Skip to content

Facebook felt ‘pressure’ from ‘outraged’ Biden White House to remove posts

Label someone a member of the “Disinformation Dozen”: There is nasty propaganda work, trying to discredit political opponents in times of crisis.

Worse, it wasn’t happening out in the open, on real social media, but behind the curtains of government/Big Tech collusion.

And now, with the new US election coming up, it’s probably wise, if your party/political affiliation was on the “wrong” end of the stick last time, to try to fight this repeat “d “time and often”.

The term “misinformation dozen” refers to a theory (conspiracy, for all intents and purposes) that there were only 12 people in the world (… right?) who were behind the criticism of the Covid vaccine in 2021.

And what a difference, strictly speaking scientifically, two years ago…

But now it’s time to face the “political piper”, so to speak. Documents have surfaced showing that Facebook at the time was playing along with the “Disinformation Dozen” game related not only to original posts, but also to memes, and that it undoubtedly took pains to change its entire policy to accommodate se to the narrative presented under pressure. from Biden’s surgeon general.

But as always, in the end, what does a Big Tech giant do? It appeases the “permanent center of power” supported or not by any current White House.

And so now we’re learning that Meta wasn’t excited about it, but instead “felt” he had to go along and accept government pressure.

Forget Twitter files (actually, never do), but how about pop-up “Facebook files”?

The documents were first released as a result of House Republican efforts to obtain proof of their suspected fears of collusion claims of direct collaboration between the White House and an apparently reluctant Facebook (both Mark Zuckerberg as Sheryl Sandberg was told that, “We face ongoing pressure from outside stakeholders, including the (Biden) White House to remove posts.”


Then there is Nick Clegg, Facebook’s President of Global Affairs. His contribution to the open internet and true democracy was apparently to say in one of the now-released 2021 documents that the White House was “outraged” that (Facebook) did not remove a particular post.

Andy Slavitt was President Biden’s senior White House adviser on the Covid response.
Slavitt ignored the First Amendment.

Nick Clegg raised questions in July 2021 about the company’s removal of posts that claimed the coronavirus was man-made, rather than simply downgrading or labeling them. A later response from a senior Facebook official in charge of content policy revealed that the company was under significant pressure from the Biden administration to take action. That decision was later regretted, with the executive admitting that the company was “under pressure from the administration and others to do more,” and that they “shouldn’t have done it.” The WSJ reported.

The documents show that while the social media giant was willing to resist some of the administration’s demands, it also acknowledged a “significant gap” between what the White House wanted to remove and what Facebook was comfortable with erasing One example cited was the Biden administration’s apparent desire to suppress humor or satire that suggested vaccines were unsafe.

The Biden White House even wanted to censor a meme.

“The WH has previously indicated that it believes humor should be removed if it is based on the vaccine having side effects, so hopefully it would similarly want to remove humor about hesitation.” Clegg wrote.

“I can’t see Mark [Zuckerberg] not in a million years would I feel comfortable removing it, and I wouldn’t recommend it,” Clegg wrote in an email.

Facebook remained wary of the possible backlash of restricting such speech. One executive noted that the suppression of vaccine vaccines could deepen mistrust and further alienate users from large institutions. The removal of posts could also fuel conspiracy theories about vaccine safety cover-ups.

In another email, Brian Rice, Meta’s vice president of public policy, expressed concern that Slavitt’s challenge felt “very much like a crossroads for us with the [Biden] White House in these early days.”

But Meta decided he wanted to salvage his relationship with the White House. “Given what’s at stake here, it would also be a good idea if we could regroup and take stock of where we stand in our relations with the [White House]and our internal methods too.”

It doesn’t matter at all what the post was. But no one can play smart and stupid at the same time.

Is the current administration staying within its First Amendment powers, or not?

This is the only “big picture” question that will be asked and we hope to answer soon.

The rest is fluff.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *