Zuckerberg Admits Collusion with Government: Start Prosecuting All Involved
Facebook
founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted in a letter dated August 26,
2024, to Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan (R), Chairman of the Oversight and
Accountability Committee, that the
social media platform does engage in censorship. In fact, he admits that the
Biden-Harris Administration pressured Facebook to censor facts such as the Covid-19
Vaccinations, Hunter Biden laptop and what the Biden administration did not
want Americans to know so they could keep control of the narrative. This
admission raises important questions about the role of Facebook in shaping
public discourse and the limits of free speech on the internet. In his letter,
Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook does remove content that violates its “Community
Standards,” and that these standards are enforced by content moderators. This
revelation is significant because it contradicts Facebook's longstanding
assertion in sworn testimony in Congressional hearings, that it is a neutral
platform that does not engage in censorship.
The issue of
censorship on Facebook is a contentious one. On one hand, the company has a
responsibility to ensure that its platform is a safe and welcoming space for
all users. However, the challenge lies in determining where to draw the line
between protecting users from harmful content and allowing for open dialogue
and debate. Zuckerberg's letter to Congressman Jordan indicates that Facebook
is actively involved in making these decisions, and that the company does
censor content that it deems to be in violation of its Community Standards. In
other words, Facebook unilaterally decides on what is free speech.
One of the
key concerns raised by Zuckerberg's admission is the lack of transparency in
Facebook's censorship practices. While the company has publicly stated that it
does not engage in censorship, Zuckerberg's letter to Congressman Jordan
suggests otherwise. This raises questions about the extent to which Facebook's
users can trust the company to uphold the principles of free speech and open
dialogue. If Facebook is indeed engaging in censorship, users have a right to
know what content is being removed and why. While Facebook does have an appeal
process, oftentimes they will not actually cite the actual reason for removing
a post or suspending an account other than to say it violates their “community
standards.”
Another
important aspect of this issue is the role of political bias in Facebook's
censorship practices. Critics have long accused the company of silencing
conservative voices and promoting liberal viewpoints. Zuckerberg's admission
that Facebook engages in censorship only adds fuel to these concerns. If the
company is indeed censoring content based on political beliefs, it raises
serious questions about the impact of Facebook on the democratic process and
the free exchange of ideas.
The broader
implications of Zuckerberg's admission go beyond just Facebook. As one of the
largest social media platforms in the world, Facebook plays a significant role
in shaping public discourse and influencing public opinion. If the company is
censoring content based on its own standards, rather than a commitment to free
speech, it raises important questions about the power and responsibility of
tech companies in the digital age. How can we ensure that platforms like
Facebook do not abuse their power to control the flow of information and shape
public opinion?
Constitutionally
speaking, elected officials know very well that they themselves are unable to
perform the task of censoring speech and therefore, use third party proxies, in
this case Facebook, to do their bidding.
One of the
primary ways that social media platforms have been used for election
interference is through the spread of fake news and disinformation. Fake news
stories and misleading information can easily go viral on social media,
reaching millions of users within minutes. This can lead to the spread of false
information that can sway public opinion, influence voter behavior, and ultimately
impact the outcome of an election. However, there is a growing concern
that conservative voices are being buried or silenced on these platforms. This
censorship of conservative viewpoints has sparked a heated debate about freedom
of speech and the role of social media in shaping public discourse.
It has long
been known that conservative voices are being buried on social media, including
Facebook, through algorithmic manipulation. These platforms use algorithms to
determine what content users see in their feeds, based on factors such as engagement
and relevance. However, there is evidence to suggest that these algorithms may
be biased against conservative viewpoints, leading to their suppression in
users' feeds.
Another way
in which conservative voices are being buried on social media is through
de-platforming. De-platforming occurs when social media companies ban or
suspend accounts that violate their “terms of service.” While this practice is
intended to keep users safe, it disproportionately targets conservative voices.
This has led to accusations of censorship and bias on the part of social media
companies.
Furthermore,
there is the use of "shadow banning" on social media platforms, where
conservative voices are effectively silenced without their knowledge. Shadow
banning involves hiding a user's content from others without notifying the user
themselves. This censorship practice has a detrimental effect on conservative
speech, as users may be unaware that their content is being suppressed.
There is
also evidence to suggest that social media companies are very biased in their
content moderation practices. Conservative users have reported being censored
or flagged for expressing their opinions, while liberal users are given more
leeway. This bias has further fueled the belief that conservative voices are
being marginalized on social media.
Moreover,
the suppression of conservative voices on social media has broader implications
for democracy and free speech. In a healthy democracy, diverse viewpoints
should be encouraged and debated openly. However, the censorship of
conservative voices on social media threatens to stifle this debate and limit
the range of ideas and opinions that are heard.
Former President
Donald Trump was completely de-platformed prior to Twitter (now X) being
purchased by Elon Musk. In fact, Trump created a separate social media company
called Truth Social to be able to freely express his views along with other
conservative and non-conservative voices. Truth Social became very popular, and
millions of Americans could now hear his message again. Musk did eventually
reinstate Trump’s X account and only recently has Trump began tweeting again on
the platform. Facebook had taken the same approach of de-platforming Trump as
well but after a few years finally reinstated his account on that platform.
Mark Zuckerberg
and the heads of all social media platforms that are in the business of
censoring free speech MUST be investigated and prosecuted for collusion with
the government. It has to happen. There needs to be accountability and justice.
We can no longer afford government un-elected or elected officials to dictate
what Americans should or should not know. It’s Constitutionally wrong and there
must be severe consequences for those that engage in this obvious and blatant
disregard of the First Amendment.
Comments
Post a Comment