimacy from “the consent of the governed” when that consent is obtained through trickery and deceit. If the media are willing to go along with the whopper, as Zuck now admits, The People need their own investigatory toolset that includes subpoena and compelled deposition, and works at the speed of the deceptive political infowarfare machine. Something akin to fast defamation lawsuits.
Or, we could stick with the status quo, which means quality AI deepfakes, and FBI-CIA intel spooks with PsyOps training covertly advancing domestic political campaigns). If that’s exercising their right to “free speech”, JT might well be asked for some clarification.
More tort!!
Pbinca-I would disagree. Let em lie. If they do then we can asses their traits and make our judgements during elections. Also is the opponent astute enough to jump on the lie and make the liar pay for it. What you have to do is remove the governmental organs that perpetuate the lies and suppress the truth. And removing lapdog media that supports the government view all the time. Hence the need to change the Sullivan vs NY Times decision. The media might become more truthful if it becomes too costly to lie.
In every war we have been in there were lies. “Truth is the first casualty of war”. The trouble is we were often in a war and then it was over, not in perpetual war.like we are now. Public lying in war is acceptable if it throws off the enemy. Because the enemy reads the papers and listens to the news. There used to be a statement like “no comment” or “I will neither confirm or deny that statement or assessment”.
Sometimes saying nothing says enough.
Better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it.
That sort of advise has a lot of experience behind it.
Not everything deserves a comment.
Moreover, pbinca does not explain why any rebutting TRUTH could not also “circle the globe 7 times while [pbinca] is putting on running shoes.”
* Z is big money.
“He stands behind the oft-cited claim that “good info” will confront and disarm the “bad info”. But as we recognize in the laptop con-job, the whopper only had to work for 3 weeks until Election Day.” The laptop con-job only ‘worked’ because the original story was prevented from being widely seen and heard by the electorate. Had both, the story and the spook-contrived ‘rebuttal’, been published widely on legacy and social media, the electorate would have been in a better position to make an informed decision before election day. Several polls after-the-fact indicate many would not have voted Blue had they been aware of the laptop story – quite enough to change the outcome of the election.
JAFO; Good one. Agree.
JAFO et al. We focus only on Zuckerberg and Biden, but behind all of this is the corruption of our bureaucracy where the DOJ, protector of law, is at the center of corruption. This is one of the reasons to vote against Biden: under his reign, corruption increased, as did censorship, criminal penalties, etc.
We need Trump and Vance followed by better leadership than the past provided. The federal government’s bureaucracy and power must be cut down.
“We focus only on Zuckerberg and Biden, but behind all of this is the corruption of our bureaucracy where the DOJ, protector of law, is at the center of corruption.”
But it’s even worse than that, SMeyer. Legacy media used to investigate corrupt government actors. Now they’re besties with that same corrupt DOJ and the rest of the never-elected-to-anything cabal. Governments lie. American Media, including Zuckerberg, has the keys to expose the lies but prefers to cover up the corruption.
Zuckerberg is part of a community many of which continue to support the Democrat party. They have forgotten the past and are condemned to repeat it.
You are spot on sir…
I had a large page on Facebook permanently deleted over supposed “rules” violations. The only rule I broke was exposing Democrats as the socialist/communists they are. The page was called Stupid Stuff Biden Says, prior to that it was called Stupid Shit Obama Says. I had a tad over 40,000 followers on that page. I was constantly being banned and blocked for nonsense. I am permanently banned on LinkedIn for writing the TRUTH about Covid… and I serve on my local hospital board.
(make sure you encourage those 40,000 to vote.)
First Big Government and its allies in the Bureaucracy/Mainstream Media/Social Networking/PC University Intelligentsia Complex censor, then lie and cover-up. The 2020 Hunter laptop cover-up is the tip of the iceberg in this sordid tale of malfeasance. Call it the First Amendment Insurrection – then lets round them up, put them on trial, and see some jail time for contravention of first amendment rights of the sovereign people. The People v US Gov et al – Liberal Republican Democracy in action.
Something did seem very off to me in addition to the obvious- TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE!
I am less interested in Zuckerberg’s “regret” that he, as leader of Facebook/Meta, was not more “outspoken” about government pressure to censor speech on the Facebook platform than I am about what exactly Zuckerberg did, or did not do, to resist the censorious pressure from the Biden administration. Knowing that would give insight into his character, or lack thereof. This letter makes him appear to have the spine of a squid.
These young people who are in favor of “content moderation” are under the impression that only conservative voices will be silenced, as do most on the improvident Left.
Look at how the language of those dedicated to control of information is morphing. Disinformation. Misinformation. Now Malinformation! The camel is not only in the tent, it owns the tent.
* lies? Deception? Deception is lying no matter what Harry G. Frankfurt says.
zuckerberg spent $500 Million Collecting Democrat votes….he should be jailed
Facebook still censors in favor of the dems like Harris. Zuckerberg is still a hypocrite
And the danger of a spineless, sycophantic stooge in a position of power becomes manifest. And his handlers will give him cover. Be afraid…