Facebook CEO Admits White House “Repeatedly Pressured” Company to Censor COVID-19 Posts
- by Amber Baker
- Published
- Opinion
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook and parent company Meta, admitted in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan last month that the Biden administration “repeatedly pressured” his company to censor and remove many COVID-19-related posts in 2021. The letter, dated Aug. 26, 2024, confirmed that the White House repeatedly pressured Meta, a dominant force in the social media landscape that owns major social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Threads and WhatsApp, to censor certain COVID content, even humor and satire. In August 2021, Facebook said it had removed more than 20 million Facebook and Instagram posts related to COVID for violating its content rules—the same year that the White House publicly criticized social media platforms for allowing coronavirus misinformation to spread.1 2
In the letter, Zuckerberg neither confirms nor denies whether he succumbed to government interference to stifle free speech during the pandemic, reiterating that he and his company own any decisions made in the “wake of [government] pressure”—but does concede that Meta should not compromise its content standards due to pressure from any government administration. He also expressed regret that
Meta was not more vocal about the federal government’s attempts to influence its content moderation decisions at the time, implying that the company should have taken a firmer stance against the government’s pressure.1The letter goes on to explain an instance where Meta “demoted” a New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving then Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s family. Typically, a post demoted by Facebook does not remove the content from its platform but ensures decreased visibility in users’ news feeds and is less likely to be seen by a broader audience. “It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” Zuckerberg said. “We’ve changed our policies and processes to make sure this doesn’t happen again—for instance, we no longer temporarily demote things in the U.S. while waiting for fact-checkers.”1
Thin Line Between Government Censorship and Free Speech
The revelations in Zuckerberg’s letter highlight the delicate balance between government authority and private sector autonomy. Throughout the COVID pandemic, the Biden administration justified its censorship and undermining of the First Amendment of the Constitution by maintaining that such interventions were necessary to protect public safety. However, when a government pressures private companies to censor or promote specific content, it raises concerns about potential manipulation of public opinion, which could extend beyond public health topics to other sensitive areas, including political discourse and elections.
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously held that the federal government cannot compel a private entity to suppress speech based on the government’s preferences. While the government can legally interact with and even request cooperation from private companies, it becomes potentially illegal when government influence coerces a company into actions that would otherwise violate constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech.3
Pandemic Misinformation: The Government and Social Media Fact-Checkers Got It Wrong
Social media platforms faced intense scrutiny over their content moderation practices during the pandemic. While their stated goal was to “fight misinformation”—which President Biden claimed was “killing people”—it eventually became clear that they made significant missteps, including classifying accurate information as false.4
For example, the lab-leak theory, which suggested that COVID could have originated from a biolab in Wuhan, China, was labeled as “misinformation” by platforms like Facebook. At the time, it was widely dismissed by experts and branded a conspiracy theory. In response, social media companies took action to limit its spread by removing or demoting content related to this theory.
Later, after leading scientists and members of Congress called for a deeper investigation into the lab leak theory, and a top-ranking CIA whistleblower admitted to receiving hefty financial incentives for burying evidence that proved this theory, Facebook lifted its ban on posts discussing this possibility back in May 2021. In March 2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stated that the novel virus was “likely the result of a lab accident” at a Wuhan biohazard lab. The FBI was one of the first U.S. intelligence agencies to acknowledge the credibility of this theory.5
Government Push to Silence Vaccine Skepticism Backfired
Social media platforms also notably censored content that questioned the efficacy or safety of vaccines, particularly the first-of-its-kind mRNA COVID biologics, effectively suppressing legitimate debate and concerns around the experimental shots. This came to light in Zuckerberg’s letter, issued just six months after emails released by the House Judiciary Committee revealed that White House officials also pressured Amazon to censor and limit access to books on its platform that questioned vaccine safety or efficacy. This modern-day book-burning campaign during the pandemic was spearheaded by Andrew Slavitt, President Biden’s Senior Advisor for COVID-19 Response. Amazon did implement a “do not promote” policy for what they described as “anti-vax books whose primary purpose is to persuade readers vaccines are unsafe or ineffective” in support of this initiative.6
Moreover, these platforms frequently removed content or accounts without warning or due process that posted information contradictory to the prevailing public health guidance, despite the fact that such guidance was evolving daily. In response to backlash and increasing demands for transparency in content moderation, platforms like Facebook have begun to revise their approaches. They acknowledge that not all vaccine-related content questioning or criticizing vaccine safety and effectiveness that is flagged for “misinformation” is necessarily false, allowing for more nuanced public discussions about the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products that carry risks which can be greater for some people.7
Zuckerberg Vows to Resist Future Government Pressure on Content Standards
Zuckerberg stated he is ready to “push back” if the government pressures his platforms to censor content again, which is a possibility given the fact that the White House has doubled down on its stance during the pandemic that prohibits criticism of vaccine safety or effectiveness. In a statement, the White House reiterated, “Our position has been clear and consistent: we believe tech companies and other private actors should consider the impact of their actions on the American people while making independent choices about the information they present.” Meanwhile, the Judiciary Committee praised Zuckerberg’s letter as a “big win for free speech” and noted that he had confirmed what many already suspected: “Facebook censored Americans.”8
“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,” Zuckerberg says in the letter. “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—and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”1
With potential threats like bird flu or monkeypox on the horizon, it’s crucial that Americans remain vigilant in safeguarding their constitutional rights, ensuring that the copious mistakes made by government officials and public health experts during the COVID pandemic are not repeated and that the free exchange of ideas and discourse is preserved in any future public health challenges.9
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view References:
No comments:
Post a Comment