Mark Elliot Zuckerberg was born on May 14, 1984 in White Plains, New York. After graduating in 2002 from the Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire, he enrolled at Harvard University where he earned a reputation as an expert software developer and created a social networking website called The Facebook. After his sophomore year, Zuckerberg dropped out of college to devote himself full-time to this project, which he renamed simply as Facebook; it eventually became a multi-billion-dollar corporation. Today, Facebook controls as much as 80 percent of social media traffic, meaning that it has the power to erase conversations, shift narratives, and control how people speak to one another. With 190 million users in the United States, the social network monopoly has more control over what people see than all of the media giants combined.

Zuckerberg and Immigration

Zuckerberg has been outspoken on a number of political matters, most notably immigration reform. “We [Americans] have a strange immigration policy for a nation of immigrants,” he wrote in an April 2013 Washington Post op-ed. “And it’s a policy unfit for today’s world.” That same month,Zuckerberg led a dozen fellow tech-industry executives in co-founding the organization FWD.us, to promote the creation of a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. He explained that the chief objective of his fledgling group, which drew its name from President Barack Obama‘s 2012 re-election campaign slogan (“Forward”), was to bolster America’s “knowledge economy” by attracting “the most talented and hardest-working people” from around the world.

Toward that end, Zuckerberg has consistently favored increasing the number of H-1B visas that are issued to high-tech foreign workers, even though — as of 2013 — half of all students graduating with “STEM” (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) degrees from American colleges were unable to find employment in those fields. He also supports an expansion of the Optional Practical Training program that allows foreigners with F-1 student visas to take jobs where employers can: (a) pay them much lower wages than they would be required to pay to U.S. workers, and (b) avoid paying Medicare and Social Security taxes on the foreign workers’ behalf.

To maximize the effectiveness of FWD.us, its leaders in April 2013 established two subsidiary organizations—Americans for a Conservative Direction and the Council for American Job Growth.

In September 2013, Zuckerberg visited Capitol Hill to press members of Congress in private meetings to support an amnesty bill advocating citizenship for millions of illegal aliens.

In June 2015, Zuckerberg donated $5 million to TheDream.US, a college scholarship fund created by Washington Post publisher Donald Graham, Democratic National Committee finance chairman Henry Munoz, and “immigrant-rights” activist Gaby Pacheco. Its purpose was to benefit illegal aliens to whom the Obama administration’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program had granted legal status, work permits, access to certain social services, and protection from deportation. Zuckerburg continued to contribute heavily to the scholarship fund over the ensuing two years.

At a Facebook developer conference in April 2016, Zuckerberg lamented that “as I look around and I travel around the world, I’m starting to see people and nations turning inward—against this idea of a connected world and community.” Without naming anyone in particular, he criticized those who had spoken out against open borders and in favor of immigration-law enforcement: “I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as ‘others,’ for blocking free expression, for slowing immigration, reducing trade and, in some cases around the world, even cutting access to the Internet…. It takes courage to choose hope over fear.”

Zuckerberg and Islam

Zuckerberg has been a vocal opponent of what he views as anti-Islamic speech. In September 2015, for instance, he and Facebook announced that they were joining forces with the German government and a German Internet watchdog called Voluntary Self-Monitoring of Multimedia Service Providers, to monitor what Facebook called the “racist and xenophobic comments” that some visitors were posting to the website. At the time, many Germans objected to the fact that vast numbers of “refugees” were migrating to their country from terrorist strongholds in the Muslim world. Later that month, Zuckerberg assured German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose government had recently complained that Facebook was doing too little to purge its site of comments criticizing Islam, that he would give the issue all the attention it deserved.

Beginning in November 2015, Facebook helped fund a newly formed “Hate Helps” propaganda initiative, organized by a German NGO called Demokratische Kultur (Center for Democratic Action), which pledged to donate one euro for every negative or “racist” comment posted against Muslims and migrants on the Internet.

In January 2016, Facebook launched what it called an “Initiative For Civil Courage Online,” whose purpose was to censor and remove from its website—particularly from items posted by German users—all “racist” posts contain[ing] “hate speech” and “promot[ing] xenophobia.” “Hate speech has no place in our society—not even on the internet,” explained Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg.

Reacting to critics who warned Western countries against accepting migrants from terrorist hotbeds in the Middle East, Zuckerberg in early 2016 stated that he had “no tolerance” for “hate speech against migrants,” whom he and Facebook viewed as a “protected group.”

After two Islamic terrorists massacred fourteen Americans at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015—just three weeks after jihadists had killed 130 innocents in Paris—Zuckerberg worried openly that Western Muslims might in turn be victimized by bigoted people of other faiths. “I want to add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world,” he wrote. “After the Paris attacks and hate this week, I can only imagine the fear Muslims feel that they will be persecuted for the actions of others…. If you’re a Muslim in this [Facebook] community, as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you.”

By contrast, Zuckerberg has exhibited much less concern about anti-Semitic rhetoric by Muslims. Beginning in September 2015, for instance, bulletins posted on Facebook were helping to fuel and encourage a sudden spate of Palestinian violence (stabbings, shootings, and vehicular attacks) against Jews in Israel. When the Israeli Foreign Ministry asked Zuckerberg and his company to remove any posts that incited anti-Jewish violence, they replied that they were not responsible for such content and had no way of monitoring it effectively. In October 2015, the head of the nonprofit legal organization Shurat HaDin (Israel Law Center) filed a lawsuit “on behalf of some 20,000 Israelis” accusing Facebook of “fanning the flames of the current Palestinian intifada” by “its refusals to actively monitor and block the incitement to violence.” And in January 2016, Shurat HaDin launched a campaign called “Zuckerberg Don’t Kill Us,” which sought to purchase billboard ads in and around Zuckerberg’s hometown of Palo Alto, California, to publicize Facebook’s negligence regarding this matter.^[1]

Zuckerberg was angered by President Trump’s September 2017 announcement that he planned to phase out Barack Obama‘s aforementioned DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) executive action. In an internal message to Facebook employees, Zuckerberg wrote:

“As many of you have heard, the Trump administration just announced they will be ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. This is incredibly disappointing, and goes against everything we should stand for as a country.

“I posted about this publicly, and I want all of you to know that we are taking care of employees who are directly affected by this decision. We also realize that there are thousands of people who aren’t employed directly by Facebook but who need help. We’ll fight for you too, both in the courts and with congress to help give Dreamers a permanent legislative path to citizenship. FWD.us, the immigration advocacy group I founded, has been working on this for a long time.”

Zuckerberg and Facebook’s Misuse of Users’ Private Information

In a 2009 interview regarding the manner in which Facebook handled and protected the private personal data of its users, Zuckerberg told BBC journalist Laura Trevelyan that “the person who puts the content on Facebook always owns the information, and this is why Facebook is such a special service.” Those assurances, however, were inconsistent with what Zuckerberg had written during an instant-messenger conversation with a friend around the time he was first getting Facebook off the ground. In that conversation, Zuckerberg had characterized the users of his social network as “dumb f*s” for trusting him with their data. In the 2012 settlement of a 2011 case in which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged Facebook because of its deceptive privacy claims, the company committed to giving its users “clear and prominent notice,” and to obtaining their consent, before sharing their information beyond what their privacy settings allowed.

In March 2018, a pair of bombshell news reports in The New York Times and The Guardian revealed that in 2014, contractors and employees of Cambridge Analytica, a London-based data-mining and analytics firm that worked with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election team and the successful 2016 Brexit campaign in England, had acquired the private Facebook data of tens of millions of the social networking site’s users. Wired.com explains how this happened:

“[In 2014], a slug of Facebook data on 50 million Americans was sucked down by a UK academic named Aleksandr Kogan, and wrongly sold to Cambridge Analytica…. Kogan actually got his Facebook data by just walking in Facebook’s front door and asking for it. Like all technology platforms, Facebook encourages outside software developers to build applications to run inside it, just like Google does with its Android operating system and Apple does with iOS. And so in November 2013 Kogan, a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge, created an application developer account on Facebook and explained why he wanted access to Facebook’s data for a research project. He started work soon thereafter.

“Kogan had created the most anodyne of tools for electoral manipulation: an app based on personality quizzes. Users signed up and answered a series of questions. Then the app would take those answers, mush them together with that person’s Facebook likes and declared interests, and spit out a profile that was supposed to know the test-taker better than he knew himself. About 270,000 Americans participated. However what they didn’t know was that by agreeing to take the quiz and giving Facebook access to their data, they also granted access to many of their Facebook friends’ likes and interests as well.… Kogan quickly ended up with data on roughly 50 million people.

“About five months after Kogan began his research, Facebook announced that it was tightening its app review policies.… By then Kogan had already mined the data and sold it to Cambridge Analytica, violating his agreement with Facebook.”

It was eventually learned that the data of up to 87 million people — mostly in the United States — had been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. According to The Guardian, the information contained in the Facebook profiles had been used “to build a powerful software program” to “influence choices at the ballot box” by “target[ing] [people] with personalized political advertisements.” Facebook confirmed in March 2018 that it had been aware of the massive data breach by late 2015 but had elected not to alert its users, and that it took only limited measures thereafter to recover and secure the information that had been compromised.

For additional details of this Facebook data breach, see The Guardian story in Footnote #2, below.^[2]

More on Zuckerberg

In 2013, Zuckerberg, asserting that “connectivity is a human right,” helped launch Internet.org, a partnership through which Facebook and six other tech corporations aimed to bring free Internet access to poor people in underdeveloped countries. Journalist Daniel Greenfield observed that this was “essentially … a subsidy for Facebook disguised as a charity program.”

In 2014 Zuckerberg met in his office with Lu Wei, the czar of China’s Internet censorship system which blocks access to many foreign websites, punishes or shuts down any site that posts content critical of the state, and censors the Web to hide evidence of corruption and wrongdoing by the Chinese government. When Wei noticed a book written by Chinese President Xi Jinping titled The Governance of China on Zuckerberg’s office desk, Zuckerberg said: “I’ve bought this book for my co-workers. I want them to understand socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

In November 2015, Zuckerberg and a number of fellow billionaires and entrepreneurs (e.g., Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Reid Hoffman, and Jeff Bezos) pledged to use their wealth to spark a “new economic revolution” founded upon “renewable” and “clean” energy. According to Zuckerberg, progress towards sustainable energy systems was proceeding at “too slow” a pace.

On December 5, 2015, Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, publicly pledged to use their newly launched “Chan Zuckerberg Initiative” to give away, over the remainder of their lives, 99% of their Facebook shares—which at the time were valued at about $45 billion—to help “advanc[e] human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation.” The SEC filing for this endeavor took pains to reassure investors that Zuckerberg planned “to sell or gift no more than $1 billion of Facebook stock each year for the next three years” and would retain “his majority position in our stock for the foreseeable future.” Moreover, the initiative was structured not as a nonprofit but as a Limited Liability Corporation, thereby allowing it to earn and invest as much money as it wished.

In February 2016 Zuckerberg posted, on a Facebook announcement page, a private memo to his company’s employees, noting, with disapproval, that some of them had been scratching out the increasingly popular “Black Lives Matter” meme and replacing it with “All Lives Matter” on the company’s famous signature wall. Wrote Zuckerberg:

“There are specific issues affecting the black community in the United states, coming from a history of oppression and racism. ‘Black lives matter’ doesn’t mean other lives don’t—it’s simply asking that the black community also achieves the justice they deserve. We’ve never had rules around what people can write on our walls—we expect everybody to treat each other with respect. Regardless of the content or location, crossing out something means silencing speech … This has been a deeply hurtful and tiresome experience for the black community and really the entire Facebook community, and we are now investigating the current incidents. I hope and encourage people to participate in the Black@ town hall on [March 4th] to educate themselves about what the Black Lives Matter movement is about.”

In May 2016, the website Gizmodo reported that according to a number of former Facebook employees, workers at the company “routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential ‘trending’ news section.”^[3]

According to hacked emails published in October 2016 by WikiLeaks, Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg emailed John Podesta, Hillary Clinton‘s campaign chairman, in August 2015 to see if Podesta would be willing to meet with Zuckerberg, to teach the latter about various political issues and the art of influencing public opinion. Wrote Sandberg:

“…[W]ondering if you would be willing to spend some time with Mark Zuckerberg. Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him. As you may know, he’s young and hungry to learn — always in learning mode — and is early in his career when it comes to his philanthropic efforts. He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about. He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research).”

“Happy to do,” Podesta wrote in response.

On May 25, 2017, Zuckerberg was the commencement speaker at Harvard University’s graduation ceremony. There, he exhorted the graduates to seek out a “new social contract” that would guarantee a universal basic income for everyone. Among his remarks were the following:

• “How about stopping climate change before we destroy the planet and getting millions of people involved manufacturing and installing solar panels?”
• “[T]oday, we have a level of wealth inequality that hurts everyone. When you don’t have the freedom to take your idea and turn it into a historic enterprise, we all lose…. There is something wrong with our system when I can leave here and make billions of dollars in 10 years while millions of students can’t afford to pay off their loans, let alone start a business…. I know lots of people who haven’t pursued dreams because they didn’t have a cushion to fall back on if they failed.”
• “Every generation expands its definition of equality. Previous generations fought for the vote and civil rights. They had the New Deal and Great Society. Now it’s our time to define a new social contract for our generation…. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things…. And yes, giving everyone the freedom to pursue purpose isn’t free. People like me should pay for it. Many of you will do well and you should too.”

In March 2018, it was reported that in 2012, Facebook had voluntarily provided the presidential re-election campaign of Barack Obama with data on millions of its users. According to the Daily Signal, that data was “a more sophisticated version of the type of data that has long been provided by professional direct mail marketers” who help political campaigns to more effectively target prospective sources of “votes and money.” On March 18, 2018, Carol Davidsen, Obama For America’s former media director, tweeted that Facebook employees had come to the Obama campaign office six years earlier and “were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.” Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky puts the foregoing information in perspective:

“If true, such action by Facebook may constitute a major violation of federal campaign finance law as an illegal corporate campaign contribution…. A federal law bans corporations from making ‘direct or indirect’ contributions to federal candidates. That ban extends beyond cash contributions to ‘any services, or anything of value.’ In other words, corporations cannot provide federal candidates with free services of any kind…. Corporations can certainly offer their services, including office space, to federal campaigns. But the campaigns are required to pay the fair market value for such services or rental properties.”

In the fall of 2016, Zuckerberg pressured one of Facebook’s top executives, Oculus founder Palmer Luckey,  to publicly apologize for having supported Donald Trump during that presidential election season, and to issue a letter just before Election Day stating that he had recently switched his allegiance to libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. In a September 2016 email to Luckey’s attorney, Facebook Deputy General Counsel Paul Grewal wrote: “I need to tell you that Mark [Zuckerberg] himself drafted this [an attached apology for which Luckey was instructed to claim authorship] and details are critical.” The apology subsequently went through numerous drafts before Luckey and Facebook ultimately agreed on the precise wording.

On November 15, 2018 — just hours after Facebook had cut its ties with Definers Public Affairs, a political consulting firm that had accused George Soros of funding a group of anti-Facebook activists — Zuckerberg said: “I have tremendous respect for George Soros.”

In an October 2019 interview, Zuckerberg, whose net worth at that time was $69 billion, was asked to comment on Senator Bernie Sanders’s recent assertion that “I don’t think that billionaires should exist.” Zuckerberg replied: “I understand where he’s coming from. I don’t know that I have an exact threshold on what amount of money someone should have but on some level no one deserves to have that much money.”

Zuckerberg once spent $30 million to purchase four homes situated on properties surrounding his own, in order to get “a little more privacy” for himself. And in 2016, he hired contractors to build a six-foot-high physical wall around his $100 million, 700-acre Hawaii property—a stark contrast to his earlier condemnation of “fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as ‘others’” and refusing “to choose hope over fear.”

Facebook Puts Soros- and Muslim Brotherhood-Affiliated Activists in Charge of Censorship

In May 2020, Facebook put some very noteworthy political activists in charge of its 20-member Oversight Board, tasked with deciding who would be censored on the Facebook website. Describing the power and duties of this board, Zuckerberg said: “You can imagine some sort of structure, almost like a Supreme Court, that is made up of independent folks who don’t work for Facebook, who ultimately make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech in a community that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world.” As of June 2020, the following facts applied to the Oversight Board:

• Only a quarter of the Oversight Board members originated from the United States.
• 95 percent of the Oversight Board’s members were openly anti-President Trump.
• Three of the 20 Oversight Board members were Muslim or came from Muslim countries. One of those 3 Muslim nationals, Tawakkol Karman, was a top leader in the Al-Islah party, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization with ties to Al Qaeda. Karman once wrote that “the Brotherhood is a movement fighting for freedom,” and predicted that “the Brotherhood is the one who will rule Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.”
• Oversight Board member Andras Sajo, an old friend of George Soros, had held positions in Soros’s Open Society organizations, including on the Board of Directors of the Open Society Justice Initiative.
• Oversight Board member Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the former Prime Minister of Denmark,  sat on the Board of Trustees of the Soros-funded International Crisis Group along with George Soros and his son, Alexander Soros. Thorning-Schmidt led the left-wing party Social Democrats – a member of the Party of European Socialists – from 2005 to 2015. She favors high taxes on the wealthy, massive social spending, and increased immigration.
• Oversight Board member Maina Kiai, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association, sat on the advisory board for the Human Rights Initiative of Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Kiai once stated on a podcast: “I think that Donald Trump is the jewel in the crown of the far right, fascist, xenophobic, right-wing groups that exist.”
• Oversight Board member Sudhir Krishnaswamy heads the Centre for Law and Policy Research, which focuses on “transgender rights, gender equality, and public health.” The organization has received funding from the Center for Reproductive Rights, which in turn is heavily funded by Open Society Foundations.
• Oversight Board member Afia Asantewaa Asare-Kyei is a “critical race feminism” researcher and human rights attorney who manages the Equality, Justice and Human Rights Program portfolio of an organization that is part of the global network of Open Society Foundations headed by George Soros.
• Oversight Board member Nighat Dad, a Pakistani lawyer who heads the Digital Rights Foundation, is a member of the Reporters Without Borders’ Information and Democracy Commission, an organization that is heavily funded by Soros’s Open Society Foundations. She is also an outspoken hater of President Trump.
• Oversight Board member Ronaldo Lemos is a board of directors member of the Mozilla Foundation, which has collaborated with the Open Society Foundations on Internet-related initiatives. He also served on the board of Access Now, which has received a great deal of funding from Soros and his Foundations.
• Oversight Board member Nicolas Suzor has cast President Trump as a fascist in the mold of Adolf Hitler. He also has written that “neutrality” on social media platforms is “causing problems,” and that “neutral tools that do not actively take inequality into account will almost inevitably contribute to the amplification of inequality.” Suzor even suggested that dissent from the Left’s positions on global warming, race, and other matters could be viewed as dangerous: “Racism, misogyny, and bigotry, anti-vaccination content, misinformation, self-harm, and climate change denial — all require difficult judgments about when one person’s speech is harmful to others.”
• Oversight Board member Pamela Karlan is a Trump-hating law professor who has made dozens of political donations, all to Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Elizabeth Warren.
• Oversight Board member Catalina Botero-Marino has stated that President “Trump’s trill is a disgrace to the United States and an affront to the most elementary principles of the Rule of Law.”
• Oversight Board member Julie Owono, a former contributor at Al Jazeera, characterized government workers carrying out President Trump’s policies as “inhumane.”
• Oversight Board member Alan Rusbridger, a vocal hater of President Trump, serves on the board of directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which in 2018 was granted $750,000 by Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
• Oversight Board member Jamal Greene, a Columbia Law School professor, is a former aide to Democratic Senator Kamala Harris.
• Oversight Board member Endy Bayuni, a senior editor and board member of the Jakarta Post, has articulated his low opinion of President Trump. He also described the populist Brexit victory in the United Kingdom as “another product of a democratic exercise in the Western world that has gone wrong.”
• Oversight Board member Katherine Chen, a professor at National Chengchi University, has been openly contemptuous of President Trump.
• Oversight Board member Evelyn Aswad, a professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, has donated money to a number of Democratic politicians.
• Oversight Board member John Samples is the vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that favors open borders. He has characterized Donald Trump as an “incompetent” president who “appears to oppose basic ideals underpinning liberal democracy,” and stated that: “I think to remove him [from the presidency] because he is the way he is may well be justified.”
• Oversight Board member Emi Palmor served in the Israeli Ministry of Justice from 2014-19. Critics claim that under her control, “the Israeli Ministry of Justice petitioned Facebook to censor legitimate speech of human rights defenders and journalists because it was deemed politically undesirable.” She also led an Israeli government commission designed “to stamp out racism” by promoting values that reflected those of the Black Lives Matter movement.
• Oversight Board member Michael McConnell, a Republican and a professor at Stanford Law School, is the only board member who is not fervently anti-Trump.

Facebook Places Prager University on Restricted List As a “False News” Media Outlet

In May 2020, Facebook announced that it had decided to classify Prager University, a website run by conservative author and radio host Dennis Prager, as as a “false news” media outlet. Consequently, Facebook said it would thenceforth restrict Prager U’s ability reach to its own audience of people who had expressed their desire to receive notification regarding all new Prager U posts.

The Bias of Facebook’s Content Moderators

In June 2020, Project Veritas released an undercover hidden-camera investigative report documenting widespread censorship occurring at Facebook. Specifically, Facebook content moderators were recorded bragging about their practice of deleting posts and comments supporting President Trump and conservative ideas. For example, one such moderator was asked if she typically deleted every Republican item that came up on her queue, to which she replied: “Yes! I don’t give no f*cks, I’ll delete it.” She also stated that she refused to take down anti-Trump content, even if it violated official Facebook policy. “You gotta take it down but I leave it up,” she said. “If you see something that’s not supposed to be up, it’s probably me.”

Another content moderator, Lara Kontakos, was asked what she did when she saw a posts supporting President Trump. She answered: “If someone is wearing a MAGA [Make America Great Again] hat, I am going to delete them for terrorism. I think we are all doing that.”

Steve Grimmett, a content review lead, said it was part of Facebook’s culture to target President Trump and his supporters: “It’s a very progressive company, who’s very anti-MAGA.”

In June 2020 as well, Ryan Hartwig, who formerly worked for Cognizant, a third-party company that performed content-moderation services for Facebook, told an interviewer that Facebook’s content-moderation policies had become more biased during 2018-20. Some excerpts from Hartwig:

• “There’s definitely a lot of bias, [and] it wasn’t just the content moderators, it’s the policy itself that’s biased and rigged against conservatives. Just a quick example … if you’re attacking someone, you can call someone a ‘Trump-humper’ but you can’t call them a ‘feminazi,’ so words and phrases that are usually tied to left-wing people, you can’t call them that. Even if I report that [anti-conservative] post, it would still stay on the platform.”
• “During pride month of June 2018 … they said, we’re making an exception to policy. Now normally in the hate speech policy you can’t attack anyone because of their gender entities, but they said hey, during pride month it’s okay to attack straight white males and call them ‘filth’ if it’s in the context of attacking them for not supporting LGBT. It extended [to] other policies as well… Fairly recently, towards the end of my tenure there, they said it’s not a violation to call someone ‘white trash,’ when before, it was. So they modified the policy. Same thing goes with calling cops ‘pigs’ … they specifically said in their guidance to us that that would now be allowed.”
• “It came from the top. The policy was shaped by left-wing individuals who were seeking to influence the discourse and also influence the election.”

How Zuckerberg Funded Joe Biden’s 2020 Presidential Campaign^[4]

Zuckerberg and his wife helped buy the presidency for Joe Biden in 2020 by strategically donating more than $400 million to left-wing activist groups that, in turn, awarded huge grants to election administrators in order to create what Phill Kline, director of the Thomas More Society’s Amistad Project, called “a two-tiered election system that treated voters differently depending on whether they lived in Democrat or Republican strongholds.” In a December 2020 Amistad Project report, Kline, who also served as attorney general of Kansas from 2003-07, wrote that in 2020 there was “an unprecedented and coordinated public-private partnership to improperly influence” the election in swing states, a partnership that “effectively placed government’s thumb on the scale to help these private interests achieve their objectives and to benefit” Biden. And Zuckerberg was a central player on the “private” side of that equation.

According to the Amistad Project’s report, Zuckerberg and his wife made $419.5 million in donations to nonprofits during the 2020 election cycle – $350 million of which went to the “Safe Elections” Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL), while the other $69.5 million went to the Center for Election Innovation and Research.

Contrary both to federal law and state legislature-endorsed election plans, Zuckerberg’s money “dictated city and county election management,” Kline wrote in the Amistad Project report’s executive summary. In addition, “executive officials in swing states facilitated, through unique and novel contracts, the sharing of private and sensitive information about citizens within those states with private interests, some [of] whom actively promote leftist candidates and agendas.” This sharing of data “allowed direct access to data of unique political value to leftist causes, and created new vulnerabilities for digital manipulation of state electronic poll books and counting systems and machines.”

As the COVID-19 crisis worsened in March 2020, more and more lawsuits were filed by left-wing organizations aimed at weakening laws designed to protect the integrity of absentee ballots. Claiming that voters should not have to risk their physical well-being to vote, Democrats and other voting-by-mail advocates sought to make mail-in balloting mandatory for all Americans in the 2020 election. Toward that end, they attempted to overturn restrictions on voting-by-mail in well over a dozen state courts. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told MSNBC on May 20 that voting in person was “a health issue” in the era of the pandemic. Republicans countered that mail-in voting should not be expanded because it is so susceptible to fraud, and because Democrats were using the pandemic as an excuse to rig the election.

The attorney leading the legal onslaught against fair elections was Marc Elias of the high-powered Democratic law firm Perkins Coie. Elias has a long history of successfully fighting electoral integrity policies in court, eliminating or weakening signature-matching requirements and ballot-receipt deadlines. While Elias and his fellow leftist litigators were ripping electoral safeguards to shreds, battleground state governors began issuing emergency executive orders restricting in-person voting, which has many anti-fraud safeguards, while putting state resources into promoting high-risk, fraud-prone voting-by-mail. “[T]his coordinated assault on in-person voting generally favored Democrat Party voters who preferred to vote in advance, while placing Republicans, who preferred to vote in person, at a disadvantage,” Kline stated in the Amistad Project report.

Combined, these actions helped to create “a two-tier election system favoring one demographic while disadvantaging another demographic,” wrote Kline.

Infused with hundreds of millions of dollars from Zuckerberg, the Center for Tech and Civic Life — whose previous annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million — suddenly began asking Democratic Party strongholds to seek strings-attached grants that imposed strict conditions on the way recipient jurisdictions ran their elections. Consequently, in May 2020, CTCL gave $100,000 to Racine, Wisconsin and asked its mayor to recruit four other cities (Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, and Milwaukee) to develop a joint grant request. The bloc of cities submitted a “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” on June 15 to CTCL and, in turn, got $6.3 million from the nonprofit to implement the plan. By Kline’s telling, it was a plan that treated state election-integrity laws “as obstacles and nuisances to be ignored or circumvented.” Moreover, said Kline, CTCL “retained the right, in the grant document, to, in its sole discretion, order all funds returned if the grantee cities did not conduct the election consistent with CTCL dictates.” In effect, CTCL managed the election in the five affected Wisconsin cities.

The CTCL-engineered plan also circumvented voter ID requirements for absentee ballots by defining all voters as “indefinitely confined” due to COVID-19, and later, after criticism from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, by directing election clerks not to question such claims. The plan also ushered in the use of drop boxes for ballot collection, a move that disrupted the chain of custody of the ballot, and consolidated counting centers, thereby “justifying the flow of hundreds of thousands of ballots to one location and the marginalization of Republican poll watchers such that bipartisan participation in the management, handling, and counting of the ballots was compromised.”

A group known as the Wisconsin Voter Alliance (WVA) filed a legal complaint with the Wisconsin Election Commission against CTCL, claiming that the election-assistance grants it gave to Democrat-dominated cities violated state laws prohibiting the provision of monies to election officials to induce persons to vote or influence an election outcome. Indeed, Zuckerberg’s saturation-bombing of CTCL with money allowed the group to hand out so much cash that Democratic strongholds spent around $47 per voter, compared to $4 to $7 per voter in traditionally Republican areas of Wisconsin. Zuckerberg-underwritten CTCL grants also found their way to election officials in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania, for example, CTCL grants directed to Philadelphia where they were used to pay election judges and other election officials, and to increase the number of polling locations, ballot drop boxes, mobile ballot-pickup units in the city. Moreover, Zuckerberg cash allowed Philadelphia to “cure” improperly completed absentee ballots in a manner not provided for in Republican-leaning areas of the state. For example, in Democrat-dominated Delaware County, Pennsylvania, one drop box was put in place every four square miles and for every 4,000 voters. By contrast, in the 59 counties that Trump had won in 2016, there was one drop box for every 1,100 square miles and every 72,000 voters.

“Government encouraging a targeted demographic to turn out the vote is the opposite side of the same coin as government targeting a demographic to suppress the vote,” Kline wrote in the Amistad Project report. “This two-tiered election system allowed voters in Democrat strongholds to stroll down the street to vote while voters in Republican strongholds had to go on the equivalent of a ‘where’s Waldo’ hunt. These irregularities existed wherever Zuckerberg’s money was granted to local election officials. In effect, Mark Zuckerberg was invited into the counting room, and the American people were kicked out.”

Zuckerberg Bans President Trump from Facebook

On January 7, 2021 — a day after hundreds of people claiming to be President Trump’s supporters had occupied the U.S. Capitol as an act of protest against what they viewed as a stolen presidential election — Zuckerberg announced that Trump would be banned from both Facebook and Instagram — the photo- and video-sharing service owned by Facebook — “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks” until the “peaceful transition of power” to President-elect Joe Biden was complete. “We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” Zuckerberg wrote, referencing “the shocking events of the last 24 hours.” Making clear his belief that Trump was personally responsible for the mayhem, Zuckerberg said that the previous day’s events “clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power” and “to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.”

Zuckerberg Voices His Contempt for Trump, His High Regard for Biden, & His Endorsement of Leftwing Political Agendas

On January 31, 2021, Project Veritas released an undercover surveillance video provided by a Facebook insider, in which Zuckerberg, in conversations between January 7 and January 21, had made plain his partisan political objectives. Some key quotes by Zuckerberg:

• “His [Trump’s] decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters in the Capitol I think has rightly bothered and disturbed people in the U.S. and around the world,” he said.
• “I know this is just a very difficult moment for a lot of us here, and especially our black colleagues. It was troubling to see how people in this [Capitol] mob were treated compared to the stark contrast we saw during [Black Lives Matter and Antifa] protests earlier this [past] year.”
• “Yesterday [January 20] was truly a historic day. The past few weeks have certainly been a very difficult time in our nation. But we got our new president [Joe Biden]. We also have the first woman and the first person of color [Kamala Harris] as our vice president in the history of our country. The swearing in of Vice President Harris really stands as a reminder that despite the challenges that we are facing as a country, we all have so much to be proud of.”
• “I thought President Biden’s inaugural address was very good.”
• “In his first day, President Biden already issued a number of Executive Orders on areas that we as a company care quite deeply about and have for some time. Areas like immigration, preserving DACA, ending restrictions on travel from Muslim-majority countries, as well as other Executive Orders on climate and advancing racial justice and equity. I think these were all important and positive steps.”

Former Facebook Chief Security Officer Calls for Censorship of Conservatives & Compares Them to ISIS

In a January 17, 2021 interview with CNN’s Brian Stelter, Alex Stamos, Facebook’s former chief security officer, likened conservatives to ISIS terrorists. He also called for the government to censor all conservative voices — including those on social-media platforms — so that any messages which are anathema to Facebook and the left can be de-platformed. Some key excerpts from Stamos’ remarks include the following:

• “To me, one of the enduring images of January 6 is going to be that line of men in matching green tactical outfits with their hands on their shoulders snaking their way through the disorganized mob. And that is effectively what we are facing online, and that you have a large number of people [conservatives] who are angry and aggrieved, and who have been lied to by the right-wing news ecosystem, as well as online influencers about the election, and who want to show that anger and they want to feel like they’re part of something. And then within that disorganized mob, you have a small number of people who are highly organized and who really want to create violence. And so, I think one of the things we have to do is we have to careful to try to separate those out and to not allow that small group of organized people to speak on behalf of everybody. That is one of the problems I think we’ll have around media coverage of this, is that the 3 percenters, the Proud Boys, folks like that, that they will be given an outsized influence and their messages will be amplified over and over again because their messages are extremely scary. Those groups need to be treated like ISIS effectively, right? There is a history here of both between law enforcement and social media companies of being able to reduce the online presence and the influence of those groups. And then we have to work on the broader disinformation problem to try to turn down the anger that you see from that huge percentage of Republicans who believe that the election was stolen.”
• “It’s really hard because what’s happening is people are able to seek out the information that makes them feel good. That is what’s happening. People have so much choice now. They can choose what their news sources are. They can choose what influencers they want to follow and they can try to seal out anything that helps them question that. And I think that gets to a really core issue with how our freedoms as Americans in the way we have treated press freedom in the past is being abused by these actors in that we have given a lot of leeway both in the traditional media and on social media to people to have a very broad range of political views. It is now in the great economic interest of those individuals to become more and more radical. And I think one of the places you can see this is on the fact that you now have competitors to Fox News on their right.”
• “OANN and Newsmax, which are carried by all the major cable networks who are trying to outflank Fox on the right because the moment Fox introduced any kind of realism into their reporting, immediately, a bunch of people chose to put themselves into a sealed ecosystem. And they can do that both on cable. They can do it online. And that becomes a huge challenge in figuring out how do you bring people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensual reality.”
• “[T]here needs to be an intentional work by the social media companies collaborating together, to work on violent extremism in the same way they worked on ISIS. When I started on Facebook in 2015, the number one challenge from a content perspective was the abuse of social media by the Islamic state. And there was a collaboration between the tech companies and law enforcement to make it impossible for them to use the Internet to recruit and radicalize mostly young Muslim men at the same around the world. Now, we’re talking about domestic audience in the United States. And the challenge is going to be partially that ISIS did not have a domestic constituency in the United States Congress, but there is over half of the Republicans in Congress voted to overturn the election. And there will be a continual political pressure on the companies to not take it seriously.”
• “So, I think, first, you have to focus on those violent extremists, and those companies have to be brave in that way. And, second, we have to turn down the capability of these conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences. There are people on YouTube, for example, that have a larger daytime — larger audience than daytime CNN, and they are extremely radical and pushing extremely radical views. And, so, it is up to the Facebooks and YouTubes in particular to think about whether or not they want to be effectively cable networks for disinformation. And then we have to figure out the OANN and Newsmax problem, you know, these companies have freedom of speech but I’m not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and such to be bringing them into tens of millions of homes.”

Additional Information

For additional information on Mark Zuckerberg, click here.