Was this the start of a US Presidential campaign

[Daytr]

Have you read what Zuckerberg actually said , for example they went too far and Meta would never do that again ? Making true stories about Hunter Biden not easily appear during the election campaign !! It was not ONLY stopping spread of "false information". It went much further than that.
Indeed much of the information spread in NZ by our useless media during that crazy COVID time, verbatim from Government, was false and/or inaccurate information.

Yes I read what he said and on Zuckerberg's record of what's in the public interest I would take it with a pinch of salt. Zuckerberg has an interest in unfettered posting and it's antagonism and cat videos that make him billions.

But perhaps they did go too far, but there is no evidence, which is always lacking in these things, that it was the US Government's guidance to Facebook or the way Facebook implemented it. Do you know? No I thought not.

Please again provide evidence of TRUE stories re Hunter Biden, I'm not even sure not easily appear means. I have seen lots of claims on here about Hunter Biden that are claimed to be facts but in reality they aren't. But that's nothing new.

[Balance]

Have you read what Zuckerberg actually said , for example they went too far and Meta would never do that again ? Making true stories about Hunter Biden not easily appear during the election campaign !! It was not ONLY stopping spread of "false information". It went much further than that.
Indeed much of the information spread in NZ by our useless media during that crazy COVID time, verbatim from Government, was false and/or inaccurate information.

FB and Zuckerberg …. LOL!

Same outfit and individual who freely and willingly allow scams to be advertised & promoted in the name of free speech. Too bad users are scammed - their problem, their losses - his profits.

Same outfit which harvest user data and continuously change user terms & conditions to exploit the data for profit in the name of free speech.

Try harder, iceman for a better example.

[iceman]

Yes I read what he said and on Zuckerberg's record of what's in the public interest I would take it with a pinch of salt. Zuckerberg has an interest in unfettered posting and it's antagonism and cat videos that make him billions.

But perhaps they did go too far, but there is no evidence, which is always lacking in these things, that it was the US Government's guidance to Facebook or the way Facebook implemented it. Do you know? No I thought not.

Please again provide evidence of TRUE stories re Hunter Biden, I'm not even sure not easily appear means. I have seen lots of claims on here about Hunter Biden that are claimed to be facts but in reality they aren't. But that's nothing new.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...vid-19-content

Zuckerberg also said that Facebook “temporarily demoted” a story about the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son, after a warning from the FBI that Russia was preparing a disinformation campaign against the Bidens.

Zuckerberg wrote that it has since become clear that the story was not disinformation, and “in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story”.

[Daytr]

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...vid-19-content

Zuckerberg also said that Facebook “temporarily demoted” a story about the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son, after a warning from the FBI that Russia was preparing a disinformation campaign against the Bidens.

Zuckerberg wrote that it has since become clear that the story was not disinformation, and “in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story”.

Yes and again that was a Facebook decision not because the FBI specifically asked them to suppress that story or any story relating to Hunter Biden. The outcome of this is an excuse for Facebook not to ensure misinformation is being spread, I.e they now won't demote posts while waiting for fact checking. We'll that suits Trump because if they fact checked any speech he made there's bound to be one bald faced lie included if not multiple.
Hey but it's the Dems who spead false information right... 🤣

Check this out. I can find more.
Zuckerberg is looking for excuses to blame anyone and keep his machine running for profit.

https://youtu.be/mc6FILFOyLw?feature=shared

[Balance]

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...vid-19-content

Zuckerberg also said that Facebook “temporarily demoted” a story about the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son, after a warning from the FBI that Russia was preparing a disinformation campaign against the Bidens.

Zuckerberg wrote that it has since become clear that the story was not disinformation, and “in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story”.

LOL … but scams are Okay. No demotions required at any time.

[davflaws]

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...vid-19-content

Zuckerberg also said that Facebook “temporarily demoted” a story about the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son, after a warning from the FBI that Russia was preparing a disinformation campaign against the Bidens.

Zuckerberg wrote that it has since become clear that the story was not disinformation, and “in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story”.

Who was POTUS at the time? -- TRUMP!
Who was AG at the time? -- BARR!

What had this to do with the Democrats? -- NOTHING!

[Balance]

Momentum with the Prosecutor …

The Fornicating Convicted Felon Trump flaying around losing altitude.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarador...d-in-wsj-poll/

[moka]

Government Involvement in Speech Regulation

The Trump era saw increased government efforts to shape online discourse through pressure on social media companies to remove certain content, and use of government agencies like the FBI to flag posts for removal.
Debates over repealing Section 230 protections for platforms
This raised concerns about government overreach into regulating speech, even among Trump critics.

In essence, the Trump presidency challenged many previous media norms around objectivity, truth, and the boundaries of protected speech. It pushed many outlets to take a more active role in assessing the veracity and impact of political speech rather than simply reporting it uncritically. However, this shift also raised new concerns about press freedoms and the media's role as an neutral arbiter of information.

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/how-trump-shaped-media

[moka]

The Hunter Biden laptop story and its handling by social media platforms, particularly Facebook and Twitter, have been the subject of significant controversy and debate regarding potential government censorship.

Initial Suppression of the Story
In October 2020, just weeks before the presidential election, the New York Post published a story about emails allegedly found on Hunter Biden's laptop. Facebook and Twitter took actions to limit the spread of this story:

• Facebook reduced the visibility of the article in users' feeds while third-party fact-checkers attempted to verify it.
• Twitter initially banned sharing of the article entirely, though they reversed this decision within 24 hours.

FBI Involvement
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook (now Meta), stated that the FBI had warned them about potential Russian propaganda:

• The FBI alerted Facebook to be on high alert for Russian propaganda, similar to what was seen in the 2016 election.
• While the FBI did not specifically mention the Hunter Biden story, Facebook thought it fit the pattern they were warned about.

Allegations of Government Pressure
Some Republicans have accused social media companies of colluding with the government to suppress the story:

• During a House Oversight Committee hearing, Republican representatives suggested that Twitter executives acted under orders from the government.
• Former Twitter executives denied these accusations, stating that the decision was a "mistake" but not made in concert with government officials.

Over time, some of the emails from the laptop have been authenticated by forensic analysis.
By May 2023, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.
The laptop has since been used as evidence in a criminal case against Hunter Biden.

While there were interactions between government agencies and social media companies, the extent of government influence on the decision to limit the story's spread remains a point of contention. The social media companies maintain that their actions were independent decisions, albeit ones they now consider mistakes.

[Bjauck]

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...vid-19-content

Zuckerberg also said that Facebook “temporarily demoted” a story about the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son, after a warning from the FBI that Russia was preparing a disinformation campaign against the Bidens.

Zuckerberg wrote that it has since become clear that the story was not disinformation, and “in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story”.

The owners of those social media sites can wield a good measure of control when they want to. A reason to check the ownership control structures, and ensure your current affairs sources are wide-ranging.