Posted on August 28, 2024 by Scott Johnson in 2020 Presidential Election, Biden corruption, Censorship, Social media

The Zuckerberg letter

Mark Zuckerberg’s letter to Chairman Jim Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee on Facebook’s censorhip in cooperation with government authorities is a document of multifaceted interest. It warrants close examination. Indeed, close reading is required. See the text of the letter below.

Professor Philip Hamburger takes up one facet of the letter in the Wall Street Journal column “The ‘Tell’ in Zuckerberg’s Letter to Congress” (behind the Journal’s paywall). Subhead: “He neither admits nor denies that Meta bowed to government censorship pressure.” Professor Hamburger writes: “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.” As I say, close reading is required.

Matt Taibbi commends Zuckerberg’s letter in his Racket News subscribers-only post “Zuckerberg defies the Borg.” Subhead: “As governments everywhere tighten their grip on the Internet, Meta’s CEO blows a hole in years of official lies.” Taibbi emphasizes Zuckerberg’s use of the term “censor” and “censorship” to describe the pressure on Facebook. Taibbi fits the letter into our current circumstances:

Like other tech CEOs, Zuckerberg finds himself between a rock and a hard place. From one side, he sees subpoenas and investigations of censorship. From the other, he faces strident demands on content from authorities whose idea of “accountability” has gone beyond crippling penalties to detention. This is not just coming from Europeans. Former National Security Council and White House official Alexander Vindman reacted to the Durov news by referencing a “growing intolerance for platforming disinfo” and a “growing appetite for accountability.” His specific threat was to Elon Musk…

Zuckerberg comments on Facebook’s suppression of the New York Post’s stories on Hunter Biden laptop in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election at the urging of the FBI leap from the text. The FBI had taken possession of the laptop in 2019. It knew the laptop and its contents were authentic. It sought to protect then candidate Biden from the exposure of the Biden family business and protect his path to the presidency. The FBI engaged blatantly in the “election interference” that it imputed to Russia. In this context, “election interference” is a pathetic euphemism for monumental government misconduct. Yet here we are — here we are again.

Zuckerberg’s mea culpa is tardy. He names no names. The FBI perpetrators remain at large, as do the Deep State 51 who emerged to support the FBI censorship campaign. Nevertheless, it is good to have the letter on the record.

The New York Post’s laptop coverage was Pulitzer-worthy in the old-fashioned sense. I want to note the Post’s coverage of Zuckerberg’s letter. Victor Nava has the straight news story “Zuckerberg admits Biden admin pressured Facebook to censor COVID content, says it was wrong to suppress The Post’s Hunter laptop coverage.” Nava’s story includes copies of the Post covers that flagged the laptop stories.

Post business reporter Thomas Barrabi notes “Facebook posts censored at Biden admin’s demand include COVID-19 memes, satire.” Post columnist Kristen Fleming comments on the forbidden laughter here.

As President Muffley almost says in Dr. Strangelove: “Gentlemen, you can’t laugh in here. This is the disinformation war room.”

The Post devotes an editorial to the current relevance of this history: “Mark Zuckerberg coming clean on Facebook censorship matters because Harris-Walz would amp up the speech controls.” As Winston Smith is instructed in 1984:

“[A]lways — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.”

Zuckerberg states that Facebook sent “the Post story to fact-checkers for review[.]” Every element of the story was accurate and authenticated. It would be nice to see the timeline of Facebook’s work and the work product. They would tell a story all by themselves.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses