Project Veritas Infiltrated Facebook-Bias Against Conservatives is Deliberate

| June 24, 2020

Facebook Content Moderator: “If someone is wearing MAGA hat, I’m going to delete them for terrorism and just going to like go crazy.  (Project Veritas)

Do they see a conservative post? It gets deleted. Do they see a photo of a person wearing a Trump hat? “Deleted”. We’ve suspected this for a long time. Project Veritas confirmed Facebook’s anti-conservative bias through their undercover work.

“Zach McElroy came to Project Veritas because of what he saw at his job at Facebook at Tampa Florida. He saw and filmed evidence of structural and cultural bias inside Facebook discriminating against Republicans… And Conservatives. McElroy’s story raises serious doubts about the under-oath testimony of Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg to Congress where he claimed Facebook has no political bias.” – Project Veritas

From Real Clear Politics:

With the help of a company insider, “Project Veritas” appears to have captured members of Facebook’s content moderation team saying that they happily delete pro-Trump political content because it is “a very progressive company who is very anti-MAGA.”

“Gotta get the cheeto out of office,” one said.

Another content moderator, Lara Kontakos, was asked what she did when she saw a posts supporting the president: “If someone is wearing a MAGA hat, I am going to delete them for terrorism.”

Then, Kontakos looked around at her colleagues: “I think we are all doing that.”

Zach McElroy, the insider, said more than 75% of posts flagged for moderator review supported President Trump and conservative causes and said he would be willing to testify that Facebook is not telling the truth about its political bias.

McElroy’s story raises serious doubts about the Capitol Hill testimony of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who gave lawmakers the impression that his company only takes content that could cause harm, such as relating to terrorism or hate speech, but never for politics,” said James O’Keefe, “Project Veritas” founder.

Real Clear Politic’s article on this is here. The video…

Category: Society

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Surprise, surprise, SGT Carter. Who’da thunk it. Proof out of their own mouths on video: “Gotta get the cheeto out of office.”

P.S. The DC Court of Appeals just granted Flynn’s writ of mandate, but refused to remove Sullivan from the case. We’ll see if Sullivan and his Prog criminal lawers try to defy an appellate court order.


That all seems like desperation. Sounds like they’re running scared.


They are.

And they have decided all that matters is power.

No different than that dipstick running Turkey, Erdogan. Democracy is the bus that gets you to your stop. Then you get off.


Prediction: the will defy, by delaying and arguing, and saying yes, but first….


“He will defy”

USMCMSgt (Ret)

Congress needs to recall that fucking dweeb Zuckerberg over this, and hold his ass to account.


Agreed. And if Zuckerberg (and his legal staff) has any sense, he’ll come prepared to correct his previous testimony “due to information recently brought to his attention concerning the actions of some of his employees of which he previously had no knowledge”.


I meant the Judge in the Flynn case, but Z will tapdance too.

5th/77th FA

I have simply got to invest in shocked face and clutchable pearls futures. Seems as if every time I need a shocked face or some pearls to clutch, the cupboard is as barren as my field of phuques.

Not on the book of fake, have lurked on Baby Sister’s page and many Family Members are there. Took me awhile to figure out that anything religious, Southern History, white folks or Trump related was against their “Community Standards” but a big fat warthog wearing butt floss britches could be “twerking” away on a public forum and that was OK. Baby Sis would ask me to go thru her feed on occasions to block what we considered semi pr0n or the constant barrage of JEF Fan Club posts. Didn’t do any good, the same crap would show back up in just a few scrolls.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. By the same token, you must give me the right to say what i feel also. Any suppression of free speech or writings smacks of fascism to me.

AW1 Rod

If ever you needed evidence that Farcebook is a publisher rather than a content provider, then this is it. When you regulate what the public can and cannot see, then you are a publisher. Time to reign in these scumbags.


Pretty sure private publishers can be as politically biased as they want to, to include censorship on the basis of politics. Unless they’re broadcasters, as far as I know publishers are under no obligation to provide “equal time/space” for opposing viewpoints.

However, lying to Congress when under oath when questioned about political censorship is a very different story. Last time I checked, with very few exceptions (e.g., Bill “Cigarman” Clintoon) no one gets a pass on obvious and provable perjury.

USMC Steve

He is not a private publisher. His Farcebook is a publicly traded company that accepts advertising, and is in every way a business. That makes it illegal for him to discriminate, and he is doing do. Sounds like a great case for the SEC to investigate and to break up as being too big. Like the telephone company many years ago. Only the telephone company actually worked as it was supposed to.


As a private entity, Facebook is within its rights to censor user-posted content. And while it’s legal, lying to its customers about its censorship policies is dishonest as hell.

However, they don’t have the right to lie to Congress in sworn testimony when replying to questions about censoring comments on the basis of political point of view. I believe doing that is called “perjury”.


It’s a liberal outfit
The Republicans will talk shit
Claiming they will do something
And as always they won’t do shit
They will give them some cash or will
Give their little snowflakes jobs
And it will be business as usual
And fact I can set a clock with what the
Lame duck Republicans will do


Much of the calculation will be

“How do I keep/gain this asset for my efforts?”

What was that so-apt phrase? “A parliament of whores”


No surprise here but on one listens
Another reason why trumps get tuff policy
Is to little too late for him and most Republicans
Who ever they are using for advisers SUCK
and should be fired because it’s costing them
Dearly we’ll see in November
I wonder what the RNC excuse will be then

5th/77th FA

Skippy, I’m of the opinion that the swamp dwelling repubes don’t want Trump digging too deep because their skirts are as nasty as the dims. Not just the elected officials but the truly deep rooted civil servants who have generations of family sucking up to the grubmint teat. It’s almost like a game to them. We get 8 years in the WH and swap off control of the houses, then you get 8 years and so on. Look at the history, connect the dots and, again, follow the money.

The repubes had a damn good chance to get something done between 2016 and the 2018 election and DIDN’T DO A DAMN THING!!! Make you wonder why so many decided to retire in ’18? Hmmmmm?

A Proud Infidel®™

“Skippy, I’m of the opinion that the swamp dwelling repubes don’t want Trump digging too deep because their skirts are as nasty as the dims.”

I’m absolutely certain of that myself!


What I suspect happens a lot is that conservative posts are not deleted as often as they have an algorithm that does not show them on other’s feeds.

They don’t want to engage in a conversation, they want to hear their opinions spewing out of our mouths.


Pretty sure you nailed it, GB. Though the statements of the supervisory people does confirm the anti-conservative bias at places like Farcebook and Twatter.


Facebook, a private company, apparently hire employees that lean left.

I guess if you don’t like it you all should start your own Facebook/social network.

If it is any consolation 6000 content moderators are being laid off.

Green Thumb

They still need to follow the rules and the terms of their contractual obligations (if they have them – position dependent).

If not, there is the door.

If you owned a business and employees deviated from the rules and regulations, what would you do? And I really do not want to hear a long-winded moral argument. This is a pretty simple question.


It is not technically Facebook that the story claims is biased, it is moderators employed through a third party contractor. So Facebook could cancel the contract or pressure the contractor to fix their shit.

However, this kind of bias in moderating is very subjective and it is entirely based on the narrative of one project veritas reporter with zero damn integrity.

Can hardly regard a group as biased as project veritas as a source regarding anyone else as biased.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt by accepting their claim.

If it is true then Facebook will pursue a remedy. As long as we have a Republican controlled senate Facebook takes these accusations seriously

Green Thumb

Agreed on the source, for sure. PV has there own bias for sure. Not a big fan as a lot is selectively edited. But a lot of it is probably true.

That aside, if Facebook deems that these contractors are not following the rules, they need to go. Would you agree? To include the management of the contractors of several I would assume are indeed Facebook employees.

I would not go the political route on this one as this is a business problem at its core.

Don’t adhere to the rules? (and not three or four, but a lot more) Then there is the door.


If I see the “selective edit” lie one more time, I’m going to scream.

Here is how it works, PV produces a video. Media says “edited”, PV releases full video showing it is not the case, media sticks with lie, weeks later the media prints a correction after no one is looking.

PV may be many things, but “selective editors” they are not.

Never confuse them with ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Reuters, AP, NYT, WAPO, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.

Also, no. There is no difference between the parent and the outsourced provider under section 230. What is said in the video is “institutional injustice” paid for by a FANG corporation.

If we can shut down Alex Jones for being in contact with the moon people of alpha base, we can shut down FB for practicing “structural prejudice”.

Lars is wrong–as usual. FB receives literal billions of taxpayer dollars annually.

As for starting your own business…that is ongoing now. Alt tech platforms exist and are growing. Guess what FANG is doing in response? That’s right…paying off bureaucrats and politicos to shut them down as “hackers” and “dangerous to democracy”.

Remember, if a leftist claims some injustice is “systemic” or “institutional”, it means they are doing it and want you to shut up about it.

PV’s conclusions are spot on, and the FANG monopolies are the very definition of RICO violators.


“Remember, if a leftist claims some injustice is “systemic” or “institutional”, it means they are doing it and want you to shut up about it.”… This x1000!

Green Thumb

I am going to go with they selectively edit along with everyone else.

Green Thumb

Not saying they are wrong on their message, but I have seen other videos that are pretty weak.

Also, unlike yourself it seems, I look at things from multiple angles and viewpoints, not just one.


ok, but I guess you missed the part about lying to Congress??? Or is that ok, since they “lean left”???


The left thinks Zuckerberg helped Trump.

Fuck Zuckerberg.

But he didn’t “lie”. The bias is a third party contractor and the report is based on information Zuck did not have.

Besides, Zuck did work with congress on an internal audit last year and determined they had bias.

Or did you miss that?


well, I guess if you believe that Zuck didn’t know about it..


See my comment above re: Zuckerberg and correcting his prior testimony.

As you correctly observe, it’s possible Zuckerberg didn’t know about this behavior on the part of those acting in his company’s name. It’s physically impossible for the CEO of a large organization to know literally everything that goes on within his/her organization.

In the event that Zuckerberg in fact did NOT know about the censorship in question, it’s even more important for him to request to come to Congress and correct the record. Failing to do so makes him appear a liar now that this has been made public.

If Zuckerberg did know about this prior to his testimony, he’s obviously guilty of perjury (I’m pretty sure that companies are generally responsible for actions of their subcontractors done on their behalf, particularly when they have knowledge of those actions and thus have tacitly approved them). But coming forward and correcting his prior testimony now is still in his best interest, as it would provide “plausible deniability” in the event of further investigation of the matter.


Good points Hondo, bottom line is, unless some evidence comes forward like emails (or the whistleblower) that prove he did know, he can just skate away with “plausible deniability”, and we will never know what the truth actually is.


Sounds a little bit like these contractors provide Zuckerberg with plausible deniability and willing scapegoats.


and SFC D hits it out of the park!

It’s so obviously BS, only an “academic” could defend it.

Green Thumb

Much like an armed standing Army or other governmental entity hiring mercenaries for the “dirty work”.

Been going on for years.

USMC Steve

Again, it is not a private anything. It is a publisher if anything, is publicly traded on the stock market, accepts advertising, and is in every way a business. And I do my stuff over on MeWe, which is for adults. That means not too many liberal leftists such as yourself are there, because when we tell them to fuck off and die, there is no one to tattle to. Better platform too.


It is a private company. Publicly traded does not mean public ownership. Publisher also does not mean public.


And education does not always equal intelligence.

Comm Center Rat

So by your reasoning Amazon is a privately held company because CEO\Founder Jeff Bezos owns 17.5% of the total stock shares issued and is the largest single share holder. Embrace Capitalism and buy AMZN currently trading at $2,735.86 per share.

USMC Steve

All companies are private. That is how a capitalist country works. Your logic is specious. And there is a specific legal definition for publishers, along with certain requirements. Farcebook meets them all.