Meta Logo On Smartphone Display

Facebook executives conspired to silence debate on the origins of the COVID-19 outbreak after being pressured by the Biden administration, according to a report last week in The Wall Street Journal.

The paper obtained internal company communications between executives. These documents were first handed over to the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee which is looking into how the White House colluded with social media companies to crush debate. 

The White House said it looked to social media companies to use their platforms to effectively inform the public about the outbreak while “making independent decisions about the content of their platforms.”

Nick Clegg, the former deputy British prime minister who now gets a fat paycheck from Meta, wrote in July 2021, “Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims the COVID is man-made.”

The Facebook vice president of content policy, responded, “We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. We shouldn’t have done it.”

The paper noted that the conversation took place three months after the establishment of a company policy to stop banning these posts.

The email conversations occurred while the White House was selling COVID jabs—which included “public and private” campaigns to get Facebook to be more aggressive in its policing of “vaccine-related content.”

The fear inside the White House was that content on Facebook could raise new concerns among vaccine-hesitant Americans. One draft memo raised the possibility that the Facebook effort to stifle speech could backfire and “fuel conspiracy theories about coverup related to the safety of vaccines.”

TRENDPOST: The paper reported that Clegg who sent an email in late July 2021, before meeting with the U.S. surgeon general, wrote to colleagues, “My sense is that our current course—in effect explaining ourselves more fully, but not shifting on where we draw the lines…is a recipe for protracted and increasing acrimony.” 

The report noted that Clegg seemed to indicate that Mark Zuckerberg would not approve some of the moves and would push back against the government. 

“I can’t see Mark in a million years being comfortable with removing that—and I wouldn’t recommend it,” Clegg said in one email correspondence. (See “ZUCKERBERG SAYS ‘ESTABLISHMENT’ ASKED FACEBOOK TO CENSOR COVID-19 INFO THAT PROVED TO BE ACCURATE” 13 Jun 2023.)

Zuckerberg has been criticized for enforcing policies that silenced those who spoke out against the establishment’s narrative. He told CBS News in 2021 that it was his company’s policy to pull any posts that could be “harmful.” He said at the time that his company removed 18 million posts that fit into that category.

Facebook was accused by attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri of collaborating with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former head of the White House’s COVID response team, to smash any discussion online about the lab-leak theory.  

The lawsuit that was filed by the states revealed that Zuckerberg gave Fauci his personal phone number before the crackdown began, The New York Post reported. The paper, in an editorial in 2022, wrote, “Is this how the Post—and many others—got banned, throttled or labeled as purveyors of misinformation for merely raising the possibility (as we did in a prescient February 2020 op-ed) that COVID originated from an accidental lab-leak in Wuhan?”

The degree of censorship muzzling the globe is now potentially so comprehensive that it poses an imminent threat to the fundamental concept of freedom. (See “CENSORSHIP 2.0: U.S. PLANS FIGHT AGAINST ‘INFODEMIC,’ WANTS TO COMPLETELY CONTROL YOUR HEALTH DECISIONS” 7 Mar 2023, “GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED CENSORSHIP: EX-TWITTER EXECUTIVES TRY TO BULLSHIT THEIR WAY OUT OF CULPABILITY” 14 Feb 2023, “BIDEN PUSHES FOR MORE CENSORSHIP,” 20 Sep 2022, and “OBAMA CHAMPIONS FOR CENSORSHIP. FULLY JABBED AND GOT COVID, HE KEEPS SELLING THE VAX” 26 Apr 2022.)

Skip to content