What did Biden say about Facebook's role in spreading misinformation?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Biden made several significant statements about Facebook's role in spreading misinformation, with his comments evolving over time and spanning different contexts. His most notable early statement occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when he declared that social media platforms like Facebook were "killing people" by spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines, which was stalling US vaccine rates [1]. However, Biden later clarified and walked back this statement, explaining that he was specifically referring to 12 individuals who were responsible for spreading the majority of the misinformation, not Facebook itself as a platform [2].
More recently, Biden has been highly critical of Meta's decision to end its fact-checking program. He called this decision "really shameful" and warned that it would allow "things that are simply not true" to be read by millions of people [3]. In a more pointed critique, Biden specifically criticized the influence of wealth on platform policies, stating that "a billionaire can buy something and say, 'By the way, we're not going to fact check anything'" [4]. This represents a broader concern about misinformation that Biden addressed in his farewell address, where he warned Americans about the threat of misinformation and disinformation [5].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The analyses reveal several important contextual elements that provide a more complete picture of the Biden administration's relationship with social media platforms. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has alleged that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor certain COVID-19 content during the pandemic [6], suggesting that the administration's approach went beyond public criticism to direct pressure tactics.
This pressure campaign appears to have been more extensive than initially apparent. A House Judiciary Committee report detailed a "monthslong campaign by the Biden White House to coerce large companies, including Facebook, to censor books, videos, posts, and other content online" [7]. The administration's influence extended beyond Facebook to other platforms, with senior Biden administration officials conducting "repeated and sustained outreach" to Google and YouTube regarding COVID-19 content that didn't even violate the platforms' existing policies [8].
The legal implications of these actions became significant enough to reach the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts [9]. This suggests that the administration's approach to social media content moderation became a constitutional issue involving questions of government overreach and free speech.
Facebook's response to Biden's initial "killing people" criticism was notably defensive, with the company stating that they were "helping save lives by providing authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines" [1], directly contradicting Biden's characterization of their role.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question itself doesn't contain misinformation, but it lacks the nuance necessary to understand the full scope and evolution of Biden's statements about Facebook. The question implies a singular, static position when Biden's comments actually evolved significantly over time and varied depending on the specific context - from the initial "killing people" statement during the pandemic to his recent criticism of Meta's fact-checking policy changes.
The framing also potentially obscures the bidirectional nature of the conflict between the Biden administration and social media platforms. While the question focuses on Biden's public statements, the analyses reveal that the administration was simultaneously engaging in behind-the-scenes pressure campaigns that platforms like Facebook and Google characterized as inappropriate government interference [6] [7] [8].
Additionally, the question doesn't acknowledge the legal and constitutional dimensions of this issue, which became significant enough to warrant Supreme Court intervention [9]. This suggests that Biden's statements about Facebook were part of a broader, more complex regulatory and legal battle over content moderation that extends far beyond simple public criticism.
The timing context is also crucial - Biden's recent criticism of Meta's fact-checking decision represents a shift from pressuring platforms to do more content moderation to criticizing them for doing less [3] [5] [4], highlighting the evolving nature of this relationship and the administration's consistent concern about misinformation regardless of the specific platform policies in place.