On August 27, my American Thinker colleague Monica Showalter posted Zuckerberg admits he was muscled by Democrats. She asked:

Did a light bulb go on for Mark Zuckerberg about government censorship?

Zuckerberg’s admission, a sort of mushy mea culpa, came as he was under pressure from the House Judiciary Committee to produce all manner of documents proving what he admitted in a letter to the Committee, and so much more. The letter may be found here. The Committee notes three primary Zuckerberg admissions:

Graphic: X Screenshot

Constitutional law professor and scholar Jonathan Turley notes Zuckerberg’s confession is more “contrived than contrite:”  

For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg’s belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret of a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.

Zuckerberg’s sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the House Judiciary Committee.

Now forced to admit what many of us have long alleged, Zuckerberg is really, really sorry.

Note, please, the sarcasm inherent in Turley’s last sentence.  He ends his essay with this:

Democracy is not on the ballot in 2024, as many have claimed, but free speech is.

The First Amendment is only one facet of individual liberty at risk on election day, and the week, or months thereafter as Democrat/socialist/communists (D/s/cs) race to “find” enough ballots to install their next puppet in the White House. Whether one considers Zuckerberg’s mea culpa sincere or self-serving, two questions remain: why, and why now?

Graphic: X Screenshot

Did Zuckerberg, who has spent years fighting every request for transparency, suddenly come to Jesus? Did he suddenly see the value of honesty and integrity? He’s a billionaire. He doesn’t have to practice honesty or integrity, in fact, there are real political and economic advantages to practicing neither.

Is he suddenly afraid of Congress? Did his lawyers warn him he wouldn’t be able to hold them off for much longer? Possible, but unlikely, except for one additional possibility, but more on that shortly.

Is he worried Trump will win and take revenge? Does he know what we don’t about Kamala’s electoral chances? He said he’s not going to spend $400 million tilting the election toward D/s/cs this year. Is that a sacrificial token to avoid what he sees as Trump’s inevitable election and potential wrath? That’s the additional possibility.

A related possibility is he knows defying the Deep State is dangerous, particularly if they feel their backs against the wall. Is he worried they’ll take revenge and is trying to gain the protection of Congress and Donald Trump, not only for his own pale hide, but to protect his assets and ability to influence the culture? Is this why he has not named the names of those who supposedly “pressured” him to censor Normal Americans? Does he need protection because he knows then Congress gets all the documents—some of which have already been released in the Twitter Files—a great many powerful and vengeful people are going to be exposed as anti-American/anti-Constitution, would-be, despots?

Did the Supreme Courts’ recent Murthy decision have a role to play in Zuckerberg’s semi-transparency and pseudo-contrition?

When the censorship system was recently put before the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, the justices asked about evidence of coordination and pressure from the government. In Murthy, states successfully showed lower courts that there was coercion from the government in securing an injunction. The Biden administration denied such pressure and the Court rejected the standing of plaintiffs, blocked an order to stop the censorship, and sent the case back down to the lower court.

Do Zuckerberg’s lawyers see massive civil liability on the horizon? 

Professor [Philip] Hamburger writes: “The aim, presumably, is to avoid having Meta treated as a state actor for purposes of the First Amendment and then being held liable for damages.”

Is Matt Taibii, who largely exposed the Twitter Files, right?

Like other tech CEOs, Zuckerberg finds himself between a rock and a hard place. From one side, he sees subpoenas and investigations of censorship. From the other, he faces strident demands on content from authorities whose idea of “accountability” has gone beyond crippling penalties to detention. This is not just coming from Europeans.

Elizabeth Elkind at Fox News writes of lawmakers demanding that kind of accountability:

"Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden-Harris regime pressured him to censor conservative voices. There must be accountability within the federal government," Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., wrote on X.

I suspect Prof. Turley is right. Zuckerberg’s motives are less than noble. Time--a particularly short time if Trump is elected--will tell.

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.