Did the Biden Administration pressure Facebook and others to censor Americans?

[AviatorTom]

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote a letter to the House Judiciary Committee saying he regrets not being more outspoken about “government pressure” from the Biden administration to “censor” content on its platforms.

“Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction,” he wrote in the letter.

Updates

1 y

I just noticed this topic has already been discussed...
How do you feel about Mark Zuckerberg admitting that the Biden-Harris administration 'pressured' Facebook to censor Americans? ↗

[abc3643]

Yes, and rightfully so.

This is cannibalized from my responses to this question...

Is it time to get the U. S. government out of the censorship business and to bring back freedom of speech?

Two weeks ago, Jonathan Turley wrote in The Hill "Want more freedom of speech? Try less government."
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4823929-censorship-system-us-government/

This is an excerpt from that:

The Biden Administration has made speech regulation a priority in targeting disinformation, misinformation or malinformation. President Joe Biden even said that companies refusing to censor citizens were “killing people.”

And here is how I responded to the asker (who cited the article, but from Turley's personal site.) about that specific quote.

===

Well, there is a good point in what the Biden Administration has done. With the advent of the Internet becoming public 31 years ago and then social media, that "disinformation, misinformation or malinformation" is produced and spread faster than ever. This is like going from a few people being sick to an outright pandemic. Something does need to be done. Should the government do it? Maybe, maybe not. The alternative has already begun though: A growing trend of civil lawsuits against the people who are committing "disinformation, misinformation or malinformation". A case in point is Alex Jones and Info Wars. He's been sued in multiple courts by the families of Sandy Hook victims and now he owes about $1 billion to them because of the harm he has done. The government was not involved in regulating Jones's "disinformation, misinformation or malinformation"; the private sector handled it through the judicial system.

Another example is Dominion Voting Systems and another suing Fox and others for slander/libel/defamation over their conspiracy theories over elections and, in particular, the 2020 election. From Wikipedia: "Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million and acknowledged the court's earlier ruling that Fox had broadcast false statements about Dominion. The settlement did not require Fox News to apologize. It is the largest known media settlement for defamation in U. S. history."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox_News_Network

A third example is with Rudy Giuliani and the Georgia election workers. He got sued out of existence by them too.

Again, in these last two examples, the government didn't need to get involved other than provide the judicial system.

The problem is that, to deal with all of this crap, that would clog up the civil judicial system.
If there is genuine harm from this "disinformation, misinformation or malinformation", there should be criminal consequences to dissuade such criminal behavior.

[kmg9150]

But yet the government allows ads to be shoved in peoples faces that are untruthful an cause so much damage within our economy. What about who are the governors of the one spreading the misinformation. You forget that us as citizens don't have the same means of action good the government. Dr. Fucci lied tremendously to the American people and what's been done to correct that? Or Biden admin and fbi during he election. judiciary.house.gov/.../testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack

It has often been the case to where people it advert against the thing they dont want to get caught doing.

[abc3643]

@kmg9150 This (and ONLY this, not the rest of it):

"[T]he government allows ads to be shoved in peoples faces that are untruthful "

That's true because lying is still considered free speech. However:

1. The government generally does not regulate speech, but there are limits.

From the Saturday Evening Post...
TITLE: 6 Surprising Exceptions to Freedom of Speech

"2. Lies
Lying is covered by the First Amendment, except when it’s not. You can be prosecuted for lying under oath in court (it’s called perjury). You can also be charged with misleading authorized investigators. Remember Martha Stewart’s conviction in 2004? She went to prison for lying to investigators about her stock trading.

It is also illegal to run dishonest advertisements. And if you deliberately tell lies about people, you can be hit with a lawsuit in civil court for either libel (if published) or slander (if spoken).

Politicians, on the other hand, have broad protections against being prosecuted for lying, and citizens largely have free rein to criticize their governments, even if the comments are false. Luckily for late night talk show hosts, the First Amendment allows citizens to satirically mock a public figure."

2. As mentioned above, various forms of lying are criminal and are prosecuted or are defamatory and addressed in civil lawsuits.

However, if you wanted a blanket form of making lying illegal, how would you do that? (That's a rhetorical question.) In essence, you can't because the justice system may not be able to ascertain "truth". So who's to (infallibly) judge whether a an alleged lie is actually a lie or is truthful.

(more)

[abc3643]

Here's a case in point:
In Number Theory, there is something called The Collatz Conjecture.
It is easy to understand.
Let X (k), k={0,1,2, ...} be sequence of positive integer.
At any point in the sequence, the next number is found this way:
If X (k) is odd, then X (k+1) = 3*X (k)+1 but, if X (k) is even, then X (k+1) = X (k)/2.
If you try it out, you'll see that the sequence ALWAYS goes eventually to 4, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1... forever.
Examples:
3 -> 10 -> 5 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 -> ...
7 -> 22 -> 11 -> 34 -> 17 -> 52 -> 26 -> 13 -> 40 -> 20 -> 10 -> 5 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 -> ...

Now, the Collatz Conjecture says that the sequence will always go to 4, 2, 1, BUT! no one has been able to prove it.

Suppose I say in public, "The Collatz Conjecture is false! I found a number in which the sequence doesn't end in 4,2,1,4,2,1..."

Am I lying? In a sense yes if I haven't found such a number. But what if I refuse to state what that number is? How am I proven that I am lying? To prove I am lying would really require proving the Collatz Conjecture... but no one has been able to do that.

Understand?

Furthermore, what if I did find a number, but I was stupid and didn't realize that I was not properly following the Collatz sequence by starting with a negative number, -1... This is that sequence.
-1 -> -2 -> -1 -> -2 -> -1

In this case, the sequence isn't 4,2,1,4,2,1... So, I didn't lie - I did find a starting number for which the sequence failed, but I didn't adhere to the constraint that the starting number had to be a positive integer.

In this case, I "lied", but not really. I told the truth ___as I understood it___. Is that criminal?

(In law, we have something called Mens rea and Actus reus. Actus reus means doing a criminal act, but Mens rea means having a guilty mind - that I KNEW that the act I was committing was a crime. These are both necessary for a crime to have occurred. But, I've spoken enough.)

[CrazyGirl2]

You wrote "With the advent of the Internet becoming public 31 years ago and then social media, that "disinformation, misinformation or malinformation" is produced and spread faster than ever.” However, I believe you are mistaken. 31 years ago today, it was August 31, 1993. While the Internet became widely available to the public in the early 1990s. The key moment was the development of the World Wide Web by Tim Berners-Lee in was in1989, and the internet's subsequent release to the public was in 1991, NOT 1993. I believe what you are confused about occurring 31 years ago was the release of the Mosaic web browser, which was the real turning point for public access, which DID come in 1993, and made the internet more accessible to the general public.
(Source: My father, and fact checked, on Wikipedia here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet ). Where it states "Internet use in wider society” The invention of the World Wide Web by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in 1989, as an application on the Internet,[168] brought many social and commercial uses to what was, at the time, a network of networks for academic and research institutions.[169][170] The Web WAS OPENED TO THE PUBLIC IN 1991, and BEGAN TO ENTER GENERAL USE IN 1993–4, (emphasis added) when websites for everyday use started to become more popular.[171]”.

[CrazyGirl2]

You also stated "there should be criminal consequences to dissuade such criminal behavior.” By your own words, there are already laws against libel, and civil remedies for violator’s of those laws. But you believe speech that is not accurate is “criminal behavior”? Could you cite the law? We have a first amendment right of free speech! While there are obviously exceptions for speech that incites violence, as well as the “”Time, Place and Manor restriction" outlined in the Supreme court’s decision in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression are constitutional as long as they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication. This case established the framework for how governments can impose certain restrictions on speech without violating the First Amendment, as long as the restrictions meet the criteria set out by the Court. But there is absolutely NO exception whatsoever in the first amendment for “Truth” FFS! The civil right to speak freely, includes the right to say what you believe whether it's true or not! My God, even in the UK, which has some of the most draconian anti-free speech laws in the so-called "free world", there is still no law against saying something that you believe, even though it's not true! If this were not the case, every priest, preacher, pastor, rabbi, and imam would be arrested every time they preached the Bible!

[abc3643]

@CrazyGirl2 I won't debate you about the Internet, but the Internet is very old; it goes back to ARPAnet in 1969. Tim's contribution, of course, is critical, but the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 was the real start button with Mosaic becoming the first major browser in 1993 and then the Internet took off.

But, that's minor.

No, I did not say AT ALL that I "believe speech that is not accurate is 'criminal behavior' "?

However, speech that incites or fosters criminal behavior should be criminalized and it is.
... and there are plenty of statutes saying such...

Here is one example:
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I—CRIMES (§§ 1 – 2725)
CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES (§§ 2381 – 2391)
§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
(This is written as 18 USC  § 2383.)

18 U. S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

So, 18 USC  § 2383, speech which incites rebellion or insurrection is criminalized speech because it incites the criminal actions of rebellion or insurrection (which is the rest of 18 USC  § 2383)..

[CrazyGirl2]

I already specified, speech that incites violence is NOT protected by the 1A, beginning at the start of line 5 of my second post. The entire statement in context is as follows: "Could you cite the law? We have a first amendment right of free speech! While there are obviously exceptions for speech that incites violence, as well as the “Time, Place and Manor restriction" outlined in the Supreme court’s decision in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989).” So I have NO idea why you are citing laws related to treason, sedition, Rebellion or insurrection. We are discussing speech here. None of those laws are literally anything to do with speech!

Additionally in answer to the question “Did the Biden administration pressure Facebook to censor Americans, you replied "Yes, and rightfully so!” That’s fucking insane! It’s a violation of all American’s civil rights! Do you REALLY want the Government to be able to “rightfully” censor Americans? What if Trump wins, do you want HIM having that power? That’s the fckn’ problem with you partisans… on BOTH sides! You can’t think four years ahead, and what happens when some president YOU disagree with has the ultimate political power!

As far as "I did not say AT ALL that I "believe speech that is not accurate is 'criminal behavior” Yes you 100% did! You closed your post writing that, "The problem is that, to deal with all of this crap, that would clog up the civil judicial system. If there is genuine harm from this "disinformation, misinformation or malinformation", there should be CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES to dissuade such criminal behavior.”

What genuine harm, exactly, and who decides what is harm? You want Trump to decide if YOUR speech deserves criminal charges? B/C in the UK, just offending someone is enough harm to get you arrested for nothing more than speech! Which is why in the US we don’t allow criminal consequences for SPEECH, even if it insults offends, or is SO outrageous that it causes a virgin to faint!

[RavVid]

Zuckerberg seems to be shoving the Biden-Harris administration & Democrats not so much under a bus but under a road train instead. Fairly hard for a non American to understand this in context of US politics so would appreciate any orientation that might be given.

As understand it, it is not legal (or it is unconstitutional) for a US gov't to cause others to do what would be unconstitutional for it to do.

From a legal viewpoint are there consequences to Zuckerberg saying the Biden-Harris administration acted unconstitutionally? Or is it moot and water under the bridge as it can't be undone.

From a political viewpoint how will this affect Harris's campaign? It would seem devastating confirmation of complaints and cast doubts on Kamala's probity.

[Amy10223]

"In a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.”

"... The letter is the latest repudiation by Zuckerberg of efforts to target misinformation around the coronavirus pandemic during and after the 2020 presidential election, particularly as allegations have emerged that some posts were deleted or restricted wrongly."

I agree that much misinformation about the virus itself was everywhere. So I don't mind the Biden Administration's handling of this. People were reading and following wrong information leading to deaths and getting sick. There was more than just Facebook that gave out wrong information or people misinforming the people who have FB account. The worst part is--they listened to people who were not medically qualified to give out information, including Trump's talking about injecting bleach into veins to prevent the virus, and also drinking hand sanitizer, where people followed this and actually died.

[CrazyGirl2]

Is this a rhetorical question, or do you really not know? It’s been in the news like all day, it definitely happened! Zuckerberg wrote a letter to the chair of some house committee admitting it. That letter is on 𝕏 here: https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/ So yeah it definitely happened sweetie.

[AviatorTom]

@CrazyGirl2 I would typically weird tye question "What do you think of..." but I've gotten several nasty comments recently claiming that I am undemocratic, a radical conservative, and a few other choice words. I've tried to let everyone repeatedly know thst I am a middle of the road Independent. So this time, I tried a different way to phrase the question, even though I'd like people to comment on it.
Hope this helps.
Tom

[CrazyGirl2]

Thanks for clarifying that, sweetie. As a centrist myself, I get it from both sides as well, and I’m so sick of it! It’s like I fckn’ hate Donald Trump, but if I acknowledge that things were obviously better financially under his administration, or that he did a better job controlling the border, and suddenly I’m a goddamn NAZI!!! I’m Jewish, but I’m a fckn’ nazi, because I acknowledged objective reality!

[kmg9150]

@CrazyGirl2 Would you mind sharing why It is you hate him?

[CrazyGirl2]

@kmg9150 I don’t like his rudeness, his name calling, how he bragged that he hired only the best minds, then as the quit one by one, suddenly they were “retarded”, “Low IQ”, “incompetent”, and many other ad homonyms. I don’t like how he treated Megyn Kelly, and the sexist things he said about her, for doing her job as an unbiased debate moderator. My issues with him are all about him personally. I think he's a disgusting human being. also he cheated on his wife while she was recovering from giving birth to Barron Trump! I do appreciate that he is the only President in modern history to not start a new war, that the economy was much better under Trump than either Obama or Biden, and that he accomplished the near impossible by both moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and brokering the middle east peace treaty. But I still think he's a disgusting person!

[kmg9150]

@CrazyGirl2 fair enough. I do like how you separated him as a person from the political side. With all that said, when he speaks do you feel what he's saying is more towards the truth than most politicians?

[CrazyGirl2]

@kmg9150 I don’t like discussing politics. I was happy to tell you why I can’t stand him. Because I have made that statement many times, and I feel it’s only fair that I back-up, or at least defend my stated beliefs. But this is venturing into territory I am just not comfortable discussing. But I truly thank you for your question, and I am pleased you understood, my rationale for not liking DJT, whether you agree or not, I sincerely appreciate you being so polite about it.

Take care, sweetie.
Laura. 🤗 🥰 .

[OlderAndWiser]

The only surprise here is that anyone in social media is admitting the truth.

[MicahRaine]

Seriously

[WindAtMyBack]

They are just upset because they only want their own disinformation out there. That's the problem with censorship in general. Somebody needs to self-appoint themselves as the arbiter of truth. As soon as you have anyone with the power to determine "truth" you have started down a very slippery slope.

[purplepoppy]

What are Facebooks content standards anyway? Seems to me you can put any old crap on there. I don't think it's a free speech issue either, when unqualified people are dishing out medical advice it's perfectly OK to shut them up. The government recognises that people are idiots and can't differentiate between the recommendations of experienced epidemiologists and a 12 year old in his bedroom.

[exitseven]

Zuckerburg hardley needed to be pressured into censoring conservatives and covering up Hunter's Laptop. He is totally in the tank for the democrats. Now he is trying to give himself some cover so maybe Trump will leave him alone next year. I think Mr Zuckerburg will find out that election interference is a serious offense.

[juliammm]

Of course, it is so much easier not to have to work on content review. Let the criminals freely exchange what they want is so much easier and cheaper!

[MicahRaine]

Yeah of course they have. I think that many (just many, not most) presidents have censored and influenced news and social media.

I think Zuckerberg is just coming out and saying it now because he believes it is the only option available to prevent dictatorship. He's been fine with lying before, so there must be a reason he's telling the truth now. Just food for thought.

[juliammm]

Zuckerberg doesn't want to spend money on controlling fake news, or criminal inducements...
In the name of freedom, he just wants to save money.
He does not care if pedophiles share content that puts your children in danger.

Social networks want no controls, because controlling costs them a lot.

[MicahRaine]

@juliammm if you do a bit of research you'll find that social media companies actually /promote/ underage content to pedophiles. So you're right.

[Guacamole409]

Yes, and Zuckerberg is just coming clean now because he’s afraid Trump will go after him after he wins the presidency.

[RingOfFire]

Without a doubt they did and have been for many years way before Biden. The Democrat party has become a tyrannical, authoritarian, corrupt persecution machine which places power over everything. They will break any law, persecute any political rival, or cause the death of as many Americans as necessary to ensure that America becomes a one party country with them in charge. Americans are losing their freedom, and it is the Democrats who are behind it.

Wake up Americans!

[Makeushiver]

@RingOfFire You might want to re-read your diatribe.

[RingOfFire]

@Makeushiver

Thanks for pointing that out. Upon rereading I realized that I left out that they will also tell any number of lies necessary to attain that authoritarian power.

[PatKirby]

Preach on brotherman! These criminal and corrupt lying sacks of human excrement who don't have the mental ability to hold office are being dealt what they deserve. Please be patient, the current administration is in the process of being uninstalled and your country will be returned to you soon...

[Ladsin2]

I mean they quite clearly did, both in public and private.

[gatixek710]

Of course they did. Election interference by the deep state.

[llorando]

Of course they did, but some will claim it as fake news.

[beefcakebradybatson]

SCREW tech bro Mark Zuckerberg, but Biden likely did pressure Facebook to censor Americans.

[BCA6010]

Yes, and Mark is trying to play victim as if he wasn't personally fully onboard with it at the time.

[jshm2]

No, don't be silly. Zuck is just trying to cover his ass.

Every CEO knows they are subject to government rules, regardless of country.

[strateguy632]

Bs he n management wanted the power n influence. It was not government pressure!

[onedarkcloud]

I do not like Zuckerberg as a person but I believe the Biden-Harris administration threatened the hell out of social media and him to lie. The only one to stand up to them was Elon and still is today

[RetroReviews]

A little too late, damage is done now

[Dongie]

I'd say they still are.

[Anonymous]

Dems are paying media and social media mediums to prevent their rivals from campaigning there.

[thearchjoker]

they did

[Staximus]

That's common knowledge, of course they did

[Dargil]

He says they did

[FunkyMonkee]

Yes!