It’s important to understand the context surrounding Zuckerberg following a string of seemingly positive moves. First, he met with President Trump’s team to try to get involved with the administration. Then, he donated $1,000,000 to President Trump’s inauguration fund. Yesterday, he added Trump ally Dana White to the board at Meta. Now this…

ZUCKERBERG COPIES ELON: META DITCHING FACT-CHECKERS FOR COMMUNITY NOTES

“We're gonna get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.

More specifically, we're gonna get rid of fact checkers and… pic.twitter.com/NOWsLq5hMT

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 7, 2025

Zuckerberg: we were pushed to censor by US government over past four years pic.twitter.com/LLb96HfWlk

— Karli Bonne’ (@KarluskaP) January 7, 2025

According to Fox News:

Meta is ending its fact-checking program and lifting restrictions on speech to “restore free expression” across Facebook, Instagram and Meta platforms, admitting its current content moderation practices have “gone too far.”

“We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a video posted Tuesday morning. “More specifically, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with Community Notes similar to 𝕏, starting in the U.S.”

“Fact-checkers” have plagued Facebook for years. They are arguably the most biased of the “journalistic” censors out there and have been a total embarrassment for the company. Nevertheless, they’ve effectively subdued conservatives on the platform. Replacing them with “Community Notes” similar to 𝕏 is a welcomed change… if it’s real.

All of these are positive signs, which is why it’s important to remember the context. Everyone who has dealt with Zuckerberg over the last two decades has regretted it. That includes the Biden regime, which Zuckerberg exposed over the summer as “pressuring” him and his platform to engage in censorship.

Perhaps he’s really making a change, but we shouldn’t believe it until we see it for a long time. Does he deserve the benefit of the doubt? Absolutely not. He should be treated like the snake that he is, kept at arm’s length and with the assumption that no matter how “reformed” he seems today, he can bite back like a cornered viper at any moment.

This incident sheds light on the broader implications of the fight against online “misinformation,” particularly how premature labeling of claims can potentially suppress legitimate grievances and criticisms that later prove to have been based on some truth, something that happened often in 2020 and the Covid era.

The controversy surrounding a FEMA employee who allegedly directed a relief team to ignore homes displaying support for then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has sparked outrage and demands for a thorough investigation by legislators. As first reported by The Daily Wire, the employee, who has now been fired, instructed team members to bypass these homes, an action condemned by FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell as a “clear violation of FEMA’s core values & principles to help people regardless of their political affiliation.”

Criswell’s confirmation of the dismissal came through a post on X, following online reports about the employee’s conduct. While she didn’t specify which hurricane’s relief efforts were affected, ABC News and The New York Times reported it was during the aftermath of Hurricane Milton in Florida. This hurricane struck shortly after the catastrophic Hurricane Helene.

The rush to curb the spread of misinformation online is a top priority for many pro-censorship platforms and legacy institutions claiming to protect public discourse from false narratives. However, this incident exemplifies the complexities and risks inherent in these efforts. Initially, the claims regarding any of FEMA’s discriminatory practices were quickly categorized as baseless and part of an online misinformation campaign. This not only stifled debate but potentially delayed the scrutiny necessary to uncover and address any wrongdoing.