Zuckerberg said senior Biden administration officials “repeatedly pressured” Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to “censor” content in 2021. “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken,” he wrote to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction – and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again,” Zuckerberg added.
We are discussing Facebook censoring (incorrectly identified) misinformation.
The response letter of ex spies had nothing do to with Facebook’s actions, which were actually based on misleading FBI warnings.
You want me to prove a negative? Ok. No russians were involved in fixing Hunter’s laptop.
I made no such claim. In fact the opposite is true. The lack of public communication by the FBI about the origins of the laptop story is what is damaging.
None of which were true, because it has been proven in court via serial numbers that the laptop is genuine. Claims of Russian propaganda are pure misinformation.
We agree this is true, so how then do the Russians fit into your conspiracy theory?
Again, the letter was sent 5 days after censorship began. It is not relevant.
Again, you’ve yet to actually establish that this is the case.
Again, it explains how even if the laptop is real, that it could still be part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn’t make this go away.
No, you’ve repeatedly claimed we know it’s not Russia disinformation, which is a positive assertion.
It’s right in your timeline.
Holy shit I can’t believe you still haven’t read the letter. Amazing.
See Zuckerberg’s statement
Nothing raised in that letter is relevant. There was no hacking. E-mails have been independently verified. The story is independent of Giuliani.
There is absolutely no evidence of Russian involvement between the point that the laptop was submitted for repair in April 2019 and the FBI subpoenaing the laptop in December 2019.
The FBI suggesting to facebook and twitter that the laptop was Russian Propaganda is pure misinformation.
I’m not even sure he said what you’re claiming he said, but regardless are we really saying “well, zuckerberg said it must be true!”? Please tell me we’re not there.
Your language is so tricky. I wonder why. Yes, some emails have been verified. But not all.
Again, tricky language. There are questions about how it got there at all, and there are chain of custody questions too. So sure, if they planted it, there is no evidence of their involvement after doing so.
Except, again, according to the article you have posted and referenced multiple times, Zuckerberg says the FBI never said anything about the laptop. You seem to be picking and choosing when to believe Zuckerberg, conveniently when it suits your conclusion.
In a separate situation, the FBI warned us about a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election. 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. It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story.
Well, he wrote that in a public letter to the House Judiciary committee. Let’s see the FBI disagree or arrest him for misinformation.
The damaging ones have. In particular the “10% for the big guy” email is genuine.
Notice the language here, he says “the reporting” was not disinformation, nothing about whether the laptop itself was part of any disinformation campaign. You’ve been very careful with your language, it’s surprising that you can’t see this deliberate use of language to sidestep any actual statement about the the laptop itself.
So we agree that they haven’t all been verified, exposing what was obfuscated in your claim.
And why have you abandoned the central theme of your claim that the FBI pressured them about the laptop? Again it appears you believe zuck when he kind of says something that confirms your point, but when he says something that contradicts it, you just ignore it.
What? If reporting the laptop contents is not misinformation then the laptop contents are not misinformation.
My claim that the FBI deliberately mislead Twitter and Facebook was detailed above with accompanying evidence. You’ve brought nothing new to contradict that claim.