Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan that the Biden-Harris admin pressured Facebook to censor Americans.
There’s nothing in the article but Meta PR! It’s not factual reporting, and Fox has done nothing to corroborate the claims and provide actual analysis.
Zuckerberg is vague about what he was asked to “censor” (humour and satire?) but also makes clear that Facebook rebuffed officials and all that happened was that those officials expressed frustration. What’s the actual allegation here? Zuck got hurt feelings?
Zuck refers to Facebook’s mission as “helping people connect in a safe and secure way” to try and downplay the Cambridge Analytics scandal the fact that they’re are an ad platform first and foremost. This is Meta prop.
There are some differences here for sure, but I’m not sure if they would warrant claiming that one is dramatically better than the other.
CNN: The article claims that Mark stated that he bowed to government pressure to censor COVID-19 misinformation and comedic content like memes, refers to Biden publicly decrying such content in 2021, and then points out that he walked back those comments later, although the surgeon general continued to condemn COVID-19 misinformation. It also mentions that Zuckerberg was asked by the FBI about the possibility that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation. It insinuates that this is why FaceBook censored the story when it was published by the New York Post. It notes that Zuckerberg recognizes now that the story is true, and wishes that he didn’t censor the story at the time. While his goal regarding the COVID-19 misinformation censorship was to help local governments make sure people were getting accurate information, he states that he won’t cooperate with such requests in the future. It wraps up pointing out that Republicans has celebrated this admission, as these actions are something they have criticized Zuckerberg for for years, and he testified on Capitol Hill in part to allay the fears of such lawmakers.
Fox Business: The article claims that Mark stated that he bowed to government pressure to censor COVID-19 misinformation and comedic content like memes, and mentions that he has been cooperative with previous congressional requests for documents and employee interviews related to such requests. It states that at the time, they did not want to censor the content, but ultimately decided to do so after hearing vocal frustration from the Biden administration regarding it. He regrets the decision to censor past content at the behest of the US government, and is pledging not to do so moving forward. It also mentions that a White House spokesperson heavily insinuated to Fox News that they encouraged FaceBook to censor certain types of content, based on how such content would affect the populace. It mentions that FaceBook was subpoenaed regarding such censorship, as well as that Mark also admitted to censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story after being told by the FBI that it could be Russian disinformation, keeping the story censored while it fact-checked the story for themselves. He now admits that the story was true, and regrets censoring the story at the time, pledging to no longer censor stories in this manner moving forward.
They’re different, but I don’t see that one is less preferable than the other. The Fox News headline includes Harris’ name, while CNN omits it and is more specific about why the admin was trying to censor Americans. I don’t know that granularity at this scale is anything to split hairs over, honestly.
I mean…nothing in the article is false, right?
There’s nothing in the article but Meta PR! It’s not factual reporting, and Fox has done nothing to corroborate the claims and provide actual analysis.
Zuckerberg is vague about what he was asked to “censor” (humour and satire?) but also makes clear that Facebook rebuffed officials and all that happened was that those officials expressed frustration. What’s the actual allegation here? Zuck got hurt feelings?
Zuck refers to Facebook’s mission as “helping people connect in a safe and secure way” to try and downplay the Cambridge Analytics scandal the fact that they’re are an ad platform first and foremost. This is Meta prop.
If I said foxbusiness was an outpost of global propaganda founded by an alien it wouldn’t be false. Just peculiarly worded to imply something else.
If I posted a link to an article saying the same thing, but from a different news organization, would you believe it?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/27/business/mark-zuckerberg-meta-biden-censor-covid-2021/index.html
Bad news organizations tell the truth sometimes, and good ones lie sometimes.
Can you identify the differences between the two? or just do the URL, then the headline. Why is one better, or more preferable, than the other?
There are some differences here for sure, but I’m not sure if they would warrant claiming that one is dramatically better than the other.
CNN: The article claims that Mark stated that he bowed to government pressure to censor COVID-19 misinformation and comedic content like memes, refers to Biden publicly decrying such content in 2021, and then points out that he walked back those comments later, although the surgeon general continued to condemn COVID-19 misinformation. It also mentions that Zuckerberg was asked by the FBI about the possibility that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation. It insinuates that this is why FaceBook censored the story when it was published by the New York Post. It notes that Zuckerberg recognizes now that the story is true, and wishes that he didn’t censor the story at the time. While his goal regarding the COVID-19 misinformation censorship was to help local governments make sure people were getting accurate information, he states that he won’t cooperate with such requests in the future. It wraps up pointing out that Republicans has celebrated this admission, as these actions are something they have criticized Zuckerberg for for years, and he testified on Capitol Hill in part to allay the fears of such lawmakers.
Fox Business: The article claims that Mark stated that he bowed to government pressure to censor COVID-19 misinformation and comedic content like memes, and mentions that he has been cooperative with previous congressional requests for documents and employee interviews related to such requests. It states that at the time, they did not want to censor the content, but ultimately decided to do so after hearing vocal frustration from the Biden administration regarding it. He regrets the decision to censor past content at the behest of the US government, and is pledging not to do so moving forward. It also mentions that a White House spokesperson heavily insinuated to Fox News that they encouraged FaceBook to censor certain types of content, based on how such content would affect the populace. It mentions that FaceBook was subpoenaed regarding such censorship, as well as that Mark also admitted to censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story after being told by the FBI that it could be Russian disinformation, keeping the story censored while it fact-checked the story for themselves. He now admits that the story was true, and regrets censoring the story at the time, pledging to no longer censor stories in this manner moving forward.
The reporting doesn’t seem remarkably different, so let’s look at the part most people see. Only The Headline.
Meta CEO admits Biden-Harris admin pressured company to censor Americans
vs.
Mark Zuckerberg says Meta was ‘pressured’ by Biden administration to censor Covid-related content in 2021
I can see three things immediately that mark one as much-less-preferable than the other. I assume you can too?
Meta CEO ADMITS Biden**-Harris** admin pressured company to CENSOR AMERICANS
It’s written that way for a specific reason, and it’s not a Good Reason.
They’re different, but I don’t see that one is less preferable than the other. The Fox News headline includes Harris’ name, while CNN omits it and is more specific about why the admin was trying to censor Americans. I don’t know that granularity at this scale is anything to split hairs over, honestly.
Okay. I just disagree. There’s a long, long history of fox being deliberately dishonest to support one, and only one, political party.
Everybody Knows What Fox News Is Now