The left continues to whine over Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to do away with censorship of free speech across his platforms, and allow the marketplace of ideas to decide which ideas win and which do not. While discussing this on Fox News Sunday, Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist Mollie Hemingway laid waste to those organizations vested in online censorship.
Watch as Hemingway delivers a brutal fact=check of her own:
“If you want to please Democrats, you engage in massive censorship of American speech and debate and if you want to please Republicans you embrace free speech. I think that explains a lot about the last election results” – @MZHemingway on #FoxNewsSunday pic.twitter.com/xmqq9Xlmb5
— Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) January 12, 2025
FOX NEWS SUNDAY
1/12/25
9:44 AM
JUAN WILLIAMS: Wow, the Russians and the Chinese must be just celebrating. Great. They’ll put out nonsense. So I think- you think about the damage the internet has done to our children, to our lives, I just think it’s- I just think they have misdirected. A lot of people are being fooled to think it’s a censorship argument when in reality we need, in fact, some regulation of what is the Wild, Wild West on our computers.
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: So, in fact, Mark Zuckerberg said that what they’re getting rid of is the left-wing so-called fact-checking enterprise in which left-wing groups censored speech and debate against conservatives. There will still be moderation but it’ll be done through free speech- through the free market of free speech where users of these platforms can themselves check facts and information. But it is interesting that people think that if you want to- if you want to please Democrats, you engage in massive censorship of American speech and debate. And if you want to please Republicans, you embrace free speech. I think that explains a lot about the last election results.
“Disinformation” has been dumbed down to “stuff the left doesn’t agree with or that hurts it politically” and utilized this as the basis from which to censor political speech. We all remember how Hunter Biden’s laptop was deemed “Russian disinformation” and subsequently censored, only to be found to be true. Politically inconvenient information was suppressed, with a devastating result. Per our 2020 study:
One of every six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories. A shift of this magnitude would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden, and Donald Trump would have comfortably won a second term as president.
Facebook had a role in this suppression. Fast forward to four years later, and Zuckerberg is doing a 180-degree shift on those very policies.
Longtime Fox resident lib Juan Williams whined about the changes, claiming that they represented an open door for China and Russia and should therefore be regulated.
Hemingway shuts down that call for censorship and exposes the corrupt so-called “fact-checking enterprise” that sought to control free speech for millions of Americans. In so doing, and noting the partisan nature of speech demands, an interesting question hangs in the air:
Had Biden/Harris won, would Zuckerberg have made these changes?
