As usual, listen closely as Mark Zuckerberg explains the decision to deplatform the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Basically the background here is the FBI, I think basically came to us — some folks on our team and was like, ‘Hey, um, just so you know, like, you should be on high alert. There was the — we thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump of — that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant.”
So our protocol is different from Twitter’s. What Twitter did is they said ‘You can’t share this at all.’ We didn’t do that,’ Zuckerberg said. ‘If something’s reported to us as potentially, misinformation, important misinformation, we also use this third party fact-checking program, cause we don’t wanna be deciding what’s true and false,’ he continued.
‘I think it was five or seven days when it was basically being determined, whether it was false. The distribution on Facebook was decreased, but people were still allowed to share it. So you could still share it. You could still consume it,’ he said.
The beautiful thing here is the plausible deniability.
The FBI comes to Facebook to warn them that something is coming. That’s not a specific request, as Zuckerberg describes it. Zuckerberg then blames the FBI for triggering the ban and passes the buck to the media’s fact checkers so that no one is responsible.
That’s been the state of play. Everyone has plausible deniability.
Zuckerberg’s politics and motives are no great secret, but Zuckerbucks were conducted with plausible deniability. Money was put into some Republican systems, it was just disproportionately diverted to Democrat-skewed ones. The same game is played with censorship. Some lefty stuff gets censored, but a disproportionate amount of conservatives are censored.
What most people are zeroing in is the FBI warning. In the discussion with Joe Rogan on his podcast, Zuckerberg is vague about whether the FBI specified that the story was the Hunter Biden laptop. The CEO of a huge company that controls social media acts as if the critical situation in which a major election event was blocked is something he’s only vaguely familiar with. But I think it’s a safe bet that the FBI visit was carefully timed to get out in front of the Hunter Biden story.
The question is how did the FBI know about the Hunter Biden story? The obvious answer is that they had the Hunter Biden investigation handed to them well before this. And the feds chose to sit on the investigation and slow-walk it. But that doesn’t answer how they knew the Post story was coming. That could be attributed to the rumor mill that circulates before a major story breaks. Or to the FBI keeping close taps on some conservative figures, including possibly those in Trump’s orbit.
Both explanations are really bad, but the second one is truly disturbing.
Leave a Reply