There was a lot of attention on Twitter during the election
because of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>> [CROSSTALK] >> Yeah, so
you guys censored that as well.
>> Rogan had Mark Zuckerberg on his Joe Rogan experience podcast and the topic
of Hunter Biden's laptop came back up for discussion because of course it did.
That's the laptop that just will not die.
And in this case Rogan wanted to know about a New York post story that was
published pretty close to the 2020 election and
it was censored on social media platforms.
Now, Zuckerberg is about to explain how Facebook censored that specific
article and how that came to be.
But we'll break it down further when we come back from the cliff.
So let's watch.
>> The FBI I think basically came to us some, some folks on our team,
it was like, hey, just so you know like you should be on high alert.
We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election.
We have an on notice that basically there's about to be
some kind of dump of that's similar to that.
So just be vigilant.
So our protocol is different from Twitter's.
What Twitter did is they said you can't share this at all.
We didn't do that.
I think it was five or seven days when it was basically
being determined whether it was false.
The distribution on facebook was decreased but people were still allowed to share it.
So you can still share it, you can still consume it.
>> You say the distribution has decreased,-
>> It got shared,
basically the ranking and news feed was a little bit less.
So fewer people saw it than would have otherwise.
So it definitely- >> By what percentage?
>> I don't know off the top of my head, but it's meaningful.
We just kinda thought, hey look if the FBI which I still view as a legitimate
institution in this country, it's like very professional law enforcement,
they come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard
about something that I wanna take that seriously.
>> Did they specifically say you need to be on guard about that story?
>> No, I don't remember if it was that specifically, but
it basically fit the pattern.
>> Okay, so it's really important for you to remember that last part,
especially because he's asked specifically whether the FBI
had reached out in regard to the New York post piece first, he says no.
Then he kinda says, I don't remember.
We don't know what the truth is, but
clearly the FBI had reached out because they were expecting,
as he said it, a dump of Russian propaganda on social media platforms.
Okay.
Now with that said was it the right thing to bury the story, right?
So he's trying to show how Facebook acted differently from Twitter.
Twitter didn't allow individuals to post it whereas Facebook would allow you to
post it or share it.
They would just bury your post so
no one could see it effectively doing the same thing in censoring the story.
That's how it works.
But nonetheless, I think it's wrong especially because the New York post piece
at the time, we were concerned that maybe there was inaccurate reporting in there,
but it appears that there was not inaccurate reporting.
And I wanna tell you what that reporting was real quick.
And then I'll give you the update to the reporting which we had done on the show.
So the piece was titled smoking-gun email reveals how
Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to Vice President dad.
So he introduced someone who worked for
Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company to Joe Biden.
And the innuendo in the piece is that Hunter Biden was given that
job in order to have Burisma use his influence, his influential father for
all sorts of sweetheart deals and things like that.
Now, I believe in American politics that's called Tuesday.
But nonetheless, the DOJ ended up investigating this and
we reported on the outcome of that investigation.
Let's go to that clip.
>> According to reporting from the New York times in the April 34th email,
Hunter Biden indicated that Burisma's officials quote.
Need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and
cannot intervene directly with domestic policymakers, and
that we need to abide by the Foreign Agents Registration Act or
FARA and any other US laws in the strictest sense across the board.
Wow, that seems bad.
>> Yeah.
And that's my point.
That's my point.
So let me weigh in on this story.
We now have firm conclusions.
Hunter Biden and his laptop.
Okay. First,
let me just declare our bias in this case is approximately zero percent.
We don't give a damn about Hunter Biden.
We don't care if he's innocent.
We don't care if he's guilty. >> He's my hero.
>> Yeah.
>> So I thought it was important to talk about the actual content of
the New York post piece.
And then the update on that that investigation before really commenting on
whether or not it was right for the FBI to reach out to these social media platforms
to essentially censor content that would not be favorable to Joe Biden.
And I think it was the wrong way to go.
I don't think we should have the FBI or
any government agency censoring any type of content.
Even if it's content that we might not like and
might not appreciate from certain sources for instance.
>> Yeah.
So let's dive in.
Okay, so first of all, let's know something really important here.
Everyone is running with the story that Facebook buried
the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Zuckerberg never said that.
You just saw the tape of him saying, I don't remember Facebook PR came out
afterwards and said yeah just like he testified earlier,
the FBI did talk to us, but not necessarily about that story.
So there's absolutely no confirmation that the FBI
talked to Facebook about the Hunter Biden laptop.
The truth is not important.
Of course, you will hear the exact opposite everywhere else.
Okay.
And you just heard it for yourself.
I mean, you didn't how you don't need us.
You saw the tape.
Okay. Point number two.
Is a Hunter Biden laptop story a big deal?
Well, as we showed you in that earlier clip and
there's a lot more you should watch that earlier clip.
You find out in the laptop that Hunter Biden tells his partner.
Now remember don't represent us as having being
able to influence my dad on decisions cuz we can't.
So the laptop for all the salacious material.
The crack and the prostitutes and all the right wing says yeah.
But in the laptop it actually says the opposite that we can't
influence my dad and don't pretend that we can.
But they just don't care.
They just don't care.
Look how can you tell who's telling the truth and who's not.
If the FBI came out today and said, hey, you know what?
No guys.
You actually missed two or three things that are also in the laptop.
And it turns out Joe Biden did help Hunter Biden in this business dealing.
And it was corrupt and say, okay great then they have the evidence.
They should prosecute Hunter Biden.
And if need be prosecute Joe Biden.
I don't care.
We've said it from day one now when you go to the establishment media, they do care.
Don't [SOUND] talk about the laptop.
Don't know.
You can't holy Joe Biden outrageous.
The idea of it. Why is it outrageous?
If he did it, hold them accountable?
Why would you be against that?
But they're all uniformly against that.
And the right wing senses that accurately.
And then that makes them super pissed, right?
Meanwhile, the right wing says, I don't care what's in the laptop prosecute him.
Okay. >> No, but
you think let me stop you right there because this is an important point.
When it comes to Hunter Biden, we don't care what the laptop says.
Go after them anyway, prosecute them anyway.
But when it comes to their daddy stealing classified documents and
taking it home with him to Mar a lago.
We're talking about hundreds of classified documents.
If you prosecute him using the law that Trump himself passed when it
comes to classified documents will ride in the streets, come on.
>> Yeah.
So look,
the bias of the different portions of American media is super obvious.
They're not hiding it at all.
To be fair, the right wing isn't hiding it.
They're just lying nonstop.
It's so brazen that they're just doing it out in the open, right?
And everybody knows.
But mainstream media is way more sophisticated and they'll bury a story,
they'll mangle a story, they'll reframe the story and
they go, what we're objective, we're objective, right?
So, and we saw the same thing happened in the primaries, we said, hey,
wait a minute, Joe Biden said he wanted to cut Social Security six different times,
and it's on tape.
And the mainstream media was like let's talk about that.
How dare you?
What do you mean how dare are you?
It's on tape.
Do you know how to talk about it?
You're trying to split the Democratic Party?
Well, wait a minute.
I thought you were objective.
Why do you care if I'm splitting the Democratic Party?
So, look, I think they're both brazen.
So when you come back to the essence of the story, should the FBI warned Facebook
and Meta about Russian propaganda before the election in the way that they did.
That's a super hard question, because there was Russian propaganda.
And by the way, other countries propaganda as well, wasn't material.
It's very hard to tell.
It seems like it was more material in 2016 than it was in 2020.
But if they do do that warning, it seems to tell them that
Facebook probably correctly interpret as you better not.
So that is the thing that the government should be very careful about.
So now two different times, we have the FBI screwing with elections in 2016 and
in 2020.
If you remember James Comey for no goddamn reason right before the election, said,
we're reopening the investigation of Hillary Clinton and
the goddamn emails over what Anthony Weiner.
And a random thing that had nothing to do with anything and
turned out to be a nothing burger.
And that made a giant difference to help Trump win.
This time around, they go around telling social media,
you better be careful about what you print.
And I don't know if that's won the election, but
the election was super close in those swing states.
So, yeah, the right wing has a right to be concerned about that.
And the government should be very careful how it treads in that direction.