DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mark Zuckerberg tells Joe Rogan FBI warned Facebook of 'Russian propaganda' before Hunter Biden laptop story

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...nda-before-hunter-biden-laptop-story.amp


Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook's actions in limiting the reach of the Hunter Biden laptop story
By Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the FBI approached Facebook warning the platform about "Russian propaganda" ahead of the bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story leading up to the 2020 presidential election.

Appearing on Thursday's installment of "The Joe Rogan Experience," Zuckerberg was asked about Facebook's suppression of the New York Post's reporting that shed light on the shady foreign business dealings of the son of then-candidate Joe Biden.

Zuckerberg began by stressing how Facebook took a "different path" than Twitter, which completely censored the Post's reporting while Facebook limited its reach on the platform.


"Basically, the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us- some folks on our team and was like, 'Hey, just so you know, like, you should be on high alert… We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that, basically, there's about to be some kind of dump of that's similar to that. So just be vigilant,'" Zuckerberg told host Joe Rogan.

FBI OFFICIALS SLOW-WALKED HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP INVESTIGATION UNTIL AFTER 2020 ELECTION: WHISTLEBLOWERS

Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer and founder of Facebook Inc., speaks during the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S., on Friday, Jan. 31, 2020.
Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer and founder of Facebook Inc., speaks during the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S., on Friday, Jan. 31, 2020. (George Frey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Zuckerberg insisted that Facebook users were "still allowed to share" the Post's reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop even as their "third-party fact-checking program" was looking into whether it was misinformation, but acknowledged that the "ranking in [the] news feed was a little bit less" and that "fewer people saw it than would've otherwise."


"By what percentage?" Rogan asked.

"I don't know off the top of my head, but it's- it's meaningful," Zuckerberg responded. "But we weren't sort of as black and white about it as Twitter. We just kind of thought hey look, if the FBI, which I still view is a legitimate institution in this country, it's a very professional law enforcement- they come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something then I want to take that seriously."

MSNBC BURIES NBC NEWS REPORT ON HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP, OFFERS LESS THAN 4 MINUTES OF COVERAGE

"Did they specifically say you need to be on guard about that story?" Rogan followed.

"No, I don't remember if it was that specifically, but it basically fit the pattern," Zuckerberg said.

FBI headquarters building is seen in Washington, U.S., December 7, 2018.
FBI headquarters building is seen in Washington, U.S., December 7, 2018. (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

When asked if there was any "regret" about suppressing a story that turned out be factual, Zuckerberg replied, "Yeah, yeah. I mean, it sucks."


However, he went on to defend Facebook's practices, telling Rogan its process was "pretty reasonable" since his platform still allowed the New York Post articles to be distributed rather than the complete blackout that Twitter enforced.

BRIAN STELTER DEFENDS MEDIA NOT COVERING HUNTER BIDEN IN 2020, SAYS CRITICS DON'T KNOW 'HOW NEWSROOMS WORK'

Rogan appeared sympathetic to Zuckerberg's predicament, especially regarding the FBI's warning of Russian propaganda.



"It's probably also the case of armchair quarterbacking, right? Or at least Monday morning quarterbacking… because in the moment, you had reason to believe based on the FBI talking to you that it wasn't real and that there was going to be some propaganda. So what do you do?" Rogan said. "And then, if you just let it get out there and what if it changes the election and it turns out to be bulls---, that's a real problem. And I would imagine that those kinds of decisions are the most difficult."

Podcast giant Joe Rogan grilled Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook's suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 presidential election.
Podcast giant Joe Rogan grilled Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook's suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 presidential election. (The Joe Rogan Experience/Spotify)

In the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election, both Big Tech and the liberal media suppressed the bombshell revelations that emerged from Hunter Biden's laptop.

Both Zuckerberg and then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey expressed regret for their actions limiting the distribution of the New York Post's reporting and several news organizations including The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News and Politico have since verified the authenticity of the laptop.



Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., revealed this week in a letter to Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz that whistleblowers allege FBI officials told agents not to investigate Hunter Biden's laptop for months over concerns it would impact the 2020 election.

According to Johnson, "individuals with knowledge" of the Hunter Biden case told his office that the investigation was intentionally slowed on orders from "local FBI leadership."


Senate Judiciary ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa said other whistleblower allegations reveal a "deeply rooted political infection" within the FBI.

Fox News' Timothy H.J. Nerozzi contributed to this report.

It makes ya wonder why he changed his position...

you gonna kick start the civil war over this?

so thats a no?

Not going to defend Hunter Biden - Not going to believe or trust anything out of Zuckerberg's mouth. Also not going to believe in a deep state where the FBI is acting on behalf of political elites and trying to keep some in power.

Meh.

Yeah, claiming a trump appointee is somehow "undermining thur freedumb" just doesn't pass the sniff test. But that's what they keep reaching for now that trump is being called out for his illegal actions.

Next thing you know, you'll want the diary of a teenage girl who's fighting addiction......Oh wait?

As someone who supported Pres Trump, his biggest flaw IMO was not knowing who to trust, Christopher Wray being the perfect example.

For the FBI to actively get social media outlets to censor this story and try to dismiss it as the good ole “Russian disinformation” excuse, when they knew better than anyone that it was in fact Hunters laptop is pure proof that the FBI wanted to help Joe Biden get elected.

And how did the FBI know better than anyone that it was in fact Hunters laptop and not “Russian disinformation”? Well because the fbi HAS the laptop lolololol. Seriously you can’t make this stuff up.

How long are you grow men going to sit back and let the Democrats continue to lie straight to your face and you just keep on believing?

They (Democrats/main stream media) told you guys for over a year straight that Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation, meanwhile the FBI was making social media censor the story because they knew it would hurt Biden’s chances we of being elected.

For all you grown men to cry and whine and be outraged for 4 year about Russia interfering in our election, with zero proof other than these lying democrats and corrupt fbi telling you it happened and to now defend or not be outraged by the fact that the literal FBI actually DID interfere in our election with actual real proof is down right pathetic and you guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

I’m embarrassed for you guys.

If that's the lie you have to tell yourself to live with devoting yourself to a Traitorous cult and its dumbass fascist criminal leader.

I don't understand what is so funny about that??

The FBI has the laptop, knows what is on it, yet warns media outlets not to report on the story "because Russia".

Does that seem like a good idea in America?

lmfao yo this dude is serious too hahahahahahahaha

You have said nothing in this response.Why are you not outraged right now that the FBI clearly meddled in the general election by making social media outlets censor the hunter Biden laptop story pretending it to be Russian disinformation when they knew darn well it was actually hunters laptop.

Again it’s embarrassing

For someone who has 50,000 posts, you have three in this thread alone that have said absolutely nothing. It appears you stand by the FBI meddling in our elections. Again embarrassing

I should specify. The aspects I was laughing at is the start about Trump’s biggest problem being that he didn’t know who to trust and the whole shame part. It follows a bot-like pattern of behavior with his posts that I’m sure you can agree with.

I’ll have the conversation with you, though, because you know I obviously respect you, even if I don’t like you (joke for anyone who doesn’t recognize it).

I’m more along the lines with mgh on this one. Taking Zuckerberg at face value is a sketchy thing to do. From a global perspective, I’d be totally fine with both Hunter Biden and Trump being tossed into jail for everything they have done. I think where I still am perplexed is why Hunter is being used as a talking point. The guy is clearly a screwup, but I haven’t seen anything from him actually tying into the administration.

I’m also not clear as to what the actual misinformation element was. When you look at the Mueller Report, other investigations, and such things as Trump’s own conduct, words and tweets, I think it’s logical to assume the Russians had an interest in having Trump in office. I’m not alleging collusion here, but I think Russian interference or attempt therein is pretty concrete.

Fast forward to the 2020 election, Zuckerberg mentions that the FBI approaches him about Russian interference. Now here’s the part nobody is talking about: when Rogan asks “Did they specifically say you need to be on guard about that story” and Zuckerberg’s answer was
“No, I don’t remember if it was that specifically.” That’s a pretty big discernment.

That all being said, the laptop scenario was full of speculation and assertions. It was a scenario ripe for disinformation, specifically of which could fall in line with exploitative disinformation that the Russians are well known to propagate. If the FBI reached out and said something along the lines of “beware of Russian disinformation regarding the laptop” I don’t think it was a foul on their end. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

If people want to go after social media groups, then that’s another thing. Have at it. Zuckerberg really dodged the issue when Rogan asked directly. My speculation on that front, knowing what I know about Zuckerberg, is that deflection could very well be the strategy.

what does my post count have to do with your ridiculous takes? lets say you're correct about me saying absolutely nothing. that means im doing the same thing you are; saying absolutely nothing. i just do it at a higher clip. oh well

Exactly.



It's much easier for people to read things into something that they hope is there rather than to read what's actually there.

What's embarrassing is how completely you swallow a partial story about something - draw your own conclusions without basis in fact, and assume that it's the whole and only truth.

Fair enough. As far as your comments on Zuckerberg, and whether or not his lack of specificity gives us reason for doubt. I think you're falling into a trap that we've all been falling into as of late. We take little bits and pieces and psycho-analyze them independent of the whole. Almost as if we're trying to create "reasonable doubt" in our own heads without looking at a sum of all the parts. We do it on all sides and it's part of our human mindset that easily seeks and finds plenty of confirmation bias.

First, lmao at Pit saying "reading into things". How 'bout just reading.

Preface: Rogan has an uncanny way of making anyone feel as comfortable as a couple dudes shooting the $hit on a set of barstools. I think (because I've seen it in other guests) a lot of dudes quickly fall into "should I really be saying all of this" territory. It looked that way with Zuck as well, perhaps that's why he was non-committal.

Now the math... This was the story. Twitter was already shutting down any and all conversation. Accounts locked, links deleted... basically "there will be no discussion", period. Even private messages were restricted. Do you really mean to tell me an FBI warning was about something else and all of media latched on to the laptop story... accidentally... in synchronicity? Looking back in retrospect with any shred of common sense tells me that's exactly what they were talking about. 2+2=4

As to the rest. It sounds almost like you're endorsing some kind of "greater good" theory. Hell, I'm sure there are plenty that even buy into the "whatever we need to do to get this clown out of office" conversation. Still doesn't make stifling the truth acceptable.


We're getting into dangerous territory with money, media and politics controlling the narrative of every conversation. We've created a government agency to control what is said. We've had terrible results as so many things through the pandemic and last couple elections are restricted simply by somebody screaming "misinformation!!!" Are we not allowed to think for ourselves?

You know the #1 reason the laptop story was a "scenario ripe for disinformation"? Because our social media, politicians and FBI made it that. By sweeping it under the rug, deleting it, threatening anyone that talked about it and saying "nothing to see here" they basically created all further disinformation. Period.


Bottom line: A TRUTHFUL story was being circulated, our media and government shut. it. down... and called it "Russian disinformation".

Right?

Oh, the irony.

Right.

Thanks, I needed a pick me up before bed. I especially liked the "like".... I'm in libtard heaven.

Just so we are clear - [1] you believe Zuckerburg? ... is that 100% all the time? Or just 100% when the narrative might fit what you want it to say ? [2] And can you direct me to where Zuckerburg said the FBI specifically shut down the story you are referring and inferring?

Why don't you direct me to where anyone with an IQ above 18 needs Zuck to be more specific in order to understand what went down with this whole fiasco. My statement above has 0% to do with anything Zuckerberg said. You and your ilk want to dispute every tiny morsel of the story without looking at the entire picture. It is the textbook definition of "can't see the forest through the trees".

I'll repeat in case you missed it... A TRUTHFUL story was being circulated, our media and government shut. it. down... and called it "Russian disinformation".

Yeah, just don't bother addressing me, I don't like traitorous coup defenders.

What story was shut down by the government? How and who did it ? Was it the republicans? Trump? Was it agencies? Who when and how?

You should read the first post.

Let’s talk about this. I really enjoyed reading your post because it makes me think. We all have confirmation bias whether we want to admit it or not. This is how we get over that. The only people who don’t admit they do are people who are ignorant.

I think Pit had a point here about reading into things. I still don’t understand how so much is made of the fact that he deflected when it came to the specific story, as Rogan asked him. That’s me just reading.

To your second point, I don’t know. I honestly don’t know. When it comes to the FBI though and social media, you have to take it for what it is. All we have is Zuckerberg talking about the FBI approaching him about Russian disinformation. Russian disinformation exists. Not only that, but it’s a very LEGITIMATE goal that they have to permeate our society to get us to turn on each other and, honestly, I can’t say that they’re failing. Can you? To your point, what makes that somewhat easy is the fact we are chock full of politicians from both sides who are self interested that make that exploitation easy. 100%.

I never endorsed any “greater good” theory and honestly, when I read that in your post, I thought “what the hell is he talking about?.” What I do endorse is the greater good. No theory at all. I endorse the greater good. I can’t stand the BS that goes on and the superficial garbage I endure on a constant basis from politicians from both sides that think me to be the dumbass that they talk to me like I am. I’m tired of it. I hate it. I rail against it and I rail against people who eat it up, whether it comes from the likes of Trump, Pelosi, McConnell, whoever. In my deepest of cores, I wish we could have an era of untouchables who force all these poop heads out of office so we could start fresh. I’m tired of all the drama from people who don’t give two defecations about this country that only think of themselves. Done with it.

That all being said, I still don’t see what the FBI is doing that “made it that.”

I work for the government. I see the worst sides of our agencies when they are influenced by the self interested garbage spelunkers. If you see billionaires and politicians putting all efforts forth toward condemning a government agency or department (such as mine - DoD), then honestly, they’re probably doing something right.

No the fact of the matter is I already knew this was the case, it was well known information outside of liberal news network lala land. It’s just icing on the cake when a billionaire who donates millions of dollars to the Democrat party and happens to own Facebook admits to millions of people that the fbi reached out to them in regards to the laptop, tells them it’s Russia disinformation, which leads Facebook along with all other social media platforms to shut the story down.

If you guys are to blind to see what’s going on here then you really need to wake up.

Bro. You think it's the Russians that are getting us to turn on each other?? C'mon man.

The "greater good" comment was in relation to this:

"That all being said, the laptop scenario was full of speculation and assertions. It was a scenario ripe for disinformation, specifically of which could fall in line with exploitative disinformation that the Russians are well known to propagate. If the FBI reached out and said something along the lines of “beware of Russian disinformation regarding the laptop” I don’t think it was a foul on their end. That seems pretty reasonable to me."

Sounds like you're placating any wrongdoing because, "well, goshdarnit, we can never trust those Russians anyway... better be safe than sorry". On one hand, we're trying to absolve the FBI because they didn't actually say "laptop"... on the other, you're saying that even if they did -- Russian disinfo is real (cue the boogeyman music) -- alas, my surmising that you mean "for the greater good" because you said "that seems reasonable". Also, when I say greater good theory... as I stated (and as I try to sort out why the FBI would suddenly become partisan and LIE), the sentiment seemed to be that Trump needed to be ended at all costs. Who cares if a story is real or not, we need to get this out of the news cycle because it could jeopardize the election.


So, you don't need to string much together or fill in some large holes in the story. FBI warns "the Russians are coming -- beware!!" Everybody (through osmosis or some form of Vulcan mind-meld) stomps all over this story, in unison, as "yep, the Russians again!!"

Meanwhile, the story is true... Joe Biden lied... and the FBI is lying as well -- they know it's not "the Russians", they have the freaking laptop. Is this really that hard??

What is a more acceptable far-fetched-fairyland hypothesis? Someone stole Hunter's laptop, loaded it with all the dirty "disinformation", dressed up like Hunter, and turned it in to a repair shop? Did they "wink-wink" at the owner and say "please don't tell anyone about my dirty, dirty emails"

No offense, (not that I like you... at all... or care about your feelings ) but it pains me to see the lengths to which people will go to ignore the simple common sense that it takes to understand that A TRUTHFUL story was being circulated, our media and government (oops, and the FBI) shut. it. down... and called it "Russian disinformation".

doesn't the fbi routinely request any media outlet to not highlight certain issues dealing with crap like this?

one thing you're not considering is the fact that the fbi has no authority to force facebook to do anything. which is why it was a request....

facebook didn't have to comply. this is like when law enforcement request companies like Apple to grant them the ability to break into a suspect's phone. and that's the problem; what exactly am i supposed to understand with regards to whatever point you're trying to make?

and the trump administration in combination with the republican senate could've been launched an investigation into this. funny how this wasn't a story until the election and afterwards, but guess what FATE? Hunter wasn't on the ballot. hunter ALSO wasn't hired in the obama or biden administration. so why should i care?

you know what really concerns me? that the fbi didn't launch an investigation into jared kushner. ya know, the son-in-law of the POTUS who hired him directly into the administration as an advisor? the guy who used his position as a NSA to make PRIVATE business dealings with the Saudi's, the #1 sponsor of terrorism while on the government's payroll? and who continues to use his status being close to the president to engage in backdoor deals? who's married to the POTUS daughter, who used her unofficial role as an advisor to the POTUS in order to gain trademarks for her private business with the chinese?

but i'm supposed to care about some drug addicts laptop. k.

I have read it - which is why I asked the question. The first post is non specific, it doesn't answer the questions I just raised. If you feel differently feel free to answer the questions.

""but i'm supposed to care about some drug addicts laptop. k.""

No - you are supposed to ignore what was actually said - and you are to believe a suggestion from Zuckerberg and take it and run with it - "The Government" shut down a story about Hunter's laptop.....

area of concern to me:

Zuckerberg insisted that Facebook users were "still allowed to share" the Post's reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop ..... but acknowledged that the "ranking in [the] news feed was a little bit less" and that "fewer people saw it than would've otherwise."


"By what percentage?" Rogan asked.

"I don't know off the top of my head, but it's- it's meaningful," Zuckerberg responded... We just kind of thought hey look, if the FBI, which I still view is a legitimate institution in this country, it's a very professional law enforcement- they come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something then I want to take that seriously."

When asked if there was any "regret" about suppressing a story that turned out be factual, Zuckerberg replied, "Yeah, yeah. I mean, it sucks."

---

According to Johnson, "individuals with knowledge" of the Hunter Biden case told his office that the investigation was intentionally slowed on orders from "local FBI leadership."

---

In the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election, both Big Tech and the liberal media suppressed the bombshell revelations that emerged from Hunter Biden's laptop.

Both Zuckerberg and then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey expressed regret for their actions limiting the distribution of the New York Post's reporting and several news organizations including The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News and Politico have since verified the authenticity of the laptop.

jared kushner was on the ballot?

See how that works?


And mgh... really?

You mad because I said the government? Just pick apart everything I said and look for any chance to cross our arms and say "well the wording there isn't exactly accurate". We all watched what just happened lol. I'll be more specific...

People on the left, the powers-that-be, made it clear to the corrupt FBI that this wasn't going to fly this time. They were still pissed that Clinton's corruption was exposed previous to the 2016 election. The FBI complied, according to someone on the inside: "local FBI leadership told employees, ‘you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop’ and that the FBI is ‘not going to change the outcome of the election again,'” Then they sat on the laptop for a year after telling media outlets it was Russian disinformation.

I'm sure most of the usual clan have no problem with that... actually, I'll just stop there...

Not going to argue semantics and whataboutisms. That stuff was fun in 9th grade, not really into it anymore.

Y'alls can have your thread back.

I feel like a lot of words are getting put into my mouth, or perhaps the communication is just off. Either way, I feel like I’m putting a lot of energy into re-explaining what I’m trying to say.

I don’t think the Russians are primarily responsible for dividing us. I think they’re exploiting and contributing to the divisiveness that was originally created by politicians and special interests. This is a fact.

I’m not placating any wrongdoing and that was never remotely inferable. Unless I’m missing something, all we know from the article is that Zuckerberg said the FBI approached him about disinformation. When he was directly asked whether it was about this case, he deflected. Let me ask you, what did the FBI do in this scenario that was wrong? I’m honestly asking.

You are making an assumption that I’m going to great lengths to draw a conclusion that I have pre-ordained in my head, but I think I’ve established that is generally not my style. From what I know, there were a bunch of people in the intelligence community (serving under Trump at the time) that said something along the lines of there being all the classic signs of Russian disinformation around the issue and that the FBI warned Twitter and Facebook about Russian disinformation surrounding the issue. When Zuckerberg was asked if they specifically brought up the laptop, he deflected. What am I missing?

Are you just replacing the word laptop with the word "issue"?

Those serving under Trump said there were classic signs concerning the [laptop/ issue], but then we go straight back into the FBI may not have been talking about the laptop? Seems like playing both sides against the middle... Or maybe you are correct and there is a disconnect. I struggle with communication -- just ask my wife.

As far is what did the FBI do wrong? I'll just draw a simple comparison... we'll compare a bombshell to an actual bomb.

If someone calls in a bomb threat, the "squad" comes out and examines the situation. If a device is found, they examine the device and diffuse it, if necessary. They alert those in the vicinity that the area is safe and there is no longer concern and (generally) disclose the type of device that some "evil-doer" attempted to be detonated. This is what you would expect of them.

In the case of the laptop/"issue"/bombshell... The FBI swooped in, took it for a ride, locked it in a shed for a year, and told everyone it may be nuclear.


I don't want you to get so frustrated with me that you feel like you are repeating yourself, and certainly don't want you to feel like I'm putting words in your mouth. I know I probably read to be very sarcastic and snarky, mostly because that's true. We'd do better on barstools... me buying you craft beers (or whatever you libs drink 😁), you buying me exotic Mezcals.

I just feel like we're in this strange place where people (not saying you) will bust their asses to try to connect (or disconnect) dots on one side of the fence and then feign complete outrage over the silliest stuff on the other. Sometimes it's entertaining; other times it ranges from peculiar to down-right sad. Probably just me though. If everything I've stated here is true concerning our FBI, media, and new form of "business as usual" politics; it's very troubling. Unfortunately, it's working very well at keeping everyone on both sides screaming across the aisle with earplugs in and rage in their eyes. Sad.

So the Biden story was just Russian propaganda? Lol.. Surprise! Putin and his loyal subjects here prevail.

So he doesn't remember if they even referred to the laptop while you keep referring to the laptop. This seems like typical rhetoric.