- Facebook Whistleblower Zach McElroy: I Will Testify Before Congress About the Facebook Bias I Witnessed Against Trump Supporters, Conservative Causes
- McElroy: Seventy-five to 80 Percent of Posts selected by Facebook’s Algorithm for Content Moderator Review Support President Donald Trump, Republicans and Conservative Causes
- Facebook Content Moderator on Targeting Trump Supporters: “If Someone is Wearing a MAGA Hat, I Am Going to Delete Them for Terrorism”
- Facebook Content Review Lead: “It’s a Very Progressive Company, Who’s Very Anti-MAGA”
- Project Veritas CEO James O’Keefe: Videos and Screenshots by Facebook Whistleblowers Contradict Mark Zuckerberg’s Capitol Hill testimony
- Facebook’s Human-Directed Restriction of Free Speech Raises Questions Regarding Company’s Protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act
CLICK HERE to watch the latest We the People Convention News & Opinion Podcast!
However, Zach McElroy’s story raises serious doubts about Zuckerberg’s Capitol Hill testimony, that gave lawmakers the impression that his company only takes down content that could cause harm, such as relating to terrorism or hate speech, but never for politics.
Facebook Could Lose Its ‘Section 230’ Immunity
Facebook and other social media platforms are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, because they claim that unlike traditional publishers that do not actively edit content—they say they are like the phone company just stringing wires on poles.
CLICK HERE TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR TO DEMAND THAT THEY STOP BIG TECH CENSORSHIP NOW!
Facebook’s $400 billion market capitalization is tied to this protection and our report shows for the first time anywhere Facebook’s robust and human-directed process for restricting the marketplace of ideas, which calls into question their CDA 230 immunity.
Project Veritas Released this Second Video on June 24, 2020:
Zuckerberg’s Capitol Hill Testimony at Odds with Project Veritas Insider’s Account
Zuckerberg told lawmakers, who repeatedly asked him to explain how conservatives were singled out for sanction, that each of their specific examples, such as shutting down the Facebook page of vloggers Diamond and Silk, were mistakes.
At a hearing of the combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees on April 10, 2018, Sen. Ted Cruz (R.-Texas) brought this up with Zuckerberg:
In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page, has blocked a post of a Fox News reporter, has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk's page, with 1.2 million Facebook followers, after determining their content and brand were, quote, “unsafe to the community.”
To a great many Americans that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. Do you agree with that assessment?
Zuckerberg: First, I understand where that concern is coming from, because Facebook in the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place, and I — this is actually a concern that I have and that I try to root out in the company, is making sure that we do not have any bias in the work that we do, and I think it is a fair concern that people would at least wonder about.
The next day, Zuckerberg testified in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Rep. Stephen J. Scalise (R.-La.), the GOP whip, asked the social media mogul if his company’s artificial intelligence program was unfair to conservatives.
Zuckerberg: There is absolutely no directive in any of the changes that we make to have a bias in anything that we do. To the contrary, our goal is to be a platform for all ideas.
Later, in the same hearing, Rep. Timothy L. Walberg (R.-Mich.)asked Zuckerberg if he could assure the congressman that Facebook did not restrict ads based on political views. Under oath, Zuckerberg gave that assurance.
Zuckerberg: Congressman, yes, politically. Although, I think what you -- when I hear that, what I hear is, kind of, normal political speech. We certainly are not going to allow ads for terrorist content, for example, so we would be banning those views. But I think that that is something that we would all expect.
There was a time when investigative reporters practiced the craft locally and nationally for print and broadcast outlets exposing corruption and immoral conduct.
Help Project Veritas continue its investigations
Today, Project Veritas stands alone—and some of the very outlets that used to do their own undercover reporting are the ones trying to knock us down.
This investigation was not easy, nor cheap, but it is exactly the journalism we have the capacity to accomplish because of your support. Thank you for your support and I encourage you to share this video and other Project Veritas posts on social media.
Yours in truth,
P.S. I need your help finding Insiders who would be willing to Be Brave and Do Something. You might have thought about it yourself. There are many ways to reach me, but you have to take the first step: firstname.lastname@example.org or calling our tip line: (914) 653-3110 or reaching me on Signal, Telegram or Wire using the handle: @veritastips.
DONATE TO PROJECT VERITAS
Please Note: The We the People Convention donates to support Project Veritas!