Zuckerberg Promises to End the Censorship He Denied was Occurring

“The truth will out!” William Shakespeare tells us, and it has.  

Certainly since at least 2020, millions of us have believed that speech—primarily conservative speech—has been suppressed and censored by the huge social media platforms, prominently including Facebook/Meta.  Under the guise of so-called “fact checking” the huge platform tweaked its complex algorithms in such a way as to tamp down and de-emphasize the speech valued and sought by so many of us.  

Well, this week Meta/Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, “in a mea culpa for the ages” clearly and unmistakably ‘walked back most of the platform’s speech controls. We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.’” (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 7, 2025). Wow.  He concluded, interestingly, that “the recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.'”

This censorship has included everything from the blanket suppression of the Hunter Biden “Laptop from Hell” story a few weeks before the 2020 election—which polling indicates would have likely given the Electoral College and the election to Trump had voters known of the contents of the laptop before they voted—to the banning of fundraising efforts for the legal defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, the young man who was accused of, and then acquitted of, killing several of the Antifa rioters in 2020. 

Zuckerberg had testified before Congress that no such censorship was going on—or if it was occurring it was because such speech violated Facebook’s vague and broad “hate speech” restrictions. Well, we knew better, and our belief has now been confirmed by him. 

Further, in addition to the suppression of speech it was engaged in of its own accord, Facebook was also pressured to censor certain speech by the Biden Administration. The Murthy v. Missouri lawsuit and litigation has proven Facebook’s coercion by, and collusion with, the Biden Administration.

The, arguably, most egregious example of this suppression was the labeling of any Covid-related speech or content as “disinformation” that did not completely adhere to the Dr. Anthony Fauci-CDC view of Covid.  This included everything from the mandatory masking and vaccination of children in schools to the forced closing of churches—while the big box stores and casinos were allowed to continue operating—to denying people the final opportunity to see their loved ones in nursing homes and hospitals before they died.  

The Murthy v. Missouri suit was brought in federal court in Monroe, Louisiana by a number of states, including Louisiana.  The basis of the suit involved states and individuals whose Covid posts were censored who then sued federal government officials for violating their free speech rights. Lower courts ruled in favor of these plaintiffs, finding that certain government officials had pressured social media platforms to censor and suppress their posts. 

The legal question is obviously one regarding freedom of speech and how these enormous social media sites choose to “moderate”—in fact, censor—the content of speech and whether, either by their own doing or as a result of pressure from the federal government, or both, these tech giants are suppressing speech—which, again, is virtually always conservative speech.

This is where I think we are.

Even prior to his purchase of X (formerly Twitter) Elon Musk deemed X and other social medical platforms as integrally important to free speech: “Given that (these platforms) serve as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy. What should be done?” He answered his own question later by purchasing X in a direct response to the suppression of speech by Big Tech.

The greatest virtue of free thought and free speech is that all kinds of ideas are thrust into the rough and tumble of the marketplace of ideas where the best idea prevails.  It is this collision of, this testing of, speech and thought in a free and open exchange that produces the best results—and leads the nation to wise and popular policy results on challenging national issues. 

For this reason, there are no more important constitutional freedoms than those of free speech and freedom of conscience.  When we are not allowed to speak—and other parties are not allowed to hear—our liberty is diminished.  It is deeply encouraging to see Zuckerberg announce a return to these principles.