In a candid interview on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg criticized the Biden administration’s approach to social media content moderation during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that government pressure to censor certain content “violated the law.”
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.
