In an authoritarian effort that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to quit earlier this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that his Big Tech companies censored people ‘ free speech in response to pressure from state stars.
In a around five-minute digital information He mentioned how there has been “widespread discussion about potential damages from website content” in recent years. He particularly described how “governments and reputation media have pushed to delete more and more”, glad they deem unpleasant much of which, Zuckerberg maintained, is” evidently political”.
The Facebook and Instagram user went on to briefly discuss the” complex methods” Meta has put into place to “moderate material” (aka: to judge people ‘ free speech ) amid this stress. He later claimed that “we’ve reached a point where it’s just too many errors and too much censorship” and that the problem with such difficult devices is” they make mistakes.”
What Zuckerberg declined to mention, however, is that these “mistakes” nearly generally go in one way. For decades, Big Tech companies like Facebook have weaponized so-called “fact-checking” and another censorship tools to control traditional characters and outlets, including The Federalist.
Before going on to say that Zuckerberg’s companies have been using platform features to widely restrict Americans ‘ speech, Zuckerberg noted how the outcome of the 2024 elections “feels ] like a cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing speech”.
” We’re gonna get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms”, he said. He then outlined Meta’s plans to replace “fact-checking” with a Community Notes feature akin to X’s and “get rid of a lot of restraints on topics like immigration and gender.”
Zuckerberg’s tacit acknowledgment of Meta’s embrace of censorship at the behest of federal authorities is damning, but it’s not new. He all but admitted in a letter to Congress from August that Facebook had been working with the Biden administration to censor posts that challenged the government’s Covid narrative and that the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story was being pressured by the FBI.
But those aren’t even the most gruesome details of this entire scandal.
A majority of the Supreme Court’s members chose to look the other way when given the chance to put the kibosh on Big Tech’s collusion with the federal government to thwart Americans ‘ First Amendment rights.
In Murthy v. Missouri, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts effectively dismissed a lawsuit brought by two states and several medical professionals against the feds for their social media censorship scheme, along with the high court’s Democrat appointees. The plaintiffs were found to be negligent because there was” a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” according to the six justices.
While blasting the federal government’s “blatantly unconstitutional” actions in his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito forewarned that the court’s failure to declare the government’s actions as unlawful will have devastating consequences for free speech moving forward. ” If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send”, he wrote.
]READ: Why The Court ‘s , Murthy , Ruling Is Probably The Worst Free Speech Decision In History ]
Unfortunately, for the millions of Americans who care about free speech, Zuckerberg’s apparent shift on content “moderation” policies is too late. The harm has already been done.
There is no guarantee that the oppressive Big Tech-government censorship Americans have endured for the past few years won’t continue because the Supreme Court has a majority. Instead of vigorously upholding citizens ‘ First Amendment rights, these justices have made it necessary for elites like Zuckerberg to control how safe their online speech is. They are as trustworthy as the false fact-checks his companies have used to suppress them for years.
Shawn Fleetwood is a University of Mary Washington graduate and a staff writer for The Federalist. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClear Health, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
