Meta Platforms Inc (NASDAQ: META) CEO Mark Zuckerberg disclosed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, his company faced pressure from senior Biden administration officials to censor certain content on its platforms.
Citing a letter addressed to the House Judiciary Committee, Reuters noted that Zuckerberg expressed regret for not opposing the pressure sooner and acknowledged certain decisions made by Meta in removing content during that period.
"In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn't agree," Zuckerberg wrote in the letter, which was posted by the Committee on the Judiciary on its Facebook page.
Zuckerberg also indicated that he would resist any similar pressures in the future.
The letter was directed to Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Noting a Facebook post, Reuters highlighted that the Committee hailed the letter as a "big win for free speech," emphasizing that Zuckerberg had admitted to censoring American voices during the pandemic.
In a statement to Politico, the White House said: "When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety."
"Our position has been clear and consistent: we believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present," the statement read.
Zuckerberg also confirmed in the letter that he will not contribute to support election infrastructure during the upcoming presidential election in November.
He stated he does not want to play a role "one way or another" in this year's election. This decision is a marked shift from 2020, when he and his wife contributed $400 million through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to support election infrastructure.
The 2020 contributions sparked criticism and legal challenges from groups who argued that the funding was partisan.