A lawsuit by journalist Alex Berenson has shed light on how the Biden administration’s COVID-19 response led to increased censorship on major social media platforms. At the heart of the issue is former White House official Andy Slavitt, who played a significant role in pressuring tech giants like Meta to suppress certain content. Slavitt, known for his extensive public health background, continued to influence policies even after leaving the White House, using his connections to push for tighter control over "disinformation."
Slavitt’s involvement dates back to early 2021 when he reportedly pressured Facebook to remove posts that compared COVID vaccines to asbestos. He continued to act as an intermediary, offering advice to tech leaders like Meta's President of Global Affairs, Nick Clegg. In one instance, Slavitt expressed frustration over Facebook's refusal to remove certain posts, indicating the extent of the administration's push for censorship.
the Biden White House & US State Dept censorship officials worked with the same UK censorship cell that targeted @rustyrockets https://t.co/xqT5G05Kwk pic.twitter.com/0ElXbGdGP5
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) September 13, 2024
This campaign of suppression was not limited to public health information. In 2021, Facebook and other platforms were urged to limit the spread of stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has since admitted that the decision to throttle the New York Post story on the laptop was influenced by pressure from government agencies, including the FBI. This move sparked outrage, as many felt it unfairly influenced public discourse during a critical election.
Zuckerberg has since expressed regret over the company’s compliance with these demands, stating that the government pressure was "wrong" and pledging to push back if similar requests are made in the future. He emphasized that while Facebook's decisions were made under immense pressure from the administration, they should not have compromised their content moderation standards.
BP to Sell U.S. Onshore Wind Energy Business https://t.co/0QWNxZFn9B
— WSJ Business News (@WSJbusiness) September 16, 2024
The broader implications of this case are significant, raising concerns about government overreach and the suppression of free speech. Critics argue that the Biden administration overstepped its bounds by coercing private companies into censorship, setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in on the matter, highlighting how federal agencies worked closely with social media platforms to remove or demote posts that contradicted their official narratives during the pandemic.
As the lawsuit progresses, it is likely to further expose the extent of collaboration between the government and social media platforms in shaping public discourse. This case has reignited the debate over the limits of free speech and the role of tech companies in moderating content, particularly when under pressure from political entities.
The revelations have also renewed Republican calls for reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields social media companies from liability for content posted by their users. Lawmakers argue that platforms like Facebook should not be protected when they act as agents of the government, engaging in what some see as unconstitutional censorship.
