Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Free Speech

Biden White House Pressured Facebook To Censor Lab Leak Posts

"Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims that Covid is man made," asked Meta's president for global affairs.

Robby Soave | 7.28.2023 1:34 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Facebook | 38836651 © GilbertC | Dreamstime.com
Facebook (38836651 © GilbertC | Dreamstime.com)

President Joe Biden's White House pushed Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to censor contrarian COVID-19 content, including speculation about the virus having escaped from a lab, vaccine skepticism, and even jokes.

"Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims that Covid is man made," asked Nick Clegg, president for global affairs at the company, in a July 2021 email to his coworkers.

A content moderator replied, "We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. We shouldn't have done it."

These and other emails obtained by Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) and The Wall Street Journal provide further evidence of the federal government's vast efforts to curb dissent online. As I reported in Reason's March 2023 issue, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) communicated frequently with Facebook content moderators and pushed them to take down posts that contradicted the guidance of federal health advisers:

According to a trove of confidential documents obtained by Reason, health advisers at the CDC had significant input on pandemic-era social media policies at Facebook as well. They were consulted frequently, at times daily. They were actively involved in the affairs of content moderators, providing constant and ever-evolving guidance. They requested frequent updates about which topics were trending on the platforms, and they recommended what kinds of content should be deemed false or misleading. "Here are two issues we are seeing a great deal of misinfo on that we wanted to flag for you all," reads one note from a CDC official. Another email with sample Facebook posts attached begins: "BOLO for a small but growing area of misinfo."

These Facebook Files show that the platform responded with incredible deference. Facebook routinely asked the government to vet specific claims, including whether the virus was "man-made" rather than zoonotic in origin. (The CDC responded that a man-made origin was "technically possible" but "extremely unlikely.") In other emails, Facebook asked: "For each of the following claims, which we've recently identified on the platform, can you please tell us if: the claim is false; and, if believed, could this claim contribute to vaccine refusals?"

The fact that the White House was engaged in the exact same behavior as the CDC is not remotely surprising; indeed, it's already well-known that Biden staffers harangued social media moderators, though these specific emails have not previously been released.

The Wall Street Journal's reporting demonstrates once again that the platforms themselves were deeply skeptical of the government's directions:

"The WH has previously indicated that it thinks humor should be removed if it is premised on the vaccine having side effects, so we expect it would similarly want to see humor about vaccine hesitancy removed," the vice president wrote.

"I can't see Mark in a million years being comfortable with removing that—and I wouldn't recommend it," Clegg wrote in a subsequent email, an apparent reference to CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

In some of the emails, Facebook executives expressed concern that removing posts in which Americans expressed hesitation about getting vaccinated could actually make them less likely to get a shot.

All of these disclosures show that it's pointless to be angry with social media companies—they were put in a very difficult position. Supporters of free speech must direct their ire toward the federal government and demand that government officials stop engaging in this behavior.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) has proposed a bill along these lines. I interviewed him about it here.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Congressman Talks Smack About Bitcoin Creator ‘Saratoshi Nagamoto’

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

Free SpeechFirst AmendmentSocial MediaFacebookCensorshipCoronavirusPandemicGovernment interferenceBiden AdministrationJoe BidenPolitics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (58)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Ra's al Gore   2 years ago

    this being the same ruling class we have to trust regarding Biden's innocence and Trump's guilt.

    1. palorec8   2 years ago (edited)

      Make money online from home extra cash more than $18000 to $21000. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26000 in this month by just working online from home in my part time. every person easily do this job by.

      just Open This Website.....> https://aprichs.blogspot.com

    2. AngliaJames17   2 years ago (edited)

      Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,600 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,600 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
      .
      .
      Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com

    3. ThomasD   2 years ago

      Rico was told in real time all of what he purports to be reporting now.

      He

      Was

      Told

      Dont expect him to change his spots now.

      He

      Is

      A

      Bought

      And

      Paid

      For

      Presstitute

      Get out there and strut for your man Rico

    4. Liberty Lover   2 years ago

      Reason is pushing disinformation, Biden denied his administration pressured anyone to censor! (sarc)
      Reason, what happened to Facebook is a private company that can do whatever it wants? Any thing it wants under pressure from the Federal government of course!

      1. Wizard4169   2 years ago

        Are you actually suggesting that this is somehow contradictory? I think it's pretty easy to see the difference between private actors making their own decisions and private actors being strong-armed into decisions by pressure from the state.

  2. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

    But muh PRIVUT CUMPNY!

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      The article should have been written in 2017. But they kept making excuses because Trump Bad.

      1. Olivahunter   2 years ago (edited)

        I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com

      2. Wizard4169   2 years ago

        Um, Jess, in 2017 it was the Trump administration pressuring social media companies. This post doesn't make much sense, even for you.

    2. JFree   2 years ago

      Maybe government should have its own social media channel/platform. Rather than either try to censor private company info - or abdicate all capability for the govt to communicate its own message- or try to piggyback off of what private companies have done technologically.

      That might also force government to be more transparent about itself if it has to keep its own channel open rather than just shit on something else.

      1. damikesc   2 years ago

        Why would that make them stop censoring social media? Why let ANYTHING out if you can avoid it?

        1. JFree   2 years ago

          I'm not sure it would stop them from trying to censor. But it would definitely give those on the receiving end of those attempts an alternative to just 'suppress'.

          1. damikesc   2 years ago

            The government's power to pressure them would not be reduced if they got their "own" platform.

            1. VULGAR MADMAN   2 years ago

              That really is one of the dumber things JFee has said.

  3. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 years ago

    Lock him up for violating American's civil rights!

  4. Eeyore   2 years ago

    Meta is now just the corner of the internet where unfunny Democrat party funded memes go to die.

  5. Nobartium   2 years ago

    Actual fascism. Will anyone call it so?

    1. Old Engineer   2 years ago

      It's not fascism, it's a public/private partnership, a corporate state. At least that's what it is to people who attended a public school and therefore think that Mussolini is a kind of Italian noodle.

      1. JesseAz   2 years ago

        No. It is Italian fascism. Execution of state powers through corporation and industry.

        1. Sevo   2 years ago

          Ditto Nazi Germany's.

          1. Old Engineer   2 years ago

            The EU is trying to implement censorship as are the leftists in the US. Everyone now favors a state controlled economy run by an elite of "geniuses".

            Fascism is on the rise now just as it was in the 1930's. There are a lot of parallels. Roosevelt ranting about "malefactors of great wealth" and joining with them to dominate the economy. Biden wants the rich to "pay their fair share" while sending $250 Billion to the Silicon Valley as a reward for their help in getting him elected.

            "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes!"

            Every time I read the news, that quote comes back to me.

            1. Eeyore   2 years ago

              These self appointed "geniuses" are winning the competition for dumbest homosapiens to ever live.

      2. VULGAR MADMAN   2 years ago

        “It’s not fascism if we don’t call it that.”

        -Kyles dad

  6. Jerryskids   2 years ago

    "Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims that Covid is man made,"

    "Because that's what the Big Guy told us to do."

    "Joe Biden told us?"

    "No, the Big Guy, Lizard Boy. He has a plan to hack the election."

    "LOL. Whatever plan he has won't work, the American election system is too robust to ever be successfully hacked."

    "Yeah, I know, you'd need like 81 million votes to hack the election and nobody would ever believe that kind of shit."

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 years ago

      I wonder if anyone at the social media companies ever asked, why is government trying to censor people's opinions?

      1. Idaho Bob   2 years ago

        No, because they agreed with censorship.

      2. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

        A content moderator replied, "We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. We shouldn't have done it."

        Apparently not until well after the fact. And even then, probably only because they got caught, not because of some principled realization that they were wrong.

      3. Old Engineer   2 years ago

        Don't ask why, just look at the results.

        Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation
        The COVID virus occurred naturally
        Vaccines stop the spread of COVID
        Your refusing the vaccine will kill grandma

        All just before the 2020 and 2022 elections.

  7. TrickyVic (old school)   2 years ago

    It's just a bedtime story - JFree

  8. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

    Death penalty for any public official found guilty of actively working to suppress our rights. That'll put a quick stop to this insanity

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 years ago

      Like trans rights?

      Be careful what you ask for because you will not be one defining what a right is.

    2. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

      That law is already on the books.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

  9. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

    I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you! /sarc

  10. Old Engineer   2 years ago

    Next up: Why Joe Biden should not be impeached and why Donald Trump should be (again and again until he's convicted).

    You can't blame Biden, he was only trying to protect democracy, you know, the right of the bureaucrats to vote on how you will live your life.

  11. Bubba Jones   2 years ago

    Zuckerberg's ego pales in comparison to a typical MD or PhD in the bowels of academia.

    1. Old Engineer   2 years ago (edited)

      Academia needs an enema.

  12. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

    to censor contrarian COVID-19 content, including speculation about the virus having escaped from a lab, vaccine skepticism, and even jokes.

    You REALLY whiffed the spelling of "true".

  13. A Cynical Asshole   2 years ago

    All of these disclosures show that it's pointless to be angry with social media companies—they were put in a very difficult position.

    Yes and no. It would have been nice if they weren't such spineless quislings, but at the same time when your CEO is getting called to testify in front of congressional show hearings seemingly every other week, while at the same time you're getting all of these kinds of censorship "requests" from the government, the message is pretty clear:

    "That's a nice social media company you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it."

    1. CindyF   2 years ago

      "All of these disclosures show that it’s pointless to be angry with social media companies—they were put in a very difficult position."

      ---

      Actually what the social media companies could and should have done was bring the government censorship demands to the attention of the American people by making the emails from those agencies public. Each time they received a request they could have pinned it to the top of their face book or twitter account with a note saying, "This is the request I received today".

      Instead, they hid those requests, did as demanded, and pretended it was a decision of private company and made without interference of anyone in government.

      Media sites, such as Reason, had to be aware of the actions of both the government and the social media sites, but their writers were too busy promoted, unfettered illegal immigration, abortion, and the sex trade to care that citizen's First Amendment rights were being trampled upon.

      1. JFree   2 years ago

        what the social media companies could and should have done was bring the government censorship demands to the attention of the American people by making the emails from those agencies public.

        A good idea - but what would the American public have done with that info?

        1. Sevo   2 years ago

          Well, assholes like you would continue to scream that the sky was falling.

        2. TrickyVic (old school)   2 years ago

          Read it to their children before they go to bed?

        3. Dirk Honkler   2 years ago

          holy fuck you're a worthless individual

    2. Old Engineer   2 years ago

      It only requires seeing your "cancelled" co-worker standing before a freeway off ramp with a sign "Will write code for food" to convince you to keep your mouth shut

      1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 years ago

        "" “Will write code for food”""

        A.I. already has that job. Perhaps could get a job making signs for people standing before an off ramp.

  14. CindyF   2 years ago

    I have seen the reporting on this issue on several sites today including the WSJ and Fox news articles.

    My question is why this is suddenly being reported as newly discovered information? Most informed readers have been aware of such censorship by government officials for over two years now.

    Why the sudden outrage?

    1. BigT   2 years ago

      informed readers
      The question answers itself.

    2. Old Engineer   2 years ago

      To give you plenty of time to forget about it before the next election, and if you do remember it, they can say it's old news.

  15. JesseAz   2 years ago

    How soon until Mike is in here blaming the House GOP for the Senate not bringing up the House passed laws regarding federal employees working to censor?

  16. jonnysage   2 years ago

    Its not pointless to be mad at social media sites. We can actually DO something about them, by not using them. We cant do anything about govt ordering them around.

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago (edited)

      It is not pointless to be upset at government utilizing corporations to do things they are not allowed to do.

      Ignoring it happened is also stupid.

  17. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

    Although it may be pointless to be angry at social media platform operators, being put in a "difficult position" by government pressure does not excuse their bad behavior. Heroes are, by definition, almost always in a "difficult position" when they stand their ground, throw themselves onto a live grenade to protect their buddies, charge into machine gun fire, or stand up to government bullies to defend an important fundamental principle. Although I'm not angry at them for failing to do the right thing, I AM angry at them for banning me over my posts without appeal - angry enough that I canceled my Facebook account and would not now even consider starting a Twitter account.

  18. BigT   2 years ago

    The Wall Street Journal's reporting demonstrates once again that the platforms themselves were deeply skeptical of the government's directions but they bent over and took it anyway, laughing all the way to the bank.

  19. BigT   2 years ago

    The exact opposite happened as what should have happened. The government should have been warning companies NOT to censor free speech because it's the American way.

  20. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

    You wouldn't want voters to actually NOTICE an Unparalelled Invasion with bioweapons, now would you? If global warmunism can be manufactured out of the same cloth as reefer madness, what's wrong with memory-holing foreign dictatorship biological warfare attacks? It's reality control in all three cases, right? What would comrade Jack London do?

  21. DRM   2 years ago

    All of these disclosures show that it's pointless to be angry with social media companies—they were put in a very difficult position.

    It's only "very difficult" if you ignore the fact that they could have just stood on the First Amendment.

    After all, faced with pressure from the governments of the states of Florida and Texas to not censor, they seem to have no problem at all running to the courts to vindicate their First Amendment rights.

  22. DallasCynic   2 years ago

    We need more than just the revelations. We need the names of those who conspired to violate our civil rights. Facebook can do it on their own. They are a private actor.
    For the FBI to do it is a violation of the First Amendment. We, the public, need the names so they can be held accountable publicly as were Peter Stroszk and his mistress. They also must be held accountable civilly in court along with their supervisors and their agency. Congress can strip them of any immunity and any indemnification.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Wait, Lilo & Stitch Is About Medicaid and Family Separation?

Peter Suderman | 5.30.2025 1:59 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!