Mark Zuckerberg defends Twitter's decision to ban Donald Trump Jr over 'harmful' Covid post
'I think what you're referring to happened on Twitter so it's hard for me to speak to that'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has found himself in the unlikely position of defending Twitter's decision to suspend Donald Trump's Jr's account after he posted "harmful" information about countering the coronavirus.
In an exchange that suggested not every member of the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust was entirely up to speed on the difference between various social media platforms, Mr Zuckerberg was pressed about a repeated claim of conservatives that social media discriminates against them.
Mr Zuckerberg was asked by the committee’s ranking Republican, congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, about the temporary restriction of Mr Trump Jr Twitter account, after he posted a video featuring a controversial doctor, Stella Immanuel, making false claims about coronavirus cures and stating that people “don't need masks”.
Where the tweet was posted now reads: “This Tweet is no longer available because it violated the Twitter Rules.”
Mr Sensenbrenner said he would not personally take hydroxychloroquine to counter the coronavirus - a drug that most medical experts say could be harmful but which the president and Ms Immanuel continue to promote - but asked whether such a decision ought to left to a person and their physician.
“There still is a debate as to whether it is effective either a treating or preventing Covid-19,” said Mr Sensenbrenner.
Mr Zuckerberg responded: “Well, first, to be clear, I think what you might be referring to happened on Twitter so it's hard for me to speak to that, but I can talk to our policies about this.”
Mr Zuckerberg went on to say that Facebook did “prohibit content that will lead to imminent risk of harm” and “stating there’s a proven cure for Covid when there is in fact not, might encourage someone to go take something that could have some adverse effects so we do take that down”.
He added: “We do not prohibit discussion around trials of drugs.”
Earlier, Republican Jim Jordan had laid into the social media firms, claiming that big tech is “out to get conservatives”.
On Twitter, Donald Trump tweeted: “If Congress doesn’t bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders. In Washington, it has been ALL TALK and NO ACTION for years, and the people of our Country are sick and tired of it.”
After Twitter suspended temporarily Mr Trump Jr’s account, his spokesperson, Andy Surabian, said in a statement the move was “further proof that Big Tech is intent on killing free expression online”.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments