"... to say something so obviously untrue.... Mr. Zuckerberg's phrasing... avoids any overt concession that the efforts to influence the company actually caused Meta to suppress speech. The closest the letter comes to admitting causation is Mr. Zuckerberg's assertion that he told his teams at the time 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.' This sounds like bold defiance. But 'if something like that happens again' suggests that Meta didn't push back when it happened before -- a backhanded admission that government pressure caused Meta to 'compromise.'... Mr. Zuckerberg's caution about causation speaks volumes about his fears (or those of his lawyers) that, if the truth were out, Meta would be legally vulnerable."
Writes Philip Hamburger, in "The ‘Tell’ in Zuckerberg’s Letter to Congress/He neither admits nor denies that Meta bowed to government censorship pressure" (Wall Street Journal).
August 29, 2024
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Mr. Zuckerberg isn't denying that the government caused some of Meta's censorship decisions. The letter is too carefully drafted..."
"... to say something so obviously untrue....
I didn't like this phrasing. What part is "obviously untrue"? That the government caused the decisions? Or that Zuckerberg's denial would have been untrue? Further reading indicates it's the latter, but it takes (or it took me, at any rate - some effort to be sure.
"Hmm...how can I fuck up my credibility without it looking like I've fucked up my credibility?"
- Mark Zuckersperg, Faceborg
Zuckerburg knows who is going to be president soon.
He would happily keep up the government-corporate collusion scheme he had set up with Obama-Biden-Harris if he thought Harris had a chance.
He should be facing Treason and Sedition charges with the rest of this regime.
“By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms -- elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest -- will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial -- but democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile, the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.”
– Aldous Huxley
Facebook isn't the Oligarchy. Neither is Suckerberg. He doesn't call the shots. Facebook bows. Mark bows.
I want to know who they bow to.
It’s a poorly written sentence, but “isn’t denying” avoids saying something obviously untrue. So his denial, if he had made one, would be a lie.
I don't see legal liability, just discreditable behavior.
Zuckerberg demonstrated deep psychopathic tendencies early along when he ripped off the Winklevoss twins. He was then was anointed by psycho Bill Gates as a next generation predatory monopolist. Here Zuckerberg is hedging his bets by following Musk's independence half way -- he's instead prepping for triangulation after the next election. "I played ball but I was forced to play ball and boy am I upset."
The lion's share of tech firm (Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, etc.) actions are motivated by avoidance of anti-trust lawsuits and losing control over a near or total monopoly. Get in bed with the government, enrich Pelosi and Schumer with insider tips, be a government mouthpiece, receive huge government contracts. Buy a megayacht and private island. Literal fascism.
It depends upon what “caused” means. Would Facebook have taken its actions in the absence of government pressure?
"The Democrats conspired with the deep state to rule America forever...
They made deals with the owners of big tech to safeguard their monopolies in exchange for integration into the surveillance and censorship state... The Democrats want absolute power. They will execute this plan by all means. If they fail they will face serious consequences. They fear Trump and his revenge. But most of all they fear the American people when the inevitable economic collapse arrives...
The worst is yet to come."
- Kim Dot Com
The government pressuring Meta into censoring people is like my friend talking me into ordering dessert. It would have happened anyway, but it's nice to share some of the blame.
Ten to one The Zuck takes the Fifth. Any takers?
I'm puzzled. What is the legal liability from yielding to a government shakedown?
Well, this is the same guy caught on a live mic VOLUNTEERING to censor and report traffic to Angela Merkel. So excuse me if I don't trust him.
(What is it with these guys, anyway? Like Obama, famous for "Tell Vlad I will have more flexibility after the election." You ask me, that's treason, right there.)
Original Mike, Oh you sweet summer child :-)
Modern prosecutorial jurisprudence doesn't require anything so trivial as compliance with statutes.
How's the MoFo gonna make it up to America? Shouldn't he help Trump now to defeat the people who fooled or forced him to sell out his values and his country? How else will those dastardly fellows be held to account for what they did to poor, innocent, trusting, well-intentioned Mark? They had their way with him. They ravished the very sphincter of his soul. Does he want revenge or does he want some more?
ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard
ZUCK: just ask
ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one?
ZUCK: people just submitted it
ZUCK: i don’t know why
ZUCK: they “trust me”
ZUCK: dumb fucks
The Guardian
He pleads that next time he can be found guilty he won't be guilty.
Zuckerberg needs to “remain silent.”
I can’t believe he paid his lawyer for that advice.
That has to be one of the more boneheaded articles I've ever come across in the WSJ. "On the other hand, he distances Meta’s censorship decisions from the government pressure: “Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions.” " ..and then he goes on to criticize this as, somehow, being a weasel.
The article is a waste of time, it communicates nothing and makes no cogent point. Zuckerberg is eminently untrustworthy, sure, and any time there is Congressional testimony, it's a pageant, and not about fact-finding. But any statement that pulls the veil on government censorship, and the insidious way that federal power is being used to further the political ends of state tyranny, is worth hearing about.
The real question is: Why is the WSJ quietly supporting the idea of government censorship, and criticizing somebody that is sounding the alarm?
Zuck needn't worry about any legal liability. With Meta already woven into the fabric of the Deep State, the IC will ensure no one lays a glove on him. Musk, on the other hand......
A Zucker or misinformationist?
I think Matt Taibbi has a much better take on this:
https://nypost.com/2024/08/28/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-needs-to-spill-all-on-how-fbi-censored-americans/
"does he want some more?"
Zark Muckerberg from Zarxon 7 doesn't strike me as a swish, but alien sexuality is something we're only beginning to understand. "Ravishing the sphincter of his soul" as you excellently put it is known to be immensely titillating to the Callaxians which are closely related....so yeah he probably gets off on it.
Its the type of junk the journal turns out
The DoJ is still headed by Garland- that is the source of potential legal liability.
"My sphincter hurts." - Mark Zuckerberg's soul
If Zuckerberg is serious about his claims, he should file a 1st Amendment lawsuit, and recruit co-claimants for class action.
"If Zuckerberg is serious about his claims, he should file a 1st Amendment lawsuit, and recruit co-claimants for class action."
Maybe he can recruit RFK.
Didn't Trump file a suit on this very basis, and everyone said he was crazy?
Post a Comment