Yesterday, Facebook founder and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged in a letter to Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan that the social media platform was subjected to government censorship regarding stories related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election. Zuckerberg committed to resisting such pressures more vigorously in the future.
He also stated that he would not make another “Zuckerbucks” donation, like the $419 million he previously contributed to boost voting in key Democratic districts—a move that critics described as effectively bribing election officials and workers.
This Biden-Harris Censorship Industrial Complex influenced policy changes across major platforms like Amazon, YouTube, Google, and Facebook, primarily targeting the political right. The Republican-led House has been holding hearings all summer to document what has been described as the most extensive violation of the First Amendment in U.S. history. Facebook alone removed over 20 million pieces of content in less than a year.
In his letter, Zuckerberg made five key admissions:
- The Biden-Harris administration “pressured” Facebook to censor Americans, in what other court filings have called coercive demands.
- Facebook complied by censoring Americans.
- Facebook suppressed information related to COVID-19.
- Facebook also suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story based on the false assertion by the intelligence community that it was “Russian disinformation.”
- Zuckerberg expressed regret for censoring Americans at the government’s behest and vowed to resist such demands more strongly in the future.
Zuckerberg also confirmed he would not make another significant donation to left-leaning election officials to support their election efforts in the upcoming cycle.
These admissions are crucial as the federal courts continue to hear the Missouri v. Biden case, where Louisiana and Missouri are challenging the Biden-Harris administration’s First Amendment violations on behalf of their citizens.
In a June 26th decision, the Supreme Court, in a controversial opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, allowed the government to continue suppressing free speech on elections and political topics while the Missouri v. Biden case proceeds through the lower courts. The 6-3 ruling, which also included Justice Kavanaugh, was seen as a significant setback for free speech, particularly in contrast to the courts’ readiness to protect other forms of expression, such as pornography and flag burning.
It later emerged that one of Justice Coney Barrett’s clerks working on the case had close connections to key figures within the censorship apparatus at Yale.
Gateway Pundit Founder and Publisher Jim Hoft is the lead plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case, which free speech advocates describe as the most significant First Amendment case in a generation.
The case is so Orwellian that discovery revealed the government considers the thoughts of its citizens as “critical infrastructure,” justifying almost any measure to combat “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
Zuckerberg’s admissions come after years of conservative claims that such censorship was happening, including in 2018 when James O’Keefe and Project Veritas exposed social media companies “shadow banning” and “throttling” content. When Elon Musk purchased Twitter, he released internal documents known as “The Twitter Files,” which similarly showed a pattern of ongoing speech suppression and close ties between social media companies and the U.S. intelligence community. However, the 19-part series of revelations was abruptly halted when Musk, whose businesses rely heavily on government spending and subsidies, restricted access to the designated journalists and considered the matter closed.
The recent arrest of Pavel Durov in France, the founder of Telegram, also signals a broader effort by the deep state, possibly led by NATO countries, to suppress free speech globally, with Biden’s actions being part of this larger campaign to silence dissent worldwide.
Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media, which has been a major spreader of disinformation, has misrepresented the Zuckerberg letter:
- PBS falsely claimed that the Biden Censorship Complex only operated during the pandemic and implied it was solely related to COVID-19, ignoring that the suppression of stories like Hunter Biden’s laptop and voter fraud had nothing to do with the pandemic.
- Reuters downplayed the Biden administration’s actions as mere “pressure,” failing to acknowledge that the government, through entities like the FBI and the White House, was actively demanding the suppression of specific content.
- Politico trivialized the issue, framing it as mere “grievances” and suggesting Zuckerberg’s admissions were just about him regretting not being more “outspoken,” ignoring the fact that this was a systematic suppression of First Amendment rights by the federal government.
