Graham Accuses Twitter, Facebook of Making an ‘Editorial Decision’ by Censoring Hunter Biden Story

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is arguing Twitter and Facebook made an “editorial decision” by censoring a news story on Hunter Biden.

“The editorial decision at The New York Post to run the story was overridden by Twitter and Facebook in different fashions to prevent its dissemination,” Graham said during Tuesday’s hearing with the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter.

He added, “Now if that’s not making an editorial decision, I don’t know what would be.”

Check out the video below:

Graham also said, “There are rules about what a television station can do. There are rules about what a newspaper can do.”

“What I want to try to find out is if you’re not a newspaper at Twitter or Facebook, then why do you have editorial control over the New York Post?” he also noted.

Graham noted, “They decided — and maybe for a good reason, I don’t know — that The New York Post articles about Hunter Biden needed to be flagged, excluded from distribution, or made hard to find.”

He added, “That to me seems like you are the ultimate editor.”

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey acknowledged the decision to censor the story gave it more visibility.

“We made a quick interpretation using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread,” Dorsey said. “Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours.”

The New York Post report alleges Hunter Biden introduced his father, President-elect Joe Biden, to a Burisma executive while he was still vice president.

Twitter and Facebook have received harsh criticism from other lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Cruz previously wrote a letter that claimed Twitter was censoring the story to influence the presidential election, as IJR reported.

“Twitter well-knows its incredible ability to influence public dialogue by promoting some stories while suppressing others, and it has plainly decided that the American people should not be seeing or discussing this particular story, which could significantly influence voters’ view of candidate Biden,” Cruz wrote.

He continued, “This can only be seen as an obvious and transparent attempt by Twitter to influence the upcoming presidential election.”

Cruz later slammed Dorsey for his decision to block links to the article, as IJR previously reported.

“Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear, and why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic Super PAC silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs,” Cruz said during a previous Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Dorsey replied, “We’re not doing that and this is why I opened this hearing with calls for more transparency. We realize we need to earn trust more. We realize that more accountability is needed to show our intentions and to show the outcomes.”

Responses

  1. For anyone who watched the hearing on C-span, 3 things were very clear.
    Both sides of the aisle don’t like Section 230.
    Both sides of the aisle enjoy hearing their own voice.
    Both sides of the aisle have no intention of acting to change Section 230 for social media.

Comments are closed.