Meta Platforms Inc CEO Mark Zuckerberg has disclosed that his company faced pressure from senior Biden administration officials to censor specific content on its platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg expressed regret for not opposing the pressure sooner and acknowledged certain decisions made by Meta in removing content during that period.
Zuckerberg stated in the letter, “In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.” The letter was shared on the Committee on the Judiciary’s Facebook page. Zuckerberg further indicated that he would resist any similar pressures in the future.
The letter was addressed to Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In response, the committee hailed the letter as a “big win for free speech” and highlighted Zuckerberg’s admission to censoring American voices during the pandemic. The White House responded with a statement to Politico, saying: “When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety.” The statement continued, “Our position has been clear and consistent: we believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.”
In addition to the censorship allegations, Zuckerberg confirmed in the letter that he will not contribute to supporting election infrastructure during the upcoming presidential election in November. He stated he does not want to play a role “one way or another” in this year’s election. This decision is a stark contrast to 2020, when Zuckerberg and his wife contributed $400 million through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to support election infrastructure. The 2020 contributions faced criticism and legal challenges from groups who argued that the funding was partisan.
