In an op-ed published by the UK’s Financial Times newspaper this week, globalist billionaire George Soros called for Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, CEO and COO respectively, to be removed from Facebook’s leadership structure. Soros maintains that without their assistance, President Donald Trump would not have won the 2016 election, and he’s terrified that if they are not removed from their positions, Trump will use the social networking site to win again this November.
Accusing the pair of “helping Trump get re-elected,” Soros argued that Zuckerberg has struck a “mutual assistance agreement” with the president. In Soros’s view, this amounts to a quid pro quo: Facebook helps Trump win re-election, and Trump helps Facebook make more money. Soros is apparently under the impression that Mark Zuckerberg is desperate to stuff a few more bucks in his pocket. Well, if anyone would know a thing or two about greed…
Soros made a very similar plea last month in a New York Times oped:
In 2016, Facebook provided the Trump campaign with embedded staff who helped to optimize its advertising program. (Hillary Clinton’s campaign was also approached, but it declined to embed a Facebook team in her campaign’s operations.)
The responsible approach is self-evident. Facebook is a publisher not just a neutral moderator or “platform.” It should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site.
Speaking at a cocktail party in Davos on Jan. 22, Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, repeated the worn Silicon Valley cliché that Facebook is trying to make the world a better place. But Facebook should be judged by what it does, not what it says.
I repeat and reaffirm my accusation against Facebook under the leadership of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg. They follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences. One way or another, they should not be left in control of Facebook.
You have to love how Soros mentioned, and then breezed by, the fact that Hillary Clinton was offered the exact same assistance as Trump. But the arrogant Clinton campaign thought they could do better without Facebook helping them. (Of course, you can’t blame them for being confident, we suppose; they certainly had Google in their back pocket.)
It makes you wonder – if the situation had been reversed and Clinton won the presidency with Facebook’s express assistance, would Soros be writing these op-eds to prevent such an injustice from happening again?
Furthermore, where was Soros’s concern when the mainstream media spent two years promoting a false conspiracy theory that made Trump out to be a secret Russian asset? Why didn’t he speak out when Twitter was banning conservatives left and right? Why is it only now, when Zuckerberg is trying to make his platform fair for ALL forms of political speech, that he suddenly thinks social media is a threat to democracy?
Don’t get us wrong – we don’t trust Mark Zuckerberg any further than we can throw him. But you can’t help but find the sudden scrutiny of Facebook on the part of Soros and other leftists mighty convenient.