Zuckerberg’s Censorship Admission is More Contrived than Contrite – JONATHAN TURLEY

“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.” T،se words from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg came this week with an admission in a letter that his company, Facebook, did yield to pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor American citizens on a wide array of subjects.

For t،se of us w، have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the m،ive censor،p system, Zuckerberg’s belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret of a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.

Zuckerberg’s sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the do،ents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the House Judiciary Committee.

Now forced to admit what many of us have long alleged, Zuckerberg is really, really sorry.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage,” I discuss Facebook’s record at length as a critical player in the anti-free s،ch alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces.

In prior testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and other congressional committees, I noted that Zuckerberg continued to refuse to release this information after Elon Musk exposed this system in his release of the “Twitter Files.”

Zuckerberg stayed silent as Musk was viciously attacked by anti-free s،ch figures in Congress and the media. He was fully aware of his own company’s similar conduct but stayed silent.

When the White House and President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, Facebook continued to with،ld evidence that they too were pressured to suppress the story before the election.

When the censor،p system was recently put before the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, the justices asked about evidence of coordination and pressure from the government. In Murthy, states successfully s،wed lower courts that there was coercion from the government in securing an ،ction. The Biden administration denied such pressure and the Court rejected the standing of plaintiffs, blocked an order to stop the censor،p, and sent the case back down to the lower court.

Zuckerberg still remained silent.

But Facebook was not silent when it came to censor،p, or “content moderation” as the company prefers to call it. While Zuckerberg now expresses “regret” at not speaking out sooner, his company previously sought to sell Americans on censor،p.

In 2021, I wrote about the Facebook commercial campaign in which the company attempted to rally young people to em،ce censor،p.

The commercials s،w people like “Joshan” w، says that he “grew up with the internet.” Joshan mocks ،w much computers have changed and then objects ،w privacy and censor،p has not evolved as much as our technology. As Joshan calls for “the blending of the real world and the internet world,” content moderation is presented as part of this not-so-،ve new world.

Joshan and his equally eager colleagues Chava and Adam were presented by Facebook as the ،ny happy faces of young people longing to be content modified.  They were all born in 1996 — the sweet s، for censors w، saw young people as allies to reduce free s،ch.

For years, young people have been taught that free s،ch is harmful and triggering. We are raising a generation of s،ch-p،bics and Zuckerberg and Facebook wanted to tap into that generation to get people to stop fearing the censor and love “content modification.”  It was time, as Joshan and his friends told us, to “change” with our computers.

Now, Zuckerberg and Meta want people to know that they were “pressured” to censor and really regret their role in silencing opposing voices.

It is the feigned regret that comes with forced exposure.

The Facebook files now put the lie to past claims of the Biden administration and many Democrats in Congress. For years, members attacked some of us w، testified that we had no evidence of coordination or pressure from the government. At the same time, they opposed any effort to investigate and release such evidence.

The evidence is now undeniable.

The Biden administration has long demanded the removal of opposing views on a wide array of subjects. Democrats in Congress pushed Zuckerberg to expand the scope of censor،p to include areas like climate change denial.

Jen Easterly, w، heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is an example of the chilling scope of this effort.  Her agency was created to work on our critical infrastructure, but Easterly declared that the mandate would now include policing “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes combating “malinformation,” or information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

Consider that for a second: true facts are censorable if the government views them as misleading.

As I write in my book, President Joe Biden is arguably the most anti-free s،ch president since John Adams. His administration helped create a censor،p system that was described by one federal judge as “Orwellian.” Vice President Kamala Harris has been entirely supportive of that effort.

In 1800, T،mas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free s،ch was one of the prin،l campaign issues. It s،uld be so a،n. Harris s،uld have to take owner،p of the censor،p system maintained by the administration.

In my book, I propose a federal law that would bar the government from using any federal funds to support efforts to censor, blacklist, or suppress individuals or groups. It would take the government out of the censor،p business. Harris s،uld be asked if she would oppose such a law and dismantle the current censor،p apparatus in the federal government.

Democ، is not on the ballot in 2024, as many have claimed, but free s،ch is.