Tech CEOs Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey Get Asked To Speak Under Oath On Censorship
- 16.5K Views
The New York Post broke the internet earlier this week with the bombshell email story detailing insider information about the corrupt Biden family.
It is now common knowledge that the media and Big Tech companies, namely Facebook and Twitter, are actively suppressing conservative content and Pro-Trump pages across the board. They even went as far as to hide the Post's story and purged the entire platform of anyone promulgating the information - this included the President, the White House Press Secretary, and even James Woods, to name a few.
Now, the companies are once again being invited to Washington DC, this time to clarify what exactly their agenda was in suppressing the information sent out by New York Post.
Missouri Senator, Josh Hawley, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent out a strongly worded letter to both CEOs of Twitter and Facebook inquiring about the massive censorship operation that occurred this week.
Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:
Today, the New York Post released a story revealing that Hunter Biden facilitated a meeting with a Ukrainian energy executive and his father, who was then serving as Vice President. In it, the Post offers evidence that directly contradicts the claims of the Democratic nominee for president, who had previously stated that he has “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” Yet it has come to my attention that this news report—one clearly relevant to the public interest—has been censored on Facebook.
A representative from your company has publicly stated that Facebook will be “reducing [the story’s] distribution on our platform” while a third-party fact-check takes place.” The seemingly selective nature of this public intervention suggests partiality on the part of Facebook. And your efforts to suppress the distribution of content revealing potentially unethical activity by a candidate for president raises a number of additional questions, to which I expect responses immediately.
1) How did Twitter determine that the New York Post story was a violation of its policy governing the distribution of hacked materials or approach to blocking links? Will Twitter make its decision-making process with regard to this case of content removal publicly available?
2) How did Twitter find that the New York Post was “directly” distributing hacked materials—and thus in violation of its policy—when it is not clear that this is the case?
3) Why did Twitter take additional, unprecedented action to lock the primary Twitter account of the New York Post, one of the nation’s most widely distributed newspapers?3
4) If you have evidence that this news story contains “disinformation” or have otherwise determined that there are inaccuracies with the reporting, will you disclose them to the public so that they can assess your findings?
5) Did any member of the Biden-Harris presidential campaign team or any person representing themselves as a representative of the campaign’s interests ask, encourage, or direct Twitter to suppress the New York Post story?
I await your reply.
A day later, as the stakes continued to rise, Twitter shut down its entire platform for several hours, performing what they're calling a "system change" - which drew obvious skepticism.
This evidently was enough for the Senate Judiciary Committee to draw a line in the sand. Yesterday afternoon, Josh Hawley formally invited the two tech giants to testify under oath in front of the Committee.
Neither of the formal letters made CNN headlines, however, the situation is very real for for the social-media CEOs.
To clarify, The New York Post, one of the worlds largest news publications, posted a real story with actual sources that points an extremely negative light on Joe Biden and his son. Facebook and Twitter actively hid that story from the public in a clear attempt to help the Biden campaign and censoring the internet in the process. This is something Americans should consider highly unethical and a cause for major concern. Thankfully, the Senate Judiciary Committee feels the same way.