Mid-Week Commentary: Zuckerberg Admits The Regime’s Damning Actions on Facebook, And They Could Help Sink Comrade Kamala

Credit where credit is due: Mark Zuckerberg is acknowledging the truth of the role his social media giant played in censoring reasonable information and viewpoints regarding COVID-19, as well as the role the Obiden Regime played in pressuring Meta to censor that information.

This from westernjournal.com.

Granted, this comes three years after the censorship occurred and effectively silenced discussion on the world’s largest social media platform, and neither Zuckerberg nor Meta will likely face any sort of repercussions for this admission, however, the fallout could be immense.

The disclosure came in a Monday letter to House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio as part of an inquiry into the content moderation on social media platforms in the run-up to and the aftermath of the 2020 elections.

Zuckerberg wrote:

There’s a lot of talk right now around how the U.S. government interacts with companies like Meta, and I want to be clear about our position.

Our platforms are for everyone—we’re about promoting speech and helping people connect in a safe and secure way. As part of this, we regularly hear from governments around the world and others with various concerns around public discourse and public safety.

This was an “appropriately mealy-mouthed lead-in” to the conspicuous fact at play here:

Namely, the most powerful elected government in the world had shared some very specific concerns around public discourse and public safety with Meta.

Zuckerberg wrote:

In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, 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.

Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not 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.

I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.

I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today.

Separately, Zuckerberg also admitted Meta oughtn’t have censored information regarding Hunter Biden’s toxic laptop, saying in the letter that he had done so because the FBI had warned them:

[A]bout a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg wrote:

That fall, when we saw a New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s family, we sent that story to fact-checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply.

It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story.  [Meta’s platforms] no longer temporarily demotes things in the U.S. while waiting for fact-checkers.

No doubt, to say, ‘This censorship change the world,’ is an understatement.

Pew Research reported in 2024 that 68 percent of Americans used Facebook and 47 percent used Instagram, Meta’s two biggest platforms in the United States.

For one-to-many digital communications, the platforms have long overtaken email and other digital social networks as an outlet for speech.

Zuckerberg is, in effect, admitting that, yes, the U.S. government told his company what Americans could say, full stop.

And let’s not dance around with the fact that these were suggestions and pressure campaigns as opposed to edicts; one need only look at the war authorities are beginning to wage against Elon Musk for not bowing to this “voluntary” pressure to guess what would have happened to Zuckerberg had Meta not followed through on what the federal government wanted.

The upside to Zuckerberg’s admission at this point in time:

[W]hile this sort of thing kept the Biden campaign and administration’s factual prestidigitations alive for longer than they should have been, this may end up sinking [Comrade] Kamala’s campaign, at least in its attempts to control the narrative.

After all, unsavory or unpopular information is going to be a lot harder to suppress via nudging pressure if Zuckerberg and Musk are completely upfront about it.

If anything, the attempted cover up will have the Streisand effect: The attempts of censorship will increase public awareness of and desire for more information. And in the end, the government will be forced to release the truth to suppress the rumors that will have become monsters.