Zuckerberg is suddenly very, very sorry about censoring opposing views but only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence

Zuckerberg’s admission is a ‘huge step forward’ in fight against censorship: Michael Shellenberger

Michael Shellenberger reacts to Mark Zuckerberg’s admission that the Biden White House pressured Facebook to censor posts on COVID-19.

“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.” Those 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 various subjects.

For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg’s belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all 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 documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan 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 Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss Facebook’s record at length as a critical player in the anti-free speech 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 attacked by anti-free speech 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 withhold evidence that they too were pressured to suppress the story before the election.

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

But Facebook was not silent when it came to censorship, 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 censorship.

In 2021, I wrote about the Facebook commercial campaign in which the company attempted to rally young people to embrace censorship. The commercials show people like “Joshan” who says that he “grew up with the internet.” Joshan mocks how much computers have changed and then objects to how privacy and censorship have 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-brave new world.

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

For years, young people have been taught that free speech is harmful and triggering. We are raising a generation of speech-phobics 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 who 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 and Democrats in Congress pushed Zuckerberg to expand the scope of censorship to include areas like climate change denial.

Jen Easterly, who 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 speech president since John Adams. His administration helped create a censorship system that was described by one federal judge as “Orwellian.” Vice President Kamala Harris has been entirely supportive of that effort.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was one of the principal campaign issues. It should be so again. Harris should have to take ownership of the censorship 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 censorship business. Harris should be asked if she would oppose such a law and dismantle the current censorship apparatus in the federal government.

Democracy is not on the ballot in 2024, as many have claimed, but free speech is.