Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook over some Covid-19 content

Has mark zuckerberg ever expressed any regret for the fact that his platforms have played a role in instigating conflict and lethal violence in many different parts of the world over the years or is this his only regret?

It looks like there is a come-back of free speech on big tech. Probably because their interests and some government&#x27;s interests do not align as of lately . Not that I &#x27;m complaining but if this is really a trend, it took way too long to take us back to 2001<p>Also interesting that the AP article doesn&#x27;t mention the hunter biden story censorhip that zuck mentions in the same letter.

There a retcon in that article. They say Biden and 2020 but Trump was president in 2020. Biden was sworn in January 2021.

[dupe]<p>Discussion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41365868">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41365868</a>

When the plague struck, I was living in NY city, in a large apartment building. *Every* *single* *day* one of my neighbors was wheeled out the front doors, feet-first, never to return.<p>Then it was *two* neighbors a day...<p>The hospital beds were filling up so fast, they were building tent hospitals in Central Park. So many bodies were piling up in morgues that there was serious talk about having mass burials.<p>It is very easy to armchair quarterback how this should have played out--5 years later, with the benefit of hindsight. Yes, lots of things could have been handled better. Yes, we should do postmortems to find out what could be done better next time.<p>But FFS, both the government and corporate leaders had to make decisions in real time--decisions they knew would have real consequences, and decisions they knew had the possibility of being wrong. They didn&#x27;t have the luxury of perfection. It was a once-in-a-century pandemic, and they had to <i>act</i> in the face of partial information.<p>All things considered, they did a pretty good job.

The use of &quot;some&quot; here in the headline seems dishonest and diminishing of what was done. Like, &quot;some people were effected by the car crash&quot;.<p>Technically true, but effectively more narrative than journalism, especially since among that censored &quot;some&quot; was a lot of true information and experiences.

I wonder if this is coming up just before the election because of the Harris campaign’s suggested policy of capital gains tax on unrealised gains for people who have over $100m in assets? I think this is a great idea personally given what these people are doing to avoid paying tax including taking out loans against their own share portfolios.<p>EDIT: surprisingly aggressive downvoting on this, seems reasonable to make the point that a lot of owners of social media sites have billions of dollars in taxes riding on a Trump win if this policy happens.

The long march has stalled, soon the lizards will break ranks and flee.

Meh, I find this very hard to care about. I suppose to some degree there was some overreaction around covid, but I feel like some portion of the country being actively conspiratorial saps any faith I had that there&#x27;s some inherent selection algorithm out there in our nature that will elevate rational, calm, evidence-based ideas to the top.

<i>“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote</i><p>I believe how Zuckerberg handled a pandemic that killed millions of people around the world was wrong. At some point in time, we have to admit to ourselves that misinformation, including misinformation masquerading as &quot;satire&quot;, is deadly and we&#x27;re going to have to come to terms whether spreading deadly misinformation is a constitutionally protected right.