Zuckerberg Regrets Bowing To Pressure From Biden Admin to Censor Content

[Social Media]

 

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has recently expressed regret over his company’s decision to bow to what he described as pressure from the Biden administration to censor content on Facebook and Instagram during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a letter addressed to Jim Jordan, the chair of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg revealed that Meta, formerly known as Facebook, had removed or demoted certain content, including humor and satire, in response to demands from senior officials in 2021.

 

Zuckerberg’s letter to the House Judiciary Committee, which is currently investigating content moderation on online platforms, offers a rare admission from one of the tech industry’s most influential figures. He acknowledged that the decisions made at the time were indeed those of his company, but he also emphasized that the government’s pressure to moderate content in a particular manner was inappropriate. “We made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn't make today,” Zuckerberg wrote, underscoring the complex and often contentious relationship between social media platforms and government authorities during the pandemic.

 

The White House, however, defended its actions, arguing that it had encouraged responsible measures to protect public health and safety. In a statement to Politico, the administration maintained that it has consistently believed that tech companies and other private entities should consider the impact of their actions on the American public while making independent decisions about the information they distribute.

 

In addition to his reflections on content moderation during the pandemic, Zuckerberg also addressed another contentious issue that has dogged his company: the handling of content related to Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden. Ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Meta briefly demoted content pertaining to Hunter Biden after receiving a warning from the FBI about a potential Russian disinformation operation. The content in question revolved around a laptop that Hunter Biden had allegedly left at a repair shop in Delaware, with emails found on the computer suggesting that his business dealings abroad may have influenced U.S. foreign policy while his father was vice president.

 

The New York Post was the first to report on the laptop, and the story quickly became a major talking point among right-wing circles in the U.S. Some social media platforms, including Meta, initially took steps to limit the spread of the story, concerned that it might be part of a foreign disinformation campaign. However, Zuckerberg acknowledged in his letter that the decision to demote the story was a mistake. “In retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” he admitted, adding that Meta has since changed its policies and processes to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

 

Zuckerberg’s letter also touched on another issue that has drawn criticism from various quarters: his financial contributions to support electoral infrastructure during the 2020 election. Through his philanthropic organization, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Zuckerberg donated $400 million to help government offices conduct the election amid the challenges posed by the pandemic. While these donations were intended to be non-partisan, they sparked a wave of misinformation on social media, with some accusing Zuckerberg of using a loophole to bypass maximum donation limits in an effort to sway the election in favor of Joe Biden.

 

Addressing this controversy, Zuckerberg reiterated that his donations were meant to be neutral and not to benefit any particular political party. “Still, despite the analyses I’ve seen showing otherwise, I know that some people believe this work benefited one party over the other,” he acknowledged. To avoid any appearance of partisanship in the future, Zuckerberg stated that he does not plan to make similar contributions in the upcoming election cycle. “My goal is to be neutral and not play a role one way or another—or to even appear to be playing a role,” he emphasized.

 

Zuckerberg’s candid reflections in his letter to the House Judiciary Committee represent a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the role of social media platforms in shaping public discourse and influencing democratic processes. His admission of regret over certain decisions made during the pandemic and the 2020 election highlights the complex challenges faced by tech companies in navigating the delicate balance between free speech and the need to protect public health and the integrity of elections.

 

As Meta prepares to confront similar challenges in the future, Zuckerberg has signaled that his company will be more resistant to external pressures that may compromise its commitment to neutrality and free expression. “We and Meta would be ready to ‘push back’ if something similar happened in the future,” he wrote, underscoring the importance of maintaining independence in content moderation decisions. For Zuckerberg and Meta, the lessons learned from the pandemic and the 2020 election will likely shape their approach to content moderation and political engagement in the years to come.

 

 

Credit: BBC 2024-08-29

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

As Meta prepares to confront similar challenges in the future, Zuckerberg has signaled that his company will be more resistant to external pressures that may compromise its commitment to neutrality and free expression.

I'm more interested in content being censored now, during the election campaign.

 

I trust that guy as far as I could kick him from where I am.

[thaipo7]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm more interested in content being censored now, during the election campaign.

 

I trust that guy as far as I could kick him from where I am.

I have not trust fort his guy either.  Waits 4 years to come out with this?  Who is he kidding?  If the public had know that Hunter's laptop was real and a survey said that 17% of the voters would not have voted for Biden if the facts were know, where he had the slim margins in the Swing states would have gone to Trump.  The country would not be the crappy place it is today.  

[KhunLA]

The same guy that's still censoring vaccine info going against the MSM.  

 

Still can't post RTnews articles with warnings, even if the are simply reposting, sourcing AP or MSM.

 

He's a joke, and probably lost lots of subscribers with the censoring.  If not for keeping in contact with a few folks in USA, I wouldn't have FB either.

[hotchilli]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has recently expressed regret over his company’s decision to bow to what he described as pressure from the Biden administration to censor content on Facebook and Instagram during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Complete BS

He's covering his ass, he sees a shift to the centre-right or right and is strategically now saying I'm a good guy.

He's just trying to align himself with some prominent figures shifting loyalty and doesn't want to be left behind.

If he had a shred of decency he would have told the Biden office to go take a walk.

He doesn't have the balls like Elon to tell the big guys to go FO

 

[Hummin]

As much total censorship is bad, total free speech is damaging and dangerous for the society. 

 

FB have become together with youtube and X the worst channels for misinformation and fake news. Nobody knows what to believe anymore. 

 

I see less harm in How covid have been handled for many reasons including Vaccines than what these channels do to peoples minds on daily basis 24/7

 

If a society going to succeed, and make most people pull in the same direction for everyones best, there need to be some kind of contralled stream of officially facts and news. As it is now, it is no middle ground anymore to make good solid decissions for everyones best. 

[Hummin]

11 minutes ago, Hummin said:

As much total censorship is bad, total free speech is damaging and dangerous for the society. 

 

FB have become together with youtube and X the worst channels for misinformation and fake news. Nobody knows what to believe anymore. 

 

I see less harm in How covid have been handled for many reasons including Vaccines than what these channels do to peoples minds on daily basis 24/7

 

If a society going to succeed, and make most people pull in the same direction for everyones best, there need to be some kind of contralled stream of officially facts and news. As it is now, it is no middle ground anymore to make good solid decissions for everyones best. 

as we see, free speach is not welcome on An either, as the first of many confused emotions is expected as useall 😄

[maesariang]

18 minutes ago, Hummin said:

As much total censorship is bad, total free speech is damaging and dangerous for the society. 

 

FB have become together with youtube and X the worst channels for misinformation and fake news. Nobody knows what to believe anymore. 

 

I see less harm in How covid have been handled for many reasons including Vaccines than what these channels do to peoples minds on daily basis 24/7

 

If a society going to succeed, and make most people pull in the same direction for everyones best, there need to be some kind of contralled stream of officially facts and news. As it is now, it is no middle ground anymore to make good solid decissions for everyones best. 

Believe whatever you want. That's the point of free speech.

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, maesariang said:

Believe whatever you want. That's the point of free speech.

when everyone beliefes whatever they want, it doesnt benefit the society. People get lost and the nature of the controversy is more damaging than a little bit control of the media and the news and fact stream to ordinary people. 

 

Religion is an good example how easy people is manipulated in to so many true and convinsing beliefs, as well the history of snake oils people is willing to pay for. 

 

Most people need guidance, and those who do not think so, needs it more than anyone else, but they really do not know it themselves. 

[maesariang]

Just now, Hummin said:

when everyone beliefes whatever they want, it doesnt benefit the society. People get lost and the nature of the controversy is more damaging than a little bit control of the media and the news and fact stream to ordinary people. 

 

Religion is an good example how easy people is manipulated in to so many true and convinsing beliefs, as well the history of snake oils people is willing to pay for. 

 

Most people need guidance, and those who do not think so, needs it more than anyone else, but they really do not know it themselves. 

So you want a communist society with no free thought. Sounds great.

[johng]

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

as we see, free speach is not welcome on An either, as the first of many confused emotions is expected as useall 😄

 

I gave you a confused emoji for the whole post but mostly this bit

8 minutes ago, maesariang said:

If a society going to succeed, and make most people pull in the same direction for everyones best, there need to be some kind of contralled stream of officially facts and news

 

"Contralled stream of officially facts" is not  free speech, far from it,  it is what we have now  certain powerful entities decide what the narrative/facts is going to be and do their upmost to maintain that narrative/facts whatever the cost to the "free speech"  of others their opinions,livelihood careers and reputations can go take a flying duck !!!  🤮

[300sd]

Rats leaving a sinking ship!

[johng]

45 minutes ago, Hummin said:

If a society going to succeed, and make most people pull in the same direction for everyones best, there need to be some kind of contralled stream of officially facts and news.

 

There's a bit of a quoting mixup in my above post up 2 (# unknown ) Hummin not maesariang said  apologies.

[Hummin]

19 minutes ago, johng said:

 

I gave you a confused emoji for the whole post but mostly this bit

 

"Contralled stream of officially facts" is not  free speech, far from it,  it is what we have now  certain powerful entities decide what the narrative/facts is going to be and do their upmost to maintain that narrative/facts whatever the cost to the "free speech"  of others their opinions,livelihood careers and reputations can go take a flying duck !!!  🤮

This is the most important message in my post, and need to be seen together with your understanding of my post. 

 

"As much total censorship is bad, total free speech is damaging and dangerous for the society. "

[johng]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

"As much total censorship is bad, total free speech is damaging and dangerous for the society. "

Censorship is many more times damaging to society than free speech  free speech is essential to a "healthy society"

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, johng said:

Censorship is many more times damaging to society than free speech  free speech is essential to a "healthy society"

I agree, but still when fake news and damaging conspiracies is allowed to float around and become truths, and society becomes manic bipolar, what then? 

 

Now Usa struggle with who is the bad guys in Ukraine. Putin or USA and Europe? And it is not only in Ukraine, it is all over the place where people beliefs they will keep their position in the world order just by taking a phone call. 

 

Out is the game of constructive diplomacy and politicians who knows history and how to deal with difficult matters that takes time and trust to accomplish. 

 

Free markeds,  and free speach is a virus or acts like a virus when it can be manipulated and stretched to far to long

Edited August 29 by Hummin

[novacova]

11 hours ago, Social Media said:

In a letter addressed to Jim Jordan, the chair of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg revealed that Meta, formerly known as Facebook, had removed or demoted certain content, including humor and satire, in response to demands from senior officials in 2021.

Where’s AN’s letter to its users?

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, maesariang said:

So you want a communist society with no free thought. Sounds great.

If you think we live in a free society, I have many bridges for sale- going cheap and barely used. Try not paying taxes and see how long you stay free.

 

If we had "free thought" there would be no place for "influencers" on "social media" which is anything but social. IMO more like mind control for the sheeple.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, johng said:

Censorship is many more times damaging to society than free speech  free speech is essential to a "healthy society"

Agree, so it's a pity we don't have free speech.

[bamnutsak]

Trump claims Zuckerberg plotted against him during the 2020 election in soon-to-be released book

 

Former President Donald Trump writes in a new book set to be published next week that Mark Zuckerberg plotted against him during the 2020 election and said the Meta chief executive would “spend the rest of his life in prison” if he did it again.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/trump-zuckerberg-election-book-00176639

 

No pressure there.

 

 

Justices side with Biden over government’s influence on social media content moderation

 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of 6-3, the court ruled that that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right, known as standing, to bring their lawsuit.

 

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/

 

 

Zuckerberg’s Letter to Jordan: Headline Grabbing, Legally Insignificant

 

While some Republicans lawmakers are making political hay out of Zuckerberg’s letter, did he say anything that might have moved the legal needle in favor of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment case against the government over such jawboning pressure in Murthy v. Missouri? The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman suggested the answer might be yes, opining that Zuckerberg now could be just the right person to “mount a new court challenge against the Biden-Harris administration.”

 

https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/zuckerbergs-letter-to-jordan-headline-grabbing-legally-insignificant/

 

 

Zuckerberg's letter: https://wsvn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/Zuckerberg-letter-3.pdf