Meta Doesn’t Understand Free Speech

Despite loosening some restrictions, Meta still tightly controls what users can say—banning everything from certain political discussions to sarcastic jokes and even dark humor aimed at public figures.

Strict policies against “dehumanizing language” and “allegations of serious immorality” blur the line between protecting users and silencing important conversations.

Today, we analyze the cracks in Meta’s policies – and there are a lot.

Become a supporter here.

Get the full breakdown here.

Biden Slams Meta’s Move to Drop Controversial “Fact-Checkers”

Watch the video here.

Biden’s statements came on the same day Biden criticized Meta when Zuckerberg appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, revealing that the Biden administration had actively pressured Meta to censor content related to COVID-19. Zuckerberg disclosed that officials repeatedly contacted Meta, demanding the removal of memes and truthful posts critical of COVID-19 vaccines. He recounted how the White House would “call up our team and scream at them and curse” over content they deemed unacceptable.

Zuckerberg pointed to a specific incident where the administration pushed for the deletion of a meme featuring Leonardo DiCaprio pointing at a TV with a caption suggesting future legal actions over the COVID-19 vaccine.

Zuckerberg resisted, stating, “No we’re not we’re not going to take down humor,” emphasizing that his team would not remove content that was humorous and not factually false. Despite Meta’s history of censoring similar content, Zuckerberg insisted, “Basically, it just got to this point where we were like no, we’re not going to take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.”

Zuckerberg also said that the Biden administration pressured for the censorship of truthful information.

“Basically, it just got to this point where we were like no, we’re not going to take down things that are true,” Zuckerberg said. “That’s ridiculous.”

Zuckerberg’s decision to dismantle the platform’s fact-checking system announced just before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, has drawn polarized reactions. While Democrats decry the change, Republicans, including Trump, have long accused Meta of silencing conservative voices.

Zuckerberg openly admitted that scaling back content moderation might allow more harmful content to circulate, but he also recognized the need to move away from biased oversight.

Biden criticized the autonomy of private tech leaders, stating, “The idea that, you know, a billionaire can buy something and say, ‘By the way, from this point on, we’re not going to fact-check anything.’ And you know, when you have millions of people reading, going online, reading this stuff … I think it’s really shameful.”

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.

Thank you.

Newsom Defends Wildfire Response, Tells Biden Online “Misinformation” Needs to be Combatted

Watch the video here.

Conducted in a hybrid format, the meeting saw Biden and Harris in the Oval Office while Newsom, Bass, and FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell joined via video call. Newsom described the unprecedented destruction fueled by what he called “hurricane-force winds, the likes of which we’ve never imagined in our lifetime.” He then pivoted to warn about the spread of misinformation related to the disaster.

“We’ve got to deal with this misinformation. There were hurricane-force winds of mis- and disinformation — lies,” Newsom stated. “People want to divide this country, and we’re gonna have to address that as well. And it breaks my heart, as people are suffering and struggling that we’re up against those hurricane force forces as well.”

Expressing frustration, Newsom added, “And that’s just a point of personal privilege that I share that with you because it infects real people that are out there. People I meet every single day, people the mayor has been meeting with, and they’re having conversations that are not the typical conversations you’d have at this time be in. And you wonder where this stuff comes from, and it’s very damaging as well, but we’re here to get the job done; to be here for folks to focus.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing a barrage of criticism from various quarters, highlighting several contentious issues, particularly related to a lack of preparation for combatting wildfires under his governance.

Newsom’s timing is ironic as Biden has been criticized heavily today for his previous attempts to police “misinformation” online.

On the same day Newsom appealed to Biden about online “misinformation,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg disclosed on The Joe Rogan Experience that the Biden administration pressured his company to censor COVID-19-related content, including truthful criticism of the vaccines.

Zuckerberg revealed that officials would “call up our team and scream at them and curse” over certain posts. A notable incident involved demands to remove a meme.

Zuckerberg emphasized, “Basically, it just got to this point where we were like no, we’re not going to take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.”

This revelation, although not new, highlights a troubling pattern of government pressure on tech companies to suppress speech, raising serious concerns about censorship and the erosion of free expression. As wildfires continue to devastate communities, efforts to control narratives under the guise of combating misinformation risk silencing legitimate discourse. The public’s right to transparent and open communication remains more critical than ever in times of national emergencies.

Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship

More: Yes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater

“COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said.

This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms.

Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.”

However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.”

The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial.

Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech.

Mark Zuckerberg Calls Biden Administration’s Pressure to Censor COVID-19 Content “Illegal”

Zuckerberg reflected on the role that platforms like Facebook played in moderating COVID-19 information, acknowledging that his company often deferred to government guidance when it came to implementing censorship policies. However, he expressed regret over how this deference contributed to suppressing truthful content.

“I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal,” Zuckerberg stated. He elaborated, emphasizing the distinction between private companies’ content moderation policies and government-imposed censorship. “The First Amendment doesn’t apply to companies in our content moderation. It’s more of an American ethos about how we think that best dialogue is carried out. But the First Amendment does apply to the government. That’s the whole point, is the government is not allowed to censor this stuff.”

Zuckerberg detailed instances where members of the Biden administration pressured Meta employees with aggressive tactics. “Having people in the administration calling up the guys on our team and yelling at them and cursing and threatening repercussions if we don’t take down things that are true is like—it’s pretty bad,” he said.

Joe Rogan responded, “It sounds illegal,” to which Zuckerberg agreed, stating, “I think that they had a kind of goal that they thought was in the interests of the country, and the way they went about it, I think violated the law.”

However, despite Zuckerberg’s acknowledgment of government pressure, Meta notably did not participate in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which later evolved into Murthy v. Missouri. This lawsuit challenged the Biden administration’s coercion of social media companies to suppress certain viewpoints. Testimony from Meta about the administration’s pressure could have significantly strengthened the case, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs, the censored victims, lacked standing. If Meta, as the direct recipient of censorship demands from the Biden administration, had become a plaintiff, the case could have been bolstered.

Not only did Meta not go to court to challenge these censorship demands, but it was revealed that Meta even developed a special portal for the White House to flag content for removal. This direct channel facilitated the suppression of lawful speech.

Even after recognizing the legal and ethical issues, Meta continued to censor truthful information.

Additionally, Meta has faced ongoing criticism for its decision to ban former President Donald Trump from its platforms and for censoring the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop prior to the 2020 election.

Reclaim The Net