Mark Zuckerberg Doesn’t Want to Ban Holocaust Deniers or Sandy Hook Truthers

The Facebook CEO has advocated for “multiple” chances to get it right.

Mark Zuckerberg testifies in front of Congress.Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA Press

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In April, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in front of Congress that the company would eliminate hate speech on the platform within 5 to 10 years using AI technology the company is currently developing. But Zuckerberg says that he thinks both Holocaust Deniers and Sandy Hook truthers, two fringe conspiracy groups that even GOP leaders have condemned, would not be subject to the crackdown.

In a 90-minute interview with Recode‘s Kara Swisher, Zuckerberg discussed issues of censorship on the platform, including the company’s alleged conservative bias and its interference in Myanmar. When asked why he couldn’t take down content that calls Sandy Hook a fraud, Zuckerberg conceded that he believes the claim is false, but that only direct harassment against victims of the tragedy would be removed. In his justification, he likened the group to Holocaust deniers.

“I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened,” Zuckerberg told Recode. “I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”

Elaborating on the statement, he said that it was difficult to “impugn intent and to understand the intent” and that “if you’re not trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone, then you can put up that content on your page.”

He did say that it’s possible Facebook would not push the content to users’ feeds, and that he did not feel Facebook had a “responsibility to make it widely distributed.”

The interview comes just a day after House Judiciary members met to discuss the alleged “conservative bias” of both Facebook and other platforms. At the hearing, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) asked YouTube why it wouldn’t remove InfoWars and its host Alex Jones, who has been a driving force of conspiracies about both the Sandy Hook and Parkland shooting, from its platform despite repeated violations for harassment. 

“How many strikes does a conspiracy theorist who attacks grieving parents and survivors of a mass shooting get?” Deutch asked a Youtube executive, who responded that the company has a “strikes” policy for platform offenders. 

Facebook’s Head for Global Policy Management Monika Bickert told the committee that Facebook will take down pages like InfoWars“if they posted sufficient content that violated our threshold.” She was not, however, able to clarify what that threshold was.

An internal document obtained by Motherboard was able to shed some clarity on the company’s content guidelines. According to the report, a page or group will be taken down if it includes sexual solicitation in at least two “elements,” such as the title, photo, or pinned post. Other guidelines in the obtained document included instructions to remove a page or group “if at least 30 percent of the content posted by other people within 90 days violates Facebook’s community standards.” Regarding hate speech, internal guidelines instructed moderators to remove a user if there were 5 or more infractions of the community guidelines. 

The company’s CEO, however, seemed to espouse a more lenient approach.

“I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly,” said Zuckerberg. “I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, ‘We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.'”

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate