(FreedomBeacon.com)- A recent article in the New York Times voiced concern that social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook don’t seem to be doing as much to stop the spread of “misinformation” ahead of the November elections the way they did in 2020.
The article notes that Facebook cut its election misinformation team from the 300 people it had in 2020 to just 60 people now. What’s more, Mark Zuckerberg is no longer directly involved with the team.
Oh, noes!
But that’s not even the worse thing for the New York Times. What really has the paper’s knickers in a twist is the pending sale of Twitter to that icky Free Speech advocate Elon Musk.
The Times quotes NAACP President Derrick Johnson who expressed concern over the drop in interest in policing so-called “misinformation” from social media companies.
The New York Times is especially worried that some of the people running in the midterms believe something shady happened during the 2020 presidential election. And Facebook reducing its censorship team in light of those candidates “could have far-reaching consequences as faith in the U.S. electoral system reaches a brittle point.”
It also troubles the New York Times that Dinesh D’Souza’s film “2000 Mules” got over 430,000 “interactions” on Facebook and over a million views on Rumble which doesn’t censor the way YouTube does.
Did you ever think we’d get to the place where major newspapers in America would be advocating against Free Speech?
But here we are.
The article noted that representatives from both Facebook and Twitter responded to the Times’ panicked requests for comment, assuring the paper that they are still focused on preventing “misinformation” from spreading on their platforms.
It should be noted that some of the “misinformation” blocked by Facebook and Twitter before the 2020 presidential election wasn’t “misinformation” at all. The New York Post’s exclusive report on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop was verifiably true. Even the New York Times confirmed the data on the hard drive was authentic.
But it isn’t “misinformation” the New York Times is worried about here, is it?
