Post

I really, really don't want to do this, but let's do a bit (just a LITTLE BIT) of fact checking about what Zuck said on the Joe Rogan podcast, because this is something I not only followed closely, but also spent time *talking to the actual people at Meta who dealt with this* which WAS NOT ZUCK.

Anyhoo, he kicks it off with a very bad misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment and the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing. cc: @kenwhite.bsky.social @jkosseff.bsky.social Not only is this wrong, it's meaningless. He runs a private platform and isn't Congress. Does he not have ANY 1A lawyers?

Then he talks about the administration pressuring them to take down people raising concerns about vaccine side effects. He then says that Meta refused to do this. Which... should be the end of the story. That's what came out in the Murthy case: while admin officials reached out, FB told them no.

And... that's what matters. Because it only violates the law if the gov't engages in *coercive* pressure, which it didn't do here. The gov't tried to persuade the company, the company said no. That's... not unusual. Nor is it a violation of free speech.

At what point does the government "asking" become coercive? Does it require an explicit "or else"?