>> Click Here To Continue Reading <<
This sudden admission raises eyebrows. Why is Zuckerberg, who has historically shown a willingness to cooperate with government authorities, now voicing his regret? Is this a genuine attempt to uphold free speech, or is there something more strategic at play?
Zuckerberg’s letter also touched on another controversial issue: the suppression of content related to the New York Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election. The FBI had warned social media platforms that the story might be part of a Russian disinformation campaign, leading Meta to demote the story’s visibility. “It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” Zuckerberg admitted.
This acknowledgment of wrongdoing, especially concerning a story that could have impacted the outcome of the 2020 election, has sparked significant debate. The question remains: Is Zuckerberg truly remorseful, or is he simply trying to distance himself from the growing scrutiny surrounding Big Tech’s role in shaping public discourse?
The letter has been met with applause from Republicans, particularly those on the House Judiciary Committee. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and others took to social media to celebrate the letter as a “big win for free speech.” However, the celebration might be premature. What actions, if any, will Congress take in response to this revelation of guilt? The letter confirms what many have long suspected: the government has been outsourcing its violations of the First Amendment to Big Tech companies like Meta.
This concern is not new. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has an active lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that it pressured social media platforms to censor content that didn’t align with its narrative. In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Kennedy detailed how the feds monitored social media and pushed platforms like Facebook to delete or downplay information, regardless of its truthfulness. “It didn’t even matter if the information was true,” Kennedy explained. “In fact, it was the truth about COVID and the 2020 election that the government feared the most.”
Given Zuckerberg’s track record, it’s hard not to be skeptical of his newfound stance on government pressure. After all, Zuckerberg has shown a consistent ability to adapt to whichever government is in power, whether it’s cooperating with Chinese communists or American globalists. His actions appear driven more by profit than by principle, raising the question of why he’s making these admissions now.
Carry 46 rounds concealed? (comfortably)
One possible explanation is that Zuckerberg is simply covering his bases. With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. teaming up with Donald Trump, the possibility of a serious investigation into government censorship is on the horizon. If Trump were to win the presidency and appoint RFK Jr. as attorney general, Zuckerberg’s current admissions could be seen as an attempt to align himself with the incoming administration and avoid potential legal repercussions. This is not about a genuine commitment to the First Amendment; it’s about self-preservation.
In the end, Mark Zuckerberg’s regret may be less about a change of heart and more about a calculated move to stay in the good graces of those in power, whichever direction the political winds may blow. As the story continues to unfold, one thing is clear: Big Tech’s relationship with the government is more complex and self-serving than ever.
