|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Jim Jordan Praises Mark Zuckerberg for Meta’s Shift Toward Free Speech, Calls on Big Tech to Follow Suit
Edited by: Fern Sidman
In a significant move celebrated by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the closure of Facebook’s controversial fact-checking initiative in the United States, replacing it with a community-driven model akin to X’s (formerly Twitter) Community Notes. According to a report in The New York Post, Jordan commended Zuckerberg for taking a firm stance in favor of online free speech and called on other tech giants, including Google, to follow Meta’s lead.
As reported by The Post, Zuckerberg revealed this policy shift in a video message, acknowledging that Meta’s previous fact-checking model had become prone to biases and censorship. “Experts, like everyone else, have their own biases and perspectives,” Zuckerberg said, explaining how fact-checking efforts often crossed into censorship territory. “A program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.”
Jim Jordan Praises Mark Zuckerberg For Ending Censorship Following Committee’s Rigorous Investigation https://t.co/kOSVlgtZIE via @SaraCarterDC
— Patty O’Toole (@memawsantino) January 8, 2025
Speaking to The New York Post, Chairman Jim Jordan tied this shift to the Judiciary Committee’s extensive oversight efforts aimed at protecting First Amendment rights in the digital sphere. Jordan highlighted Zuckerberg’s earlier admission that the Biden White House had pressured Facebook to suppress content, including discussions surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop and dissenting views on COVID-19 policies. “Today’s news from Mark Zuckerberg comes after our committee conducted rigorous oversight to protect the First Amendment,” Jordan stated.
According to the information provided in The New York Post report, Jordan emphasized that Meta’s decision represents “a huge step in the right direction” and demonstrates a willingness to resist external pressures from government agencies seeking to control public discourse online. The Judiciary Committee’s two-year investigation uncovered troubling collaborations between Facebook and senior Biden administration officials to moderate—or, in Jordan’s words, “censor”—certain pandemic-related content, including posts about COVID-19 origins and vaccine efficacy.
Jordan’s praise for Zuckerberg was paired with a broader challenge to other major technology companies, particularly Google. “We hope that other Big Tech companies, including Google, follow the lead of X and Meta in upholding freedom of speech online,” Jordan told The Post.
This shift echoes changes made by Elon Musk after his acquisition of Twitter in 2022. Musk, a self-described “free speech absolutist,” dismantled Twitter’s internal censorship apparatus and introduced Community Notes, a decentralized fact-checking feature allowing users to collaboratively add context to posts. The report in The Post noted that Zuckerberg appears to be taking a page from Musk’s playbook, signaling a trend among tech giants towards more transparent and decentralized content moderation practices.
Zuckerberg’s admission concerning the flaws in Meta’s previous approach is a notable departure from years of corporate messaging defending fact-checking programs as essential tools against misinformation. As highlighted in The Post report, Zuckerberg acknowledged that these systems often failed to maintain objectivity and became vulnerable to external influences.
Jordan framed Meta’s policy change as a victory not only for free speech advocates but also for ordinary social media users who had grown weary of opaque content moderation decisions. “We are pleased to see Meta’s stated commitment to free speech,” Jordan said in his interview with The Post. “Social media, AI, and other technology companies must resist governments’ censorship pressure and instead work to ensure the open expression of ideas on their platforms.”
The Judiciary Committee’s investigation has shed light on the broader ecosystem of government-tech collaboration, revealing emails and communications that suggest systematic efforts to manage online narratives. As The Post reported, these findings have fueled ongoing debates about the role of tech companies in balancing content moderation with free expression.
In a damning revelation reported by The Post, documents released by the House Judiciary Committee expose how the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force actively worked with social media giants Facebook and Twitter to suppress The Post’s explosive reporting on Hunter Biden’s foreign business ventures. The findings raise serious concerns about government overreach, the integrity of major social media platforms, and the balance between national security and free speech.
According to the information contained in the report in The Post, judiciary investigators uncovered communications showing how Elvis Chan, an FBI agent from the San Francisco field office, leaned on Facebook and Twitter to censor coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal in the critical weeks leading up to the 2020 presidential election. Despite a subpoena compelling him to testify before the Judiciary Committee in October 2023, Chan failed to comply and was subsequently sued.
In contrast to his deposition given during the Missouri v. Biden case—later dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of standing—Chan claimed to have had “no internal knowledge” of the suppression of The Post’s reporting. However, as The Post report detailed, Judiciary investigators uncovered an October 15, 2020 message from Chan to a Facebook employee in which he explicitly stated there was “no current evidence to suggest any foreign connection or direction of the leak.” This contradicts his sworn testimony and highlights significant inconsistencies in his account.
The Post report further revealed that Judiciary investigators obtained testimony from Laura Dehmlow, section chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, who confirmed that the FBI had already verified the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop as early as November 2019. Despite this, the FBI chose not to clarify its authenticity to social media platforms, instead allowing misinformation about a supposed Russian “hack and leak” operation to persist.
Jim Jordan told The Post that the FBI’s handling of the situation constitutes a deliberate institutional decision to obscure the truth. “Even though the FBI had been in possession of this laptop for nearly a year and had verified the provenance of its contents, the FBI made the institutional decision to refuse to answer direct questions from social media companies about the laptop’s authenticity — despite months of constant information sharing up to that time,” Jordan said.
IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, revealed that the FBI had confirmed the legitimacy of Hunter Biden’s laptop as far back as 2019. Despite this, the agency held over 30 meetings with social media companies, including Twitter and Facebook, in the lead-up to the 2020 election, where false narratives continued to circulate, as reported by The Post.
In an August 2024 letter addressed to Jim Jordan and quoted by The Post, Zuckerberg admitted to the mishandling of The Post story. “That fall, when we saw a New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s family, we sent that story to fact-checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply,” Zuckerberg wrote. In a candid admission, he added, “It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story.”
These revelations, as reported by The Post, point to a broader pattern of government influence over social media platforms. In a recent Judiciary subcommittee report, staff members raised alarms about emerging threats posed by federal agencies potentially using advanced artificial intelligence tools to monitor protests and suppress dissenting voices online.
The Post also highlighted Zuckerberg’s recent outreach to former President Donald Trump following his decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the November presidential election. Zuckerberg has since donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund and made a notable visit to the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
These findings, as meticulously documented by The Post, call attention to the deep-rooted concerns about governmental overreach and Big Tech’s willingness to comply with requests that undermine transparency and public trust. The Judiciary Committee’s investigation reveals not only troubling lapses in accountability within the FBI but also raises serious questions about the role of social media platforms in shaping public discourse during critical moments in American democracy.
As this saga continues to unfold, the documents released by the Judiciary Committee and reported extensively by The Post have made one thing abundantly clear: the relationship between government agencies and tech giants requires urgent oversight, transparency, and reform to ensure that the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not sacrificed under the pretext of national security or misinformation control.
