Is Censorship Really Dead?

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jan. 8, 2025) — On Tuesday, Meta‘s new President of Global Policy, Joel Kaplan, was a guest on “Fox & Friends” to augment Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement Monday evening that the company will be abandoning the practice of “fact-checking” on its platforms, specifically Facebook and Instagram.

The use of allegedly independent “fact-checkers” was originally intended to root out “misinformation.”

Zuckerberg made the announcement “less than 24 hours” after non-profit Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari alleging censorship by Meta, Zuckerberg, The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Inc., and Science Feedback.

CHD was founded by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“We appreciate Zuckerburg’s sudden moment of clarity regarding our fundamental right to engage in free speech, but we will continue to hold Facebook accountable until their actions match their words,” CHD posted Tuesday on X. “Until Facebook restores all of our accounts, they are still engaging in censorship. It’s not enough for Facebook to create a new path forward, they must also fix what they’ve broken.”

Media coverage of CHD’s lawsuit against Meta has been largely absent other than to report the organization’s loss in the Ninth Circuit in August.

Hailing from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Kaplan obtained a bachelor’s degree from Harvard University in 1991. He later served in the U.S. Marine Corps and went on to earn a law degree from Harvard Law School in 1998. Early in his career he clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and then-Judge Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kaplan is described as a former “active conservative Democrat” whose “political views shifted because of campus demonstrations opposing the U.S. invasion of Kuwait during the Gulf War.^[10]“

He joined Facebook in 2011 as vice president of U.S. public policy and is credited with opposing “a proposed Facebook project that was intended to make Facebook users of different political views engage with each other in less hostile ways. Kaplan argued that this feature would lead conservatives to accuse Facebook of bias.^[9][6] Kaplan also reportedly advocated on behalf of Breitbart News and the Daily Caller within Facebook.^[6][8] Kaplan has helped to place conservatives in key positions in the leadership of Facebook.^[7]“

On January 2 Facebook announced Kaplan the successor to Nick Clegg, a former deputy British prime minister under PM David Cameron whose Facebook career spanned seven years.

A journalist-turned-politician, Clegg served in the European Parliament and British House of Commons. Although a member of the “Liberal Democrat” Party, Wikipedia reports, in 2010 Cameron appointed Clegg deputy prime minister after the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats in Parliament formed a “coalition.”

Clegg reportedly “played a vital role in the banning and reinstating of Trump from Meta’s platforms following the 2021 Capitol riots.”

Instead of “fact-checkers,” Zuckerberg said in his announcement, the platforms will “return” to a policy of “free expression” and institute “community notes” similar to the social-media platform “X,” formerly Twitter, acquired by Elon Musk in late 2022.

Musk has publicly championed the right to free speech and will co-lead Donald Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) with Vivek Ramaswamy once Trump is inaugurated on January 20.

Shortly after acquiring Twitter, Musk contracted with several independent journalists to comb through the “Twitter Files,” which revealed a high level of coordination between former company content decision-makers and agencies of the United States government, particularly the FBI.

On Tuesday Musk commended Zuckerberg for his newly-declared stance.

“We’re going to simplify our content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse,” Zuckerberg continued. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions, shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.”

“Enforcement” of its new policies will also change, Zuckerberg said, to eliminate the “mistakes” he said arose from the creation of “complex systems” established to counter inaccurate information, often at the request of “governments.”

Over the years readers and columnists of this publication have reported Facebook censorship on multiple occasions, particularly on the topic of presidential eligibility.

On December 29, Froebel Galleries trusted art seller, publisher, historian and author Johannes Froebel-Parker told this writer that his “X” account was suspended without warning, purportedly for its lack of “authenticity.”

“I have appealed 3 x today and will continue to dig to see what the heck they mean!” Froebel-Parker wrote in an email. “Thought this was over with Elon but am of good cheer.”

Indeed, Froebel-Parker’s account “@Froebel” as well as direct messages on the platform have disappeared.

Early Saturday morning, Froebel-Parker received the following response from “Twitter Support” at X:

On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 02:32:17 AM PST, Twitter Support <support@twitter.com> wrote:

Hello,

Your account was suspended due to multiple or repeat violations of the X Rules: https://x.com/rules.

This account will not be restored.

This case will now be closed and replies will not be monitored. 

Thanks,

X

His appeal reads:

Why did X not explain the very first instance of “said” violation? By allowing “multiple” X was part of reason for this client’s suspension. This is the Napoleonic Code, not American sense of “justice.” X allowed me to have blue checks, for which one paid, on both accounts, on the second @449_518, after suspension of @Froebel. This feels like commercial tomfoolery from the consumer’s point of view. Although X states that the main reason of the violations is “Authenticity” I am a published writer and no one uses my accounts but myself. Please check if accounts were hacked or X, itself, was hacked, as there is no logic in this decision. I do thank you for your diligence as snafus DO happen especially with technology.

As of November 2024, X’s “Authenticity” policy states, in relevant part:

You may not engage in inauthentic activity that undermines the integrity of X.

We want X to be a place where people have authentic experiences. To make that possible, we do not allow any activity that attempts to manipulate our platform or disrupt our services through inauthentic accounts, behaviors or content.

Inauthentic Accounts 

Accounts on X must be authentic. Under this policy, you may not create, operate, or mass-register accounts that are not legitimate, genuine and transparent as to their source, identity, and popularity. This includes: 

Unauthorized automation: Automated or scripted accounts that do not comply with our Developer Policy. Please note that as a user you are ultimately responsible for third-party applications you may authorize to access or use your account. 

Fake personas: You may not use manufactured identities to engage in disruptive or deceptive behavior. This may include using stock, stolen or AI-generated profile photos, copied or stolen profile bios, and/or misleading profile information for the purpose of deceiving others. 

Impersonation: You may not impersonate other identities of individuals, groups, or organizations to deceive others. Although you are not required to display your real identity on your profile, your account should not use false profile information to impersonate others. We allow compliant Parody, Commentary, and Fan (PCF) accounts on X only if the purpose is to discuss, satirize or share information. If you believe an account is posing as you or your brand, you can file a report here.

On September 26, 2024, Business Insider published an article titled, “Elon Musk talks a lot about free speech. But account suspensions on X have skyrocketed,” referring to a recently-issued “transparency report” found here.

“Our mission at X is to promote and protect the public conversation,” the “Global Transparency Report” states on page 3. “We believe X users have the right to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship. We also believe it is our responsibility to keep users on our platform safe from content that violates our Rules. Violence, harassment, and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation.”

Page 5 of the report contains a table detailing the number of accounts suspended under categories including but not limited to “Abuse & Harassment,” “Child Safety,” “Misleading & Deceptive Identities,” and “Violent Content.”

On Sunday, Froebel-Parker reported that “all over GAB people commenting that X is suddenly going twitter-like and silencing voices including mine.”

As of press time, conversations on Gab connected both Facebook and X to censorship.