> Does it suggest that suppression of speech goes hand in had with pandering to the Trump administration? Apologies for not being clear. I'll clarify. My view

> Does it suggest that suppression of speech goes hand in had with pandering to the Trump administration? Apologies for not being clear. I'll clarify. My view is that US foreign policy is uniparty. No matter who is in the White House or controls Congress, there is always money for weapons. So in that sense, suppressing speech that doesn't align with US foreign policy isn't pandering to one party or the other. It's moving in lockstep with the US State Department. Meta is increasingly comfortable becoming a government tool for mass surveillance and, essentially, a weapons manufacturer. So while that part is uniparty, you have to then consider what those weapons will be used for. Trump openly campaigned on mass deportations and has said since the election has confirmed that the mass deporation program will begin the first day of his administration [1]. It would be naive to think that social media platforms won't be used to identify targets for mass deportation. No one, particularly Zuckerberg, can argue this is a surprise. So Zuckerberg has either endorsed the mass deportation plan or at least not considered it a deal breaker. I wonder how the staff that actually created his fortune feel about this. Not good overall I suspect. Compare this to the Harris agenda. Were there any similar uses for social media likely? Not that I can recall. So one side wants to build concentration camps and the other doesn't. So yes, Zuckerberg has quite clearly cozied up to the Trump administration. [1]: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/donald-trumps-day-one-agenda-from-mass-deportations-to-green-new-deal-rollback-2629852-2024-11-07 https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/donald-trumps-day-one-...